This makes me feel old to say, but I have been judging four years now, and competed for four years as well at Hillsdale doing both Parli and LD.

New - I am really starting to dislike PICs, do with that knowledge what you will. I highly value overviews or underviews in the 2AR and the NR.

Newish - I have an inbuilt bias against plan texts that rely on solvency authors for clarification about what plan does. Whatever your plan says is all that you get to FIAT, and you should not be able to rely on your solvency author to shift what the plan will be doing. Also am against Affs advocating resolution as their plantext (unless 100% necessary in a hyperspecific parli round). I will happily vote neg on FIAT theory about concrete plantexts, voting neg on vagueness based on this, or doing a rules oriented thing about plantext specificity.

Speed/Flowing: I am fine with whatever speed as long as it is equitable, if one side can not keep up they need to be extremely vocal about the issue instead of not commenting and just running a speed position. I do NOT flow card cites so don't tell me to extend Wolf in 14, tell me to extend the C card, or third inherency card.

K/Project Affs/CP's: I am not a kritical theory guru. I have a limited background, and am not ultra hip with the jargon. If you want to run / win these positions you need to explain it to me in your own words and not by repeating words that no one in the room really understand. I need a really clear articulation of how me voting for you solves the problem you identify, yes you can say the 'squo is terrible' but thats not a reason for me to vote against your opponent. I need to understand how a ballot for you is a vote to make the world better in a tangible way. I hold K's and CP's to the same burden of solvency as I would a policy based aff. Also, if you are reading me 15 year old backfile link cards, just don't.

Impact Stories/DA's: Quantifiable is good. The question of 'probability' really depends on the ink on the flow. If the aff never argues how an alien invasion will not happen on the Link/Internal Link/Impact level I will grant it 100% probability. Saying 'Its not probable' is not an argument.

T/Procedurals/Theory: My T threshold is probably lower then the average judge, mostly because I don’t buy that there has to be a fair division of ground between the aff and neg. If the resolution only allows two topical affs, I am not going to ignore T so that there are more affs that can be ran, instead people need to stop voting for terrible resolutions. I am completely ok voting on straight theory regarding say FIAT, if the neg says FIAT can’t do xyz things, I could totally vote on that even if its not mentioned in the rules.

Closing thoughts: I will vote neg on 100% terminal solvency takeouts. Tell me where to vote, you don’t want me thinking. You should be moderately pleasant, I can deal with someone that is sassy or whatever, but don’t devolve to being rude.

(They/Them)

Yes, put me in the email chain. But also speechdrop >>> email chains.
keegandbosch@gmail.com

Experience: My personal competitive experience is mainly in IEs, though I have competed nationally in debate events and coached LD, Policy, and IE students. My debate background is primarily policy and NFA-LD.

Paradigm:
In all forms of debate, my primary concern as a judge is to remove as much subjectivity as possible. In the interest of this goal, I vote almost exclusively off of the flow. This is not to say, however, that I will blindly flow your arguments without thought. Ex: if your opponent drops an interpretation in their T flow, that does not mean you can define the word to mean whatever you want.

In the interest of being flow-centric, I try not to make assumptions and do the work for you. I will judge based on what actually happens in the round, not what I assume you meant should have happened. If you want credit for running an argument, I need you to actually run that argument.

I really appreciate debaters who give clear overviews in the final speeches. I want to be explicitly walked through the round so far, and told step-by-step what arguments I should prioritize and why. If you make it easy for me to vote for you, you will be happy with the vote.

I believe Kritikal argumentation is a vital cornerstone of inclusive debate practice, and I generally consider the K to be a priori. However, as with everything, if you can provide me with a solid argument why the K is bad and you debate on that flow better than your opponent, I will still vote against the K. It's not about what I believe, it's about who is the better debater in that round.

As long as you are supporting your arguments with strong evidence and you are debating well, I will not vote against you simply because I disagree with your claims. If your opponent doesn't disprove it analytically, I will not vote against it simply because of preference.

(NOTE: there are obviously exceptions to these rules. I will not vote in favor of something like "slavery good" or "women's suffrage bad." Any argument that is inherently problematic or harmful to others will not get my vote, even if you argue it better than your opponent. You don't get to hurt other people for a ballot.)


SPEAKER POINTS:
This is not my own words; it was shared with me by a teammate and I believe in the system as a method of removing subjectivity in scoring. (Updated as of 11:22 AM on 12/12/2015.)

27.3 or less-Something offensive occurred or something went terribly wrong
27.3-27.7- You didn't fill speech times, didn't flow, didn't look up from your laptop, mumbled, were unclear, or generally debated poorly
27.7-28.2- You are an average debater in your division who based on this rounds performance probably shouldn't clear but didn't do anything wrong per se...
28.2-28.5- Based on this rounds performance you might clear at the bottom.
28.5-28.9- You probably should clear in the middle/bottom based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from above or below.
28.9-29.3- You probably should clear in the middle/top based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from above or below.
29.3-29.7- You probably should clear at the top based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from below.
(You can also be moved in to this bracket from an above or below point bracket by debating someone in this bracket and performing well or debating someone in the lower point bracket and performing poorly. Or you can move up in brackets by doing stuff that was compelling in the round, such as reading arguments I liked, made me think, were technically proficient, or generally did something interesting.)

Version for tournaments that force whole-number speaks:

25 - Something went awry
26 - Probably won't clear, but nothing was wrong
27 - Should clear at the bottom
28 - Should clear in the middle
29 - Should probably clear at the top
30 - Exceptional

If both speakers fall into the same category, the winner will bump up 1 point. A few random notes (I update these as things come up)

About Specific Issues (I update these as things come up in rounds)

Re: in-round abuse. I am extremely sympathetic to in-round abuse. If you treat your opponent's poorly and they read a theory shell about why that's a reason to reject the team, odds are fairly good that I'll buy into that line of argumentation. You can avoid this by not being a jerk to your opponents.

Re: post-rounding. I do everything in my power to give a clear and thorough explanation of the round and why I voted the way I did. I am happy to answer questions about the round and do what I can to give you a sense of how to improve moving forward. I am happy to spend as much time after the round as you need answering questions and discussing the round. HOWEVER, I guarantee that debating me post-round will not change my ballot. I always submit my ballot before disclosure. Post-round debating just creates a hostile space for judges and debaters alike, and it's not the image of debate that I want to create.

Re: evidence sharing. In ALL FORMATS I want to be included on the email chain or the speechdrop. Particularly in PF, I don't like the community norm of asking for evidence after the speech and taking a bunch of time off the clock to find and share evidence. Your speech docs should be put together before the speech, and you should send your speech to the email chain or send it in the speech drop before you speak.

Re: speed. I am completely fine with spreading, but YOU are responsible for clarity. I will call clear twice in a speech. After that, if I don't get it on the flow, then I don't get it on the flow. Speed is only okay as long as it isn't excluding anybody from the round. If your opponent asks for a slow debate, don't spread them out of the round, be inclusive first and foremost. But I personally love speed, so don't slow down for me, certainly.

TL;DR
I will vote for the team who debates better, regardless of what techniques are used to do so (so long as those arguments are not harmful to others.) WHAT YOU ARE MOST COMFORTABLE AND CLEAN DEBATING WITH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT I LIKE. If you have any questions, coaches and students can contact me at keegandbosch@gmail.com

Experience: 2 years college policy, 5 years parli, 5 years NFA-LD, I've been coaching a combination of HS policy, CEDA/NDT, NFA-LD and Parli for 9 years.

Email for the chain: bowersd@moval.edu

Online Debate: A couple of things I think are important before starting. Please make sure that your computer is plugged in before starting, your mic is muted while the other person is speaking. Also, there will be tech problems throughout the year, please be cool about it. If there is a disconnect during a speech time will stop and the speaker will be responsible for picking up where they left off when they reconnect.

General: I very much believe that I am here for you, so whatever style of debate you enjoy doing you should do that. I think that I probably will hold the line on cheap shot arguments more often than not, typically one line arguments on a theory shell/solvency flow will not get my ballot. Generally the team that does the better link/impact analysis/comparison will win my ballot.

I'll talk about some things here to maybe clear some questions you may have but genuinely whatever you want to do. If you have questions please feel free to ask.

Impact framing: Sans an alternative I think that death is the worst impact in the debate, but I'm very willing and happy to listen to other impact framing arguments.

Theory: I think that absent another framing mechanism I would evaluate T via competing interps, that being said I'm open to whatever method you want in terms of evaluating the argument. I think that my threshold for voting on T is low IE it's just another argument that if you win I will vote on. I don't have a preference on whether or not condo is good or bad. Most if not all questions like that can be resolved in round. I do not need proven abuse to vote on Topicality.

CP: Awesome, fun, I don't think I've met a counterplan I wasn't in some way a fan of from a strategic standpoint. That being said I think that overly complicated texts need to be explained. If I don't know what the counterplan does or how it functionally solves the aff it is harder to win me.

K: I don't have a preference for any type of alternative, I will say that it would be easier for me to vote for a K if I understand what the alternative does. I won't vote against a K if I don't understand what the alt does it just definitely makes it an easier ballot for you.

NFA 2024 UPDATE:These are the FIRST debate rounds I have judged on this topic and since last NFA. PLEASE SLOW DOWN. Argument or strategy complexity isn't a problem, but spreading will be. My resolve to keep NFA-LD debate accessible has only strengthened. I will give verbal warnings and your ability to heed these warnings will factor into my decision and speaker point allocation. As has been true in the past, I will find it very difficult to vote for "bad" arguments, even if they are substantially under-covered or in some cases even conceded.

Past Affiliation:Lafayette College
Years in Policy Debate: 3 years HS Policy, 4 years NFA-LD, 1 year coaching CEDA/NDT, 20 years coaching NFA-LD

Props:

-The NFA-LD rules
-Using standards to actively demonstrate why I should prefer your interpretation
-Reading a plan text and defending its implementation as a policy in good faith
-Even/if statements in rebuttals
-Moderating your speed
-Slowing down during analytics so I can actually flow your warrants
-Weighing and comparing impacts
-Comparing warrants in cards
-Internal Link arguments
-Unique impacts
-Doing the work to actually apply the framework to the impact discussion
-Slower rebuttals because you collapsed
-Case specific CPs and DAs
-Explaining and annotating where the Kritik links are on the aff flow

Slops:

-Excessive speed
-Card dumps with no contextualization
-Being rude and overly aggressive
-Using language and/or tactics intent on excluding your opponent
-Factually incorrect arguments about the topic
-Completely ignoring inherency
-BS theory arguments, like "perms are wrong"
-Conditional CPs/ALTs

Other things:

-I won't vote for an argument just because it is conceded, you have to justify WHY that argument is relevant to my ballot and decision. Arguments that are 'bad' don't get any better because they are conceded.
-I prefer rounds that are quick and smart to rounds that are fast and dumb
-I think the 1NR should collapse a lot - you should have time to say why you win the argument, why the argument is relevant to the round, and why it deserves consideration for the ballot.
-If you go for everything in the 1NR, I will NOT do extra work for you to answer the questions above. I will also be more likely TO do work for the 2AR as they struggle to keep up and cover everything.
-I believe that in NFA-LD, Topicality is primarily jurisdictional and prefer competing interpretations. Using standards to adjudicate which interp to apply is more important to me than proven abuse. If you win that your interp should be preferred AND that they violate it, I will vote on T without abuse.

Debated throughout high school and college. Qualified/Went to nationals seven of those eight years. I have been coaching for three years. The paradigm is a living document. I prefer to answer questions at the beginning of the round if there are any.

Background:

I competed in HS policy for 3 years and NFA-LD for 4 years (graduating in 2010). For several years after my competitive career ended, I was very active in judging, coaching, etc. Since 2016, I've judge a few rounds a year, but on a sporadic basis.

I may or may not know the full text of the resolution by the time I judge you.

Overview:

I have no predispositions against any particular positions. I am probably more likely to vote on theory arguments then the average judge. I probably am more of a sucker for good framing arguments (of either the round or a position) than most judges. I probably am more likely than most judges to refrain from signing my ballot based on a single dropped argument in the line-by-line and consider it in the context of the round as a whole instead. I am willing to vote on almost any procedural, including but not limited to: Full Citations, Solvency Advocate, Vagueness, Specification args, Inherency Procedurals, etc. I won't vote for any of the above listed procedurals unless you win the in-round debate on the standards/voters. I am ok with most speeds. However, due to a lack of consistency in recording people talking very fast in my daily life, I can't promise with certainty I can flow every point at your top speed. It is safer for you to perhaps dial it back one notch, but I won't drop you out of spite if you go too fast for me, I just might miss something important! I am ok with whatever crazy nonsensical K you want to whip out (the sensible ones are also good!), but I am a judge who likes to read evidence so they better be well-evidenced claims and not just power tagged nonsense.

Topicality/ Procedurals:

If you are the Aff you probably are pretty worried right now based on that procedural-friendly overview. Well, perhaps you are right to be worried, but my judging of procedurals is pretty even-handed. I don't think a counter-interpretation is required to win a topicality argument as the Aff, you can defeat a procedural on its merits. If you do have a counter-interpretation, your theory arguments (in this context usually referred to as "standards") will be given equal consideration and you get to do comparative analysis twice instead of only once! A few other notes of relevance here:

a. I don't require proven in round abuse to vote on a position

b. The NFA-LD rules are a persuasive and valid support for a position being vote-worthy

c. Arguing the rules are wrong or dumb or should be ignored will be an uphill climb for you in front of me

d. I voted for an RVI only one time in my life (it was on a panel and I squirreled :) )

e. I am completely fine with your own interpretation of a word or any interp that is not a literal dictionary definition, as long as it makes sense and you can defend it

f. I don't know what the overall distribution or topic areas of most Affs are so if you point out some common Aff that to you sounds like an obvious counter-example to your opponents interp, I probably won't get it

Case/Disads:

My most preferred way to decide a round is on impact comparison and relative advantages / disadvantages. A straight up politics, global warming, or heg debate will be just dandy for me. I don't know if I have too many tips and tricks on my judging of these things. I probably am more likely to consider solvency defense arguments and weight them in my decision making than most judges. "That's just defense" is a valid answer to an argument, but it is not 100% of the time a winning answer if the defense is substantial. If you call out specific pieces of evidence or make an argument based on an interpretation of the card text, I will ask for the evidence and read it after the round. Even if I think it is unlikely to matter in the final decision - you took time out of your speech to call out a specific element of the submitted evidence, and I consider it a judicial obligation to take the time to consider it specifically (exception if you literally drop the argument later in the round).

I am ok with any and all non-body count impacts. I consider it an onus on both debaters to engage in the framing debate over how to compare body counts to non-body count considerations, but I have no predisposition towards one or the other.

I am ok with real-world impacts (i.e. the "people in this room" type impacts) however, I'd prefer they come attached with some-kind of framework for voting, otherwise they are unlikely to be very consequential in the hypothetical world of the affirmative/negative.

Counter-Plans:

Do what you want here, but a few warnings... When I debated topical CPs were not a thing that was done, so if you do one my initial reaction may be unfavorable, but I will do my best not to let that bias my adjudication. I kind of think given the time constraints and format of LD that conditional CPs are pretty BS. Also, they are a bad idea strategically in LD but that is a different discussion. Anyway, I won't drop you just for running a conditional CP, just know that my pre-disposition in LD specifically is in favor of the condo bad side of the theory debate.

The K:

I don't have any specific grievances against any particular popular K authors. My preference is to hear topic or aff-specific Ks. In my experience the K deployed as a case-specific strategy is far more effective then a generic backfile K that you pull out because that's the only strategy you've got in your bag, but hey, if that's your only strategy you gotta go with what you've got. The one thing I will say is, if you are reading a non-case relevant K, I really won't give much weight to the fact that your arguments are evidence-based vs. your opponent's analytics. So as the Neg I would advise you not to consider that a silver bullet response. You have to understand the philosophical argument and be able to APPLY it to the debate round at hand.

Ok I think that's it. Ask me questions before the round if I forgot something obvious!

2018 NFA National Quarterfinalist. Have judged this years topic at two tournaments, not super familiar with it.

Fine with K's. Neg burden to tell me how to evaluate T or I'll default to a reasonability standard. Default to conditionality on CPs unless the AFF tells me otherwise.

Speed is fine as long as your opponent can understand you. I'll evaluate what I can understand.

Scott Elliott, Ph.D. J.D.

Asst Director of Forensics, KCKCC

Years Judging: 35+

Judging Philosophy:

What you need to know 10 minutes before your round starts:

I believe the affirmative should affirm the resolution chosen by the organization. I have been persuaded to vote otherwise. But, it is tough.

That argument you always wanted to run, but were afraid to run it….this may be your day to throw the Hail Mary. I prefer impact turns and arguments that most judges dislike.

Affirmatives still have to win basic stock issues. I prefer counterplans and disads. But I also believe that the affirmative has a burden to defend the ontological, epistemological, pedagogical and ethical assumptions of the affirmative arguments they have chosen.

I have probably written, cut cards for and against, and coached teams about, the “cutting edge” argument you are thinking of running. I have also voted for it and against it depending upon how that argument is deployed in the round.

I am not intimidated nor persuaded by team reputation, verbal abuse, physical assaults or threats. If you won, I am willing to take the heat and I do not care about the community’s reaction. I have friends outside the debate community and I have my dogs. I don’t need to be your buddy and I certainly do not care about my social standing within this so-called “community.”

Memorable examples of ways teams have unexpectedly picked up my ballot:
1) Voted for Baylor one time because Emory misspelled their plan text;
2) Voted for Emporia once because their plan wiped-out the universe, destroying all life (you had to be there);
3) Voted numerous times on anthro kritiks, De-Dev, Cap K's, anarchy, malthus, space, aliens A-Life, etc.;
4) voted for a counter-performance because it made me feel more emotional than the 1AC narrative;
5) voted for porn good turns;
6) voted for genocide reduces overpopulation turns;
7) did not vote, but the team won, because they took my ballot filled it out, gave themselves the win and double 30's;
8) voted once on a triple turn--link turned, impact turned, and turned back the impact turn (had to be there);
9) voted on inherency;
10) voted on foul language in a round--both ways--foul language bad and "yeah, we said F***, but that's good" turns;
11) voted for veganism K while eating a cheeseburger.

One last point: All of you need to flow the round. The speech document they flash over to you is not the debater's actual speech. Look. Listen. You may be surprised what the other team is actually saying.

Here's the tl;dr

Specifics > Generics

Substance and T > Rules and fake procedurals

Competitive PICS > Everything

Defending what you do > Aff Framework and Nonsense Perms

Link > Uniqueness

Offense > Everything

Always a risk > Terminal defense

Doing what you do best > Over-adapting

Things to know when debating in front of me:

1) I’m highly suspicious of arguments that have been debunked by contemporary debate theory or demonstrate weakness in preparation or strategy. I’ll vote on these if you win them clearly but my threshold is relatively high. Some examples include: Inherency, vagueness or any other non-topicality procedural, one conditional position bad, PICs bad, Aff framework against the K, non-evidenced analytics, and random NFA LD rules violations (the last one basically never). Otherwise, any argument is fine.

2) That being said, I love a good T debate. Sometimes topicality is the strategy. I default to competing interpretations.

3) I flow carefully. Technical drops are considered true in a relative sense.

4) Go as fast as you want, I can keep up as long as you’re clear. Speed is never ‘exclusionary’, it’s part of the game. You can critique the game, but in the absence of a well developed critique of debate practice, you should be able to cover. Smart and slow beats fast and nonsensical.

5) I have a strong preference for specific arguments and stories. The K and DA might turn case, but how?

6) I decide policy debates in the following manner

a. Decide the relative probability of each position in the debate. This means that you need offense on the major positions in the debate because I will almost never assign 0% probability to either a disadvantage or advantage. This also means that you should never assume you’re winning 100% probability of an argument. “Even if” statements are your friend. The amount of time you spend on a position will help me determine its relative probability.

b. Weigh the relative probability and magnitude of each position. This can get complicated in CP and DA debates, but I consider the degree of CP solvency to determine the probability of the affirmative’s advantages.

c. Attempt to describe the world of my decision. In other words, if I have a hard time wrapping my head around the world that either side describes in the last rebuttal, that’s a problem. I have enough argument critic in me that making sense (in debate’s already skewed and open world) is important.

7) I’m pretty open to any argument style. Love the K if done well, I’m likely familiar with the literature base. In K debates, I'm usually not into the perm unless it makes sense. If you're reading big impacts, it's probably best to impact turn and debate the alternative.

I don’t expect the aff to have a plan, but they probably need to talk about the resolution. I do, however, expect planless affs to defend their practices. You can go for T/Framework in front of me on the neg but you need persuasive answers to the impact turns. In planless aff debates, and K debates more generally, controlling the framing of the ballot is really important. I need to know what’s going on and what voting for you does or means.

8) Hate speech and racist arguments are a no-go. I’m good with weird extinction good arguments, however. Just don’t exclude individuals from the debate because of their identities.

I'm autistic and strictly speaking have a lower audio processesing speed. This only ever really impacts me on theory arguments happening at speed and in especially background noise-ful online debates. Prioritize clarity please. Make it very clear where you're at and what you're doing. I've been doing just fine recently (I think I became accustomed to online debate) but it never hurts to disclose these sorts of things

An update on the above, I honestly have begun to beleive that the shift to speech docs has shifted students AWAY from emphasizing clarity.

I only vote on what I hear you say, not whats in the speech document. I also do not read cards for you unless there is debate on what a card says.

About Me and Debate: I have been doing competitive debate in some capacity since 2007. In terms of reading me: Generally if I look confused, I am. If I am holding my hands in the air and staring at you that means I think you're making a brand spanking new argument in the NR or 2AR that I have no idea what existing argument to put it on. So if that's happening, please make sure I understand why this isn't new (so why its an extension of an existing arg or in the NR's case a response to an Aff arg). Reading your judge is a good skill to have. Ultimately I think the debaters are in charge of their own destiny and I’ll vote wherever/however you tell me I should. I like offense. I am willing to vote on defense, but I will be unhappy about it.

Good line by line argumentation is always awesome. Good analysis will beat just reading a card (a good card PLUS good analysis is even better). I prefer not to read cards after a round unless there is contention on what that cards actually says.

Speed: I am fine with speed, but (especially in this activity) clarity is KEY, if both your opponent and myself can understand then we're all good. I have judged too many rounds where debaters will try to go quickly not because they can do it clearly/efficiently, but because I'm fine with it so why not. That is a terrible reason to spread and I will dock speaks accordingly. Additionally please slow down on your theoretical positions, no one can write that fast. If I don't get all those sick T arguments you're making then my ballot will probably reflect it. Most important thing is everyone in the round understanding you, but don't be that person who says 'clear' just so slow someone down then go that speed yourself. No one should be winning rounds strictly because one person was much quicker than the other or because one debater can't understand the words another is saying.

I will say clear once, and that it all.

Ethos: For the most part, your ethos will only effect your speaker points and not whether or not you win the debate. Just because I think you're a jerk doesn't mean you're not a jerk who won. Though keep in mind that often the things that ruin your ethos ALSO lose you rounds (like assuming arguments are stupid and not explaining why or not finishing your argument because the implications are clear enough to you). I will usually let you know if you have done something that damaged your ethos.

There is another surefire way of damaging your speaks with me in the back of the room: I can get a bit angry when debaters I know are smart make stupid decisions.

General Theory: The voting issue "The NFA-LD rules say X" holds exactly no weight with me. I do not follow/enforce rules simply because they are rules. You should at least explain why that particular rule is good. In fact, if you wish for me to judge based on what the rules say, then I can. Please disregard the entirety of this paradigm, I am now a stock issues judge. If you want me to the follow the rules I will.

There are SO MANY other reasons T is an a priori issue and I never hear most of them.

Topicality: Topicality is my jam. It is quite possibly one of my favorite arguments in debate. I have fairly low threshold for voting on reasonability on marginally topical affs. I think debaters are the ones who set the realm of the topic. Tell me why your aff deserves to be topical. Tell me why your definition is the best one for this topic. Tell me about it. If your aff deserves to be considered topical, TELL ME WHY. For my negatives, remember to tell me why the Aff is taking the topic in the wrong direction. Make sure you think through your position and all of its implications. Make sure you tell me why this aff hurts you. Try to force them into showing their true colors. Run that DA you claim they will No Link out of, worst case is they don't make that argument but now you have a DA with a conceded link. My brain breaks when you refer to things as limits DAs or education DA. Say links.

Kritiks: The Kritik is a special animal, in my opinion. If you run the K like the NDT/CEDA people do I think you’re doing it wrong. In fact, there is a good chance you will lose the debate if you just pull an NDT/CEDA K out of some backfile and read it. Keep your implications tied to policy action and try to avoid flowery and long tags on evidence.View the K as if you are a lobbyist for X cause and you want to convince congress (me) to vote against a policy currently on the floor (the aff) due to a negative assumption that policy is making. Explain to me what happens when we keep making policies that make this bad assumption. Reject the Aff is a fine alt, just keep the above in mind. If you start reading a K and look at me and I look extremely annoyed, its probably because you aren't adapting to me. Not an auto loss, just a rough go. DO NOT RUN LINKS OF OMISSION. I am extremely partial to the 'we can't talk about all the things all of the time' argument.

To my K Affs: Kritikal affs are my favorite thing. I think they're a lot of fun and are super educational. If your K aff doesn't have a plan text that is relevent to the rez you will never get my ballot, preferably it should be fiated but I have softened on that issue. However, I do not listen to Topicality Bad. Consider my position on the K in the paragraph above this one. There are plenty of excellent examples of this. Once I read a position that changed the definition of torture to include mental anguish as a form of torture as a staunch rejection of Cartesian Dualism. This both helped the people we're doing terrible things to in Gitmo and other places, but also began the break down of dualistic rhetoric in the government (and yes, my card did say that. It was a sick card). What I'm trying to stress here is that we are a policy making role play activity. To defend a position you do not believe in is to become more educated on that position. Debates about the political are important and I think the way we do them is especially important.

Please note all of my personal views on competitive equity and having topical and preferably fiated affs can be ignored if your opponent should not even be at the tournament. See: Is a predator.

Roles of the Ballot: The role of the ballot functions as a round framing and a focus. If you think that a particular minority group is underrepresented within the topic and you'd like the debate to be solely about their betterment, make THAT the role of the ballot. Use it as offense on that generic nonsense test the neg didn't bother to make more specific to your position. We can have the debate on whether or not that framework is a productive one. Hell, the neg can agree that you're right about that minority group and tailor their position to operate within it. And isn't that what we should all want, assuming we truly care for said minority group and the role of the ballot is not simply to box the neg out of all of their ground?

Speaker Point Assignment: My speaker point assignment system is mostly gut based to be perfectly honest with you, but there are a couple tips and tricks I can provide to get your 30. Ultimately the assignment is a combination of debate style, organization, ethos, and clarity of speech. A perfectly clear speaker with poor organization won't get a 30, but neither will an unclear speaker with perfect organization. In terms of priority, I suppose, it goes Clarity, Ethos, Organization, Style.

My Flow and You: I would describe myself as a good flow. If you have any experience that statement should ring a few alarm bells and I get that. I have trouble getting cites at times, especially if you're of the 'full citation' mentality where the author and the date are 20 seconds apart. To be honest I prefer people actually extending their positions instead of "Cross apply XY in ## " and it definitely helps with my flowing. If you're flying through things like theory or don't clearly enunciate your tags I will miss things and you may lose because of it. You have been warned.

Things I think are dumb/Pet Peeves: Disease extinction impacts, "The rules say so", State links, Kritiks without impact D, "99% of species that ever existed are now extinct" logical fallacies, the rest of the logical fallacies, Putting the burden of proof on the negating position, blatantly asking your opponent how they'd respond to a potential argument you may make in your next speech (like come on, have some nuance), caring about white nationalists and their feelings. "Just read my evidence" in cross ex.

You'd have thought living through a global pandemic would have put the kabosh on disease extinction impacts. It has not. :(

Other Thoughts: Debate is my favorite thing and happy rounds full of debaters who also love debate is my other favorite thing. Remember, THIS IS A GAME. As the great Abe Lincoln once said in a fictional movie "Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!"

History: This is my sixth year out from undergrad and my second year judging NFA-LD on the regular. 2 years of CEDA/NDT debating, 2 years of NFA-LD debating. High school; Congress and Mock Trial.

Dear Trans Debaters (and judges): Please feel free to approach me at any time over any medium for any reason. I am happy and honored to give any support you may need. Seriously, do not hesitate or think you are being a bother or a burden. You are important and deserve support.

NOW LETS TALK ABOUT DEBATE

New Thoughts: I feel in the last few years Ive gotten a better idea of where I lean on a few things.

In round: You should generally ignore faces I make, I make them a lot. The one thing you should not ignore is if I make a point to lean back in my chair, cross my arms, and frown at you. I am making it obvious that I am not flowing because you are either a)making a completely brand new argument when you shouldn't be b) repeating yourself or c)being offensive.

KRITIKS: Kritiks to me are about questioning and attacking the assumptions inherent in the 1AC and proving that those assumptions cause policy failure and/or significant harms. Note that this does not mean I think the K needs to solve for the case. In fact, most Kritiks that attempt to do so *usually* have terrible Alternatives. Your evidence probably turns case, takes out solvency, or outweighs on impact on its own. Your alternative should be well supported by your evidence. Reject Alts usually don't. I prefer Ks to be as focused on policy making as possible.I probably won't vote for Ks based on links of omission 99.99% of the time, they put an obscene burden on the aff.

COUNTERPLANS: Counterplans are great for education and fairness in debate. Topical counterplans are BEST for these things. If you run a counterplan, you should probably go for it because they take a lot of time to just not go for in an LD structured round. That said, if you somehow have another viable position, you should be able to kick the counterplan as long as you don't use the affs own answers to it against them ? Thats abusive and the one thing I will vote you down for regardless of how poorly the aff explains the abuse.

THE AFFIRMATIVE: I love both traditional policy affs and kritikal affs. K Affs should keep my K section in mind as it applies to them. You should be topical and you MUST specify an actor within the resolution. Technically its not impossible to get me to vote for an untopical aff, but you should be relevant enough to be able to pretend you're topical, and defending yourself as such, or at least that the educational importance of your aff justifies the deviation from the topic. But it needs to at least incorporate some core aspect of the topic, like bare minimum. If you aren't relevant enough to do that, you shouldn't be running this. If you're not heavily involved in the topic, and/or you are refusing to use the USFG, you are blocking your opponent out of the round. Switch side debate is vital for fairness and education and rejecting the USFG cuz its evil is firmly neg ground. This is a game. Without fair rules it devolves into madness and national tournaments where Affs win 90% of their rounds (lookin at you CEDA (yeah that actually happened)). Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, there is always radical lit discussing these issues within the topic, and that radical lit does not preclude USFG usage/topicality as much as everyone thinks it does.

Ultimately running the same thing every round is only robbing yourself of the educational value of switch side debate and learning about the system we are stuck in right now (valuable knowledge for a radical as well). If your opponent does not want to go for the arguments Ive stated preference for here, or doesn't actually win that debate I will still vote for you. It is very easy though to get me to vote on switch side debate good, fairness k2 debate survival. The fairly low number of statism/reject usfg affs does not justify my intervention on this matter, but I will definitely re-evaluate that position if it starts to crowd out topical traditional affs.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT: Roles of the ballot can be used as a great way to open up debate about priorities and whats important. They can also be used to box the neg out of their fair share of ground. The neg should be able to critic it's productiveness and/or work within it. Forcing the neg to run a counterproposal probably means I hate your FW/Role of the Ballot

TOPICALITY: The best way to get my ballot on topicality is a really good brightline and a really good argument on the lost ground and why you should have it. You MUST talk about fairness and education and the topic as a whole. Refer back to General Theory below. If you are going to run it, you should probably mean it.

GENERAL THEORY/PROCEDURALS: In order to vote for a theory/procedural and treat it as a voter I need a clear description of what they did wrong, a brightline/what they should have done instead, and why it matters. It should detail exactly why it is abusive, and how it effects fair/equitable ground and education in this round and debate as a whole. I am not against voting on potential abuse and in fact, you should probably have some examples of it in your impacts. HOWEVER, it is more of an uphill battle.

If all you say is "its abusive and a voter" with no abuse story and no impact on debate as a whole I will not consider it a voter and you couldn't convince me to vote for it even if they drop it. If you can't make a full procedural for whatever reason, don't be afraid to use the word abusive though. It could still make me more likely to drop the arg if you do it right.

Don't rely on the Da Rules. It will eventually come back to haunt you because the rulebook does not distribute ground fairly and is outdated (#sorrynotsorry). Its also a lazy non argument that doesn't develop your critical thinking skills and will lose you speaks.

FLOWING: My flowing capability is decent. I will write everything you say down, and will *probably* put it in the place you want me to, but you should *definitely* be clear about where that is just to be sure. I do not always (or often) catch citations (ya'll mumble them...I did too tho) so you probably shouldn't use just the cite and assume I know exactly which card you are referring to. Tags/Parts of the argument are preferable.

SPEED: I will understand most of what you say no matter how fast you go, but don't push my mediocre flowing to the brink ESPECIALLY if I am flowing on paper. I can only type/write so fast. If I can not understand you its probably an issue of clarity not speed. If I say CLEAR you need to CLEAR. If that requires you to slow down so be it.
You have the right to ask your opponent to slow down, but do not abuse this. I expect you to be able to keep up with above average conversing speed at bare minimum. If you ask someone to slow down, do not dare go any faster than that.

SPEAKS: There is not a very consistent speaker points range in this community. I am probably a bit of a fairy in this regards. Good oration skills will get you higher speaks. Good clear fast talk will get you higher speaks. Making it easy to flow will get you VERY good speaks. Best way to get good speaks is debate well and show you read this paradigm (or at least skimmed it).

michels.browne@gmail.com

I competed in policy debate many years ago for Kansas and coached Lincoln Douglas debate for Penn State the past five years. This is my first year as a CEDA/NDT coach/judge. As an argumentation instructor, I value the quality of evidence and arguments. So, if challenged I will examine the evidence (all of it including the unhighlighted and minimized sections) in the round—best say what you claim it says. I also want to hear warranted arguments, not labels –i.e. just saying “education” on topicality is not sufficient. I, to the best of my ability, adopt the perspective of tabula rasa and will listen to any argument presented in the debate, EXCEPT I still retain common sense. If you tell me the sky is green with orange polka dots, I won’t buy it.

As mentioned, any types of arguments (Ks, counterplans, topicality, etc.) are accepted and can win you the debate, if you convince me why your position is best. I expect to hear an explanation for how you have won in your team’s final rebuttal. Plan-less affs are not my favorite, but I will listen. Not fond of PICs, but again I will listen.

I don’t view debate as a “game”. I perceive it to be an educational activity in which the participants demonstrate their acumen, analytical and argumentative abilities.

Be smart, be civil, have fun.

My name is Callistina, but call me Callie, it's 2 syllables shorter :)

I debated parli 2 years for Valley Christian High School in San Jose, CA and then another 2 years LD for Ithaca College. Now I'm coaching LD at Ithaca College and occasionally judge for the Penn State Speech and Debate Society. My favorite kinds of tournament are those with a lot of food and those with civil, respectful and friendly debaters.

That being said, right off the bat, I don't tolerate any kind of disrespect and/or incivility towards your opponent and/or literally anybody else. I think it's important to maintain an educational environment with courtesy and respect to encourage debaters, especially novice debaters. If you're rude in round, make fun of your opponent under any circumstances, make racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic/ableist, etc. statements, misgender anyone in the round intentionally (and/or keep doing so after knowing everybody's pronouns) or just generally make the round hostile and intimidating to your opponent, I will drop you, period. Courtesy is a voting issue, and I have a generally low threshold for it, because I think it's important to be courteous before being a good debater.

On that note, I'm ok with speed, but please signpost and be clear and slower with your tags and plan text. I will frown upon spreading if it 1. trades off with your clarity and 2. excludes your opponent, especially when they're international students and/or don't speak English as their first language (like myself).

About CX and prep time - Please don't cut off your opponent as they're legitimately answering, BUT feel free to do so when they start rambling on to waste your time or frustrate you. Don't use CX as a weapon to exclude your opponent. If I notice things like that in round, the least severe action I will take is docking your speaks significantly, and the most severe being possibly dropping you, especially if a legitimate argument for that is raised by and defended by your opponent in their next speech. Also, I frown upon people attempting to start CX time or prep time for their opponent - it's pretty rude actually, so please try not to do that. I will notice if you do.

Now about debate itself. Tell me how you want me to vote and explain clearly why you're winning the argument.

Before your speech: please please please (yes I'm begging you) never ever forget to give me an off-time roadmap/order (if it's IPDA, then 10-15s at the beginning of your speech time). I've had to ask for it quite a handful of times and I kinda not want to anymore, because it really isn't my job to have to keep asking for it. Roadmaps/orders are extremely helpful for me to follow you in your speech, since (believe it or not) I struggle with English in debate pretty often.

For LD

** PSA** Regarding tagging and highlighting/underlining evidence: Please make sure your tags accurately reflect the body of your evidence and your highlighting/underlining preserves the context of the evidence and respects the intention of the author. Powertagging and highlighting/underlining out of context and the author's intention are enough grounds for dropping the debater who commits these practices, especially when called out by the opponent. At best, this will lead to the entire evidence card being rejected, which also hurts the debater in the round.

I really don't want to have to penalize anyone for this, so please try to avoid this situation entirely.

Stock Issues:

You as the aff should present/explain the stock issues clearly, and be ready to defend them against the neg with everything you have. That's the easiest way to get my ballot there. On the other side, when you're neg, if you can show me that the aff doesn't meet any of the stock issues they're supposed to present, then I will vote for you there.

Topicality:

This is also another easy way to get my ballot because I've found myself starting to love T debates a lot more lately.

T is a priori, but depending on the wording of the resolution, my threshold for T fluctuates accordingly. If you as the neg wanna go for T, then you should clearly explain 1. why I should prefer your interpretation, 2. why your standards are better and how the aff hasn't met them and 3. what I should be voting on and why I must do so.

Kritiks:

I don't love them, but I'll listen to them. My threshold for Ks isn't as high as it used to be, but it's definitely still not low. In a nutshell, Ks are some sort of thought process concerning certain issues, and I find them perm-able most of the time, since it is possible to enact policy and embrace a thought process at the same time. I don't hate Ks though, but you gotta do some real work to show me why your K is not perm-able and explain to me which level your K is engaging in and why it matters more than the aff.

My threshold for any theory against condo Ks varies depending on the K, but usually it's pretty low.

If you read a K aff, you'd better have a plan text and a good reason why your aff is better than a policy aff. My threshold remains high for those also.

Counterplans:

I think CPs are really strategic if done right. I think unconditional CPs are best. Condo CPs can get abusive in my opinion, so my threshold for any condo theory will be pretty low. It doesn't mean I'll vote against a condo CP right away though - I'll listen to it and try to follow it to the best of my ability, and how I vote also depends on the neg strat you're reading. Other than that, you should explain why your CP is competitive and why you have the net benefit, as well as how your CP doesn't bite (a) disad(s) like the aff does. I don't care whether or not your CP is 100% topical, but it's best to have a CP that has some sort of relevance to the resolution in my opinion. It'll be helpful to, based on my experience. Also you should be able to defend why the aff can't perm your CP and be very sure that you can fight tooth and nail to defend your position.

Disads:

I think these are underrated; disads are pretty straightforward and more often than not they do force a choice. To win a disad you need to do some impact calculus and show me why your impact(s) outweigh(s) the aff advantage(s). You also need to clearly explain why your disad scenario is unique and establish a link to the aff. As the aff, you only need to beat either uniqueness, link/threshold or impact, whichever one you can beat, to beat the disad.

Theories:

I have a love affair with those. I actually have a reputation of having read full cites way more than I should've, and I wear it like a badge of honor :D

That being said though, since theories are interesting wildcards, my threshold for those varies depending on how you read them, though my threshold for voting on theories without proven abuse is pretty high. I find them entertaining and refreshing, but you really need to tell me why your theory argument matters and what implications it has regarding the round. Be careful when reading these though; they can sometimes toe the line of an ethical charge, and you'd better make it clear that you're reading a theory and not bringing any charge against your opponent.

However, I will never, ever, ever vote for disclosure theory on either sides, in any shape or form, so don't bother. You'll be wasting your time.

RVIs:

All is fair game. If an RVI is not answered to sufficiently, I will vote for it.

--

For Parli/NPDA and IPDA: TL;DR I'm pretty open-minded when it comes to parli or IPDA, so I will evaluate everything you say to me, as long as you can clearly explain it. I will not vote for something I don't/can't understand, because it's your job to help me understand where you're at in the debate. Be nice and courteous, because you can cross apply my whole paragraph on courtesy here too.

--

That's it for my rambling TED Talk. Thanks for reading! If there's still anything you need me to clarify before your round with me, just ask!

Final note: Debate can sometimes be overwhelming and intimidating, and sometimes you find yourself in a bad tournament for you. It's discouraging and exhausting. I know, I've been there before. Please please please know that even if you don't do as well as you'd like to, you are a great debater with a lot of potential, and that a few bad tournaments don't define you as a person or even a debater. I'm always available to support you even emotionally in a tournament, should you feel like you need someone rooting for you during a tough weekend. I've made many friends from other schools during my debate years who have supported me, and I'd like to do the same for you too.

Background: I competed in policy debate for four years in college at the University of Mary Washington. I coached policy debate for seven years, public forum for one year, and LD debate for five years.

Despite my policy background I am committed to the spirit of LD. This means that while you can speak quickly, you should be comprehensible and both debaters should be ok with going fast. I have seen too many debates where a varsity debater unnecessarily spreads out a novice debater.

Topicality is a voting issue. I am unlikely to vote on a reverse voting issue on topicality even if it is dropped. Arguments about why topicality is problematic may be reasons to include your affirmative, but are rarely reasons for you to win the debate. It is probably best in front of me to frame these as expanding the interpretation of what the topic can be, rather than rejecting a topic all together.

The citation rules are so widely disregarded that I would feel uncomfortable enforcing them, especially if there is no conversation between the debaters about reading them prior to the first speech.

Winning topicality or any other theory issue requires more work than winning on a substantive issue. This is to say, if both teams go for substance I have to pick a winner, but if one team goes for theory I can assess that they have not surpassed the burden required to reject the other team. This does not mean that T and theory are unwinnable arguments in front of me. In order to win you should clearly explain your interpretation, explain how the other team has violated it, explain why your interpretation makes for good debates, explain what the opponent does or justifies, and explain why that is bad for debate. This is not code for I do not vote on theory. I will vote on theory.

Negatives should narrow the debate in their second speech. Pick the arguments you are winning and go in-depth. I will give affirmative’s wide latitude in debate where the negative goes for everything in a messy way. Going for T and substance is usually a mistake, unless one or both are such a clear win that you have extra time (this happens rarely).

Presumption goes to the status quo, which means that ties go to the negative (in the world of a counterplan presumption is up for debate). A negative can sometimes make a persuasive case that the affirmative has to prove solvency, which is a separate issue from presumption.

Many debate arguments can be defeated without cards by making smart, warranted, analytical arguments. I wish I saw more of these types of arguments.

I don’t subscribe to an offense defense paradigm; good defense is in many cases enough, especially with theory debates.

I am increasingly willing to intervene in theory debates. Two speeches does not allow for proper theory development and gives both sides the ability to simply block out every speech. Counterplans like consultation and 50 state fiat require a very low threshold to defeat on theory. I am not a fan of conditional counterproposals in LD. Negative arguments like the affirmative doesn’t get permutations are generally nonstarters.

I will vote on kritiks but prefer them specific to the topic and with a hardy dose of explanation about why it relates to the specific claims of the 1AC. I am not a good judge for generic backfile checks with one card that is semi relevant to the topic area. Some additional clarification. Changes to how the round should be evaluated (moving from the question of the desirability of the policy) need to be made explicitly and early and should include substantive justification about why the change excludes or makes undesirable the aff.

Final speeches need to make choices and clearly identify their path to the ballot. One part of this is the order you present ideas in your speech.

Things that will get you lower speaker points/make it hard for you to win.

1. Be rude to the other team.
2. Not answer or be evasive when answering cross ex questions.
3. Be unclear in CX about the status of counter plans
4. Being unable or unwilling to explain your arguments in CX
5. Read unwarranted/unqualified evidence.

One way to get (perhaps unfairly) good speaker points from me is to be entertaining. Many debaters, who were not the best at debate, but nevertheless were pleasant to watch debate, (being funny, speaking passionately, being nice to their opponents) have received speaker points that would typically fall outside of their skill range.

Updated 9.25.2020

Hey y'all, I'm Claire (she/her/hers). I'm an assistant for NFA-LD debate at Lafayette College. I previously coached LD & CX for Ridge HS (NJ), and at Western Kentucky University. I competed successfully in NFA-LD (1-person policy) & limited preps @ WKU, and in a multitude of formats for Blaine HS (MN). I hold a B.A. in Communication Studies.

tl:dr/general -

I consider my self as tab as possible, and familiar with the conventions of all debate events beside PF. I spend nearly all of my time in the world of NFA-LD, though I still like to keep up with HS debate as much as is reasonable.

Treat others as you would want them to treat you. Stand up for yourself and others when others violate that expectation. I'll do the same. Forensics should be accessible and comfortable.

Performance skills matter and boost speaks/determine ranks, but of course it's different what that looks like in each event. Speed is fine, but be cognizant of your opponent, other judges, and which event you are actually competing in (Policy is policy, local LD is not circuit LD, and congress & extemp require public address skills). If you can't/don't want to stand, go for it.

Strategic execution (tech) always comes first, but any page can only be won with superior warrant analysis (truth) under an offense/defense paradigm. After that, weigh everything. Weigh dropped arguments, don't just extend them. While clearly dropped arguments can be devastating, if it's simply a poorly constructed argument then it probably won't factor heavily for me.

Don't advocate for fascist, racist, sexually violent, ableist, or otherwise bigoted arguments. I don't want to hear death good, skep, or religion. Other than that, you do you - Mearsheimer to Moten, I'll listen - but it's still your prerogative to properly articulate your argument. T/Theory is fine.

I read/went for the following most often (in order): big advantages & topic DAs, politics, impacts turns, T/Theory, advantage & agent CPs, post-structuralism, cap, a range of environment literature. I'm academically experienced (in order of depth) on semiotics, discourse theory, normative ethics, Marxist theory, post-structuralism, and existentialism. I pursue a personal reading interest in IR theory, criminal justice, environmental issues, and the milieu of national politics.

Event specific -

CX/NFA-LD --

Aff

Specificity of plan text and quality of solvency evidence matter to me. If the neg ultimately defends the status quo but doesn't have good case args, it's likely the neg will lose. It's surprising I have to say these things, but it happens more often than one might expect.

Kritikal and Performance affs are fine, topical or not. This does not imply I won't vote on framework if won by the neg. That, however, does not imply i automatically vote neg on framework every time. I hold the advocacy to the same scrutiny I would for a plan.

I enjoy framing & weighing out of the 1AC.

Disads

I most often see DA debate as a question of who controls the direction of the link offense. Obviously weighing is a must, but I put a lot of stock into this - that or impact turns. Solely defensive strategies, even with impact framing tend to be non-persuasive. Some terminal defense exists (like bill already passed, etc.) - definitely an exception.

I went for politics A LOT, and really enjoy these debates.

Counterplans

I'm open to most strategies.

It's pretty uncommon for me to vote on condo bad. I'm more open to positions like PICs or States bad.

Presumption doesn't necessarily flip to the aff - specifically if the 2NR has good case arguments with DA/Turns.

CP solvency/text should be at least as detailed than the 1AC's, if not more. That said, the CP doesn't necessarily need to solve 100% - whether on probability or scope, if CP has a high risk of solving the most of the aff that can be sufficient if the DA/Turns outweigh.

Kritiks

I enjoy good K debates the same as any other strategy. As a judge I end up seeing this debate a lot, and have no real preferences for or against any given strand of literature or in-round execution.

I'm most familiar with literature stemming from the continental branch of philosophy. Some of my personal favorite authors include Baudrillard, Bookchin, Butler, Deleuze, Debord, Foucault, Luxembourg, Marx, Morton, & Zizek. That said, the majority of K debates I judge tend to be questions of identity and security (respectively) - which I also enjoy. I feel comfortable evaluating most anything.

I don't think the neg must absolutely go for/win the alternative, so long as the neg has good framing. Really, though, the neg should always be winning framing.

I generally find pure theory to be unpersuasive as an aff response. Perms are usually the best route, so are researched defenses of contemporary policy-making.

I've been finding lately that really close K debates have come down to who better presents empirical examples of the link and alt to contextualize theoretical warrants.

T/Theory

I particularly enjoy good topicality debates. I default to competing interps & jurisdiction voters.

I like theory debate so long as it relates to a Plan/CP/Alt/RoB text, or another theory text (a good RVI is rare but persuasive). In other words, ASPEC is cool - bracket theory is meh. Strike me if you're going to complain about your opponent's attire.

I'm neutral when it comes to FW debates - I'll vote for performance/sans-plan K affs as much as I vote for Framework. I generally place a high value on arguments over the academic & personal value of one's scholarship. Fairness is important, but I see these debates as ultimately a question of who wins (in the context of the round) that their educational/pedagogical praxis is preferable.

Clear & specific wording of interpretations is critical. Same with contextualized violations. If you're going to go for it, make it clean.

Great 2NRs/2ARs go all-in, and put voting issues at the top of the speech.

I don't like abstract reasonability arguments - my likeliness to vote for reasonability is entirely based on either the strength of a legitimate I-meet or the counter-interp's ability to resolve a substantial portion of the neg standards.

Outside of framework, I generally think fairness comes first.

Misc.

Please use speechdrop. Prep stops when everything is put in your document. Don't steal prep.

Flex prep is fine.

CX is binding. I pay attention to CX. Excellent CX will boost your speaks.

Always weigh everything. Excellent weighing will boost your speaks.

Always collapse the debate. Excellent collapses will boost your speaks.

If the round is left unresolved, I will intervene and do my own comparison. I will be as fair as I can do each side and will let you know if this happens.

I'll always disclose unless told otherwise. More than happy to answer questions.

Bonus speaks for 'Good' Anarchism, DeDev, & Extraterrestrials arguments.

HS LD --

Progressive

You can really just check my CX paradigm for most of my substantive preferences. Here are some event specific thoughts:

Aff -

>Please justify your framework.

>I have a low threshold for 1AR/2AR extensions given the time, but warrants are still a must. I hate tag fights more than anything. 2AR impact weighing is fine.

>spending ~2:00 extending the aff card-by-card will likely lose you the round and tank your speaks. Part of the game is parsimony and efficiency. Have an overview for a page and do line-by-line.

>I will evaluate and occasionally vote on 1AR theory, but the stupider the argument, the less likely I am to vote on it. Things like CP theory, and RVIs against super abusive T/Theory NCs are infinitely better than, say "pre- or post-fiat, but not both" or "my opponent is wearing a tie". Even when 1ar theory is good (rare), there's usually not enough time to develop and win.

Neg -

> The 1NC should have framework comparison - waiting until the NR rarely pays off. 2NR impact weighing is fine.

> Please collapse in the NR - don't go for everything. Winning/high speaks NRs usually go all in on T/Theory or the K, or go for case and/or CP with a DA. Leaving yourself multiple outs is smart, but this should be done in reference to whatever you go for ('case or CP' or 'turns or DA') - not wildly extending everything in the NC.

>80% of my rounds end up being Policy-making or K debates, and I don't have any event specific thoughts here. K framing work should be done in the NC, though this seems obvious.

>'Phil' debate: I think ethics debates are super fun, and really enjoy the literature. I will evaluate these debates, though I have two thoughts: (1) Just because it's LD doesn't mean I have to/will automatically default to ethical theory over policy-making or the K (2) extending 5-second blips you label 'a prioris' without warrants and spewing jargon without explanation is not a winning strategy - understand your ethic and interact it.

> Again, T/Theory is fine, but the dumber the argument, the less likely I am to vote on it. I enjoy actual T debates over words in the res, and theory debates over writing of the plan (ASPEC, Vagueness, etc.). I can't stand 'formal dress theory' or 'bracket theory' - do some prep and make real arguments.

> I'm slightly more likely to vote on condo bad in LD than CX. Same thing with reasonability - though this is all relative.

Traditional

Do your thing - I'm super tab, keep a good flow, and am fairly well read. I've invested a lot of time into this style of the event as a coach and really enjoy it. I don't have many thoughts here - I'd check my tl:dr section for general debate things.

> Please justify your framework - it's shocking the proportion of debaters who don't or do so poorly.

> Warrant and weigh - the earlier the better.

> Don't take excessive prep for early speeches (NC/1AR).

> If you want to kick framework and go for case, go for it. These debates are often the most fun.

I am open to evaluating alternative frameworks, but I default to stock issues. I have a low threshold for meeting the burden of proof and generally only vote on presumption if arguments are dropped or completely mishandled.

I am fine with speed as long as both debaters are comfortable with it.

I view Topicality as a jurisdictional issue and I don't need to see proven abuse. I do need to see abuse on other procedural arguments. I default to following the event rules, but I am open to arguments that they should be disregarded. I have a fairly high threshold for voting on RVIs but I will vote for them if they are dropped.

I am fine with kritiks as long as the framework and alternative are clear. I am not very familiar with critical literature so the burden is on the debater to explain their position.

On impact framing, unless there are arguments to the contrary, I look to magnitude first with timeframe and probability as mitigating factors.

Years involved in collegiate debate: 35

Debated: NDT policy debate

Coached: NDT, NFA LD, Worlds style BP

I like NFA LD style debate because it relies on evidence and emphasizes the stock issues. I default to policy making but will adjust my paradigm if directed to do so by the debaters.

I will seriously consider nearly every argument - CP's are ok, procedural arguments (T, Vagueness, K's) need to be very clearly explained. I have voted for K's but don't find them super compelling - I think they are frequently vulnerable to perms.

Please be clear, number your arguments, explain why you are winning issues.

I debated at Hillsdale College for 3 years in Parli and NFA LD. I've been judging since 2016, but very sporadically so I'm not as up to date on the norms of the circuit as I once was.

Overall, I try very hard to vote where I'm told to vote in the round. If someone tells me to make a voting issue of something, I will look there first. I will also try to go by the arguments that are made in the round rather than inserting my own opinion into the round. I especially appreciate impact calculus as it helps me figure out how to weigh everything in the round. If I have to make my own decision on how to weigh impacts and which impacts to vote on, you might not like the outcome. I try very hard to go by the flow when I make my decisions.

Speed: I haven't had any issues keeping up in most rounds even with my time out of the circuit, but I'll say speed if you're going to fast or clear if I can't understand you. I also do not approve of speed being used as a way to exclude your opponent (or a lay judge on the panel) from the round.

K's: I'm not hostile to them, but I usually don't understand them very well and won't typically vote on something unless I understand the argument. Imagine trying to explain your K to a toddler or your grandma. I don't have the background in the hefty philosophical arguments, so you'll need to walk me through it if you want me to vote there. I prefer policy alts or a clear role of the ballot.

Procedurals: I've probably got a lower threshold on procedurals than most judges. I don't need proven abuse to vote on them, but if you want to win it then you can't just shadow cover it and extend your violation. You'll need to win on the flow to win the procedural.