Glenbrook South: 2018 - 2022

Wake Forest University: 2022 - Present

email- ahmadghosh86@gmail.com

"The lack of student flowing has made high school debates significantly worse. At its core, debate is about direct clash and specific refutation; that is what distinguishes debate from oratory. When students do not flow, or flow poorly, their ability to directly clash with an opponent's argument and refute it decreases dramatically—and with it, the quality of debate."

"Our once flourishing pedagogical space is being overtaken by ad hominem attacks in an attempt to gain competitive success"

"The bedrock of Policy Debate centers on whether or not the adoption of a federal government policy is a good idea"

I'll judge kick unless instructed otherwise

If your partner interjects with something short during your speech, I don't think you have to parrot it - I will flow it regardless

Please add me to the email chain: kvaoki2000@gmail.com | kvaoki2000 AT gmail DOT com

Background + Top Level

West High School SLC '18

Harvard '22

Currently an assistant debate coach at Harvard

Have some background knowledge on the college topic through research + judging. Have a minimal background on the high school topic. Explanation in both, particularly at the beginning of the season, is always helpful.

I begin evaluating almost every debate by listing out all the impacts made in the 2NR and 2AR and then determine the degree to which each team gets access to the fullest extent of those impacts by parsing out the rest of the debate. After, I'll weigh these impacts by deciding what the implications of winning each of them are (defaulting to and prioritizing the comparative metrics forwarded by the debaters in the round) and then usually have a good idea of who I believe should win.

Line by line is appreciated and minimizes intervention I must make after the round. Further, the more granular the debate (like debates over particular terms of art, specific details, etc.) and/or the closer the debate is, the more I'll look to evidence to break ties. Please engage in evidence comparison to limit the degree of intervention I have to do in a debate.

Quality > Quantity of arguments particularly in rebuttals.

Ultimately, do what you do best because you shouldn’t have to sacrifice your style for any minor predisposition that I may have.

Topicality

Please unpack, apply, and compare, commonly used buzzwords as the rebuttals get closer, i.e. “vote neg because our interpretation sets a functional limit on the topic,” isn’t a complete argument until there is an explanation of why the parameters the neg sets up are better than the aff interpretation for xyz reason.

Impact + caselist comparisons are essential.

Reasonability needs to be connected to how it interacts with neg offense and not just a laundry list of reasons why it is better than competing interpretations.

I think cards and evidence comparison are often underutilized in these debates.

Counterplans + Counterplan Theory

Relatively straightforward. If you’re aff, tie your solvency deficits to a specific impact and explain why it outweighs the net benefit to the counterplan. Conversely, if you’re neg, explain why the deficits don’t apply or why the deficits are unimportant because the CP sufficiently solves.

Will presume judge kick

In terms of most theory issues: literature oftentimes determines how I evaluate the extent of abusiveness of a counterplan; the more specific the solvency advocate, the better. I default to reject the arg, not the team and am relatively unpersuaded by process cps, agent cps, etc. being a reason to reject the neg.

DAs

Strong analytical pushes are good and persuasive, but also not an excuse to not read cards

Turns case arguments on multiple levels of the aff (link level, impact level) are fantastic

Zero percent risk is possible, but not the most preferable strategy

Ks

This is where most of my debate experience is in

Contextualization > Explanation in every instance, which should reflect in the way you give an overview

My biggest thought about these arguments is that both neg teams running the K and aff teams answering the K should recognize where 1AC/NC strengths are. A heg aff is not built to perm the colonialism K and pivoting to that as your strategy in the 2AC is more detrimental than beneficial. In essence, when aff, know whether you will be going for an impact turn or a perm and work backward. When neg, know whether your links/framework/alt are strongest in relation to the aff and work backward.

I've found often that many neg framework interpretations don't generate a lot of offense in terms of grander strategy because they give the aff too much leeway. I've found that I'm most persuaded by framework strategies that do one of three things:

1. attempt to just exclude the aff and win substantial impact turns to their model of plan focus/consequentialism,
2. limit the scope of aff solvency while enhancing the scope of alt solvency, or
3. are ditched in favor of more particular engagements on the link/impact/alt level of the kritik

K Affs/Framework

Having a relationship to the topic is preferable, but that certainly doesn't require "topical action" which I think is up for debate both on what topical constitutes as well as whether being topical is desirable

K Affs probably get a perm, but

1. I'm extremely open to adjusting the parameters of how perms should function in these debates and
2. I think I have a higher threshold of aff explanation for how any permutation functions with a competing kritik/counterplan/advocacy.

Fairness can or can’t be an impact in front of me based on debating. The most persuasive fairness arguments I’ve heard are ones paired with a discussion of how it implicates debate as an educational activity/more education-related impacts as well as how fair norms are necessary and mutually beneficial for both teams. In these debates I typically view fairness as a tiebreaker for the negative but can be convinced that it is more important than that if heavy investment is done.

TVAs should have a substantive explanation as to how they provide a similar discussion of the aff's issues and internal links and framework DAs. Simply reading an alternative plan text is not sufficient. Further, TVAs and Read On Neg/Switch Side have varying degrees of value based on aff offense against T which should affect how you deploy them by the 2NR (if not earlier).

Performances are great, but they're greater when they have explanations and develop organically as the debate continues

Misc (but still important) things

If you have an issue with access in terms of debate, please feel free to send me an email before the round so that I can make the necessary accommodations.

Tech > Truth except arguments along the lines of “racism/sexism/antiqueerness/antiblackness/ableism good”

A dropped argument still needs an extension of a claim and a warrant for me to evaluate it.

I usually look grumpy/apathetic/tired during rounds; I promise it's not usually because of anyone's actions (if it is, I'll be explicit about it after the round), and is more just my face. I deeply appreciate people's commitment to this activity and want to emphasize that I'll do my absolute best to adjudicate. Further, I feel like most of the learning I've had in the activity can be attributed to the comments provided by judges after round. Following that, please know that no amount of questions is too much, and I'm happy to answer any and all of them to make your time in this activity more valuable.

me: holland, not "judge," he/him. dartmouth 2025, westminster before that. hollandebate@gmail.com. put me on the email chain.

tldr: i believe that the best debates contain many topic-specific cards and rigorous line by line between two teams over the consequences or core ideological assumptions of topical plans. i am committed to technical evaluation of arguments presented to me, so with jurisdictional exceptions*, you are welcome to do whatever you'd like. however, at the margins, the further your debating deviates from this model, the less likely you are to win.

i will do my best to be tabula rasa. i believe that most debates are not close enough to require intervention, so you should do what you do best and not over-adapt. however, in cases where i do have to intervene, the below should give you a sense of my predispositions. if something is missing from this paradigm, it probably means i have no strong opinions about it.

tech over truth, but the threshold for answering a facially bad argument is low.

ip topic: i know nothing about it. i know a little bit about patents because they have come up on different college topics. slow down on core distinctions, explain acronyms, etc etc

clarity: i care a lot about it. particularly in debates where constructives are >20% analytics, you must be clear. i will also be very amenable to arguments about why i should not allow an unclear team to re-characterize their arguments if i did not understand them the first time. (i mean this. no one has taken advantage of it so far. you should.)

clash debates (general): the more you can do to make these debates not boring, the better off you will be. we have all heard the same speeches on "debate doesnt shape subjectivity" and "competitive incentives determine everything" and, conversely, "the judge is an educator; the ballot can't pass the plan" and "participation is a pre-requisite to accessing clash and fairness" one thousand times. the more you can get off of these enthymemes and actually explain what is happening in the debate at hand, the more you will connect with me and the less my eyes will glaze over. put another way, performance (subconsciously) influences my assessment of these debates; if one side looks like they're going through the motions of "a clash debate" and the other seems invested, quick on their feet, and eager to contextualize, the latter will likely win.

Ks on the NEG:

good for them if they say a core concept in the 1AC is bad. bad for them if they are recycled and/or you dont look like you have done any reading.

in truth, i think "framework, no Ks" should be an uphill battle. conversely, so should "you link, you lose."

your framework interpretation should make sense. i often find that the aff tries to proclaim the framework debate is a wash and so "we get to weigh the aff but they get the k." i have no idea how one would weigh "fiated plan action solves extinction" vs, for example, ks of language or representations, since those two arguments operate on separate planes of evaluation. after stating your framework interpretation, you need to lay out how i would go about making a decision under it.

lastly, the obvious logical conclusion of many neg framework interps in my mind is plan inclusion (since the point of critiques as distinct from counterplans is that the locus of competition is not plan action). i think in many cases it is more strategic for the neg to just say and defend that.

Ks on the AFF: very good for T with the above clash caveat, which very often poses a large hurdle for NEGs that want to give rehearsed framework speeches and seem bored. much more amenable to impacts about the process of debate (clash, fairness) than its content (topic education, skills). i have exclusively been on the NEG side of this debate, so while i am capable and willing to vote for planless AFFs, the threshold for explanation is likely higher for the AFF and i am likely to be able to subconsciously fill in the gaps for the NEG more. the NEG going for a specific position will likely be rewarded with high points.

counterplans: i would say i have a 70% grasp on textual and functional competition. the less you can use buzzwords and rely on me to fill in everything for you in high-level competition debates, the better off you will be.

advantage counterplans are racing toward incoherence. "the USfg should invest in pandemic preparedness, transition to a green economy, and increase supply chain adaptability" is a non-argument.

which way does presumption go? my understanding is that if the AFF is zero, the NEG wins, unless the NEG has gone for a deviation from the squo (CP or alt) and their offense is also zero, in which case the AFF wins. however, i don't really understand WHY this is the case/the origin of this set of questions. so, i will default to this understanding, but you are free to explain to me a different way to evaluate low/no risk.

theory: slow down. my sole strong opinion is that 2nc counterplans out of 2ac straight turns are obviously bad. i often find that objections in the vein of "this cp is too close to the plan" are better expressed as competition, not theory.

disadvantages: the only maybe-quirk i have here is that, due to the nature of debates on the college nukes topic, i have spent a fair amount of time this year thinking about try or die. i think it is pretty silly - but the NEG must say at least something about it or it will be difficult to defeat a 2ar that spends a lot of time explaining and unpacking why it should frame my decision.

T vs plan affs: this will be an uphill battle for the NEG if the AFF seems like it is advancing a reasonable construction of the topic. this is particularly true for short T extensions with nearly no cards. AFF-specific violations and card-heavy 2NCs are great.

evidence quality: i think one of the most valuable parts of debate is the original research skills it teaches. i will greatly reward you for reading good, new, topic-specific evidence that you cut. that said, i will not pick through all the cards before deciding. i will read evidence in two situations:

1. there is contestation over its quality, highlighting, and/or warrants. evidence comparison is wonderful and debaters who can balance it with substantive argumentation will be greatly rewarded.

2. the debate is close enough that i cannot resolve it based on the words on my flow.

this means that if a silly argument is dropped, i will not read the evidence to determine whether it is true. this also means that "read our card" does NOT substitute for extending its warrants. however, if the NEG is reading a bad card for their silly argument and AFF is making smart analytic presses against it despite not having a card of their own, the NEG should not expect to win on "we have a card and they do not."

*jurisdiction:

trufanov: "Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator outweighs my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. You should give this line a wide berth."

awsare: "No double wins, devolution to another game, or soliciting audience participation. First to initiate receives a L and very low speaks." "Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Screenshots are not ev. I have neither the authority nor resources to launch an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, and pref sheets."

giampetruzzi: "I strongly believe you should email your opponents if you find an ethical issue with their evidence or strategy pre-round. Treating ethics challenges like case negs is worse for the integrity of the activity than the ethics issues in question."

Tell me why I should vote for you. Make sense. Explain your terms. Think of me as a relatively smart person who isn't debate-y. I'll vote for what makes sense. If I don't understand it, I can't vote for you.

Make every argument clear and tell me why it is important! Why should I vote for you?

No spreading. I do not have a problem with it on principle. I just will not be able to follow your argument. Please be clear in your articulation. Don’t use a ton of debate jargon/buzzwords- explain what you’re trying to say in your own words and make it clear. This goes for both policy and critical oriented debaters.

If your opponent misrepresents their evidence it is YOUR JOB to bring that to my attention. I rarely will call for a card.

Argument-Specific(I prefer traditional arguments)

Critical affs- very unfamiliar. Run them if you have NOTHING else, but be sure you explain yourself VERY clearly.

Neg arguments:
Disad- Explain the story/scenario of how the aff causes a specific impact and why that impact is the most important. I prefer you use traditional impact calculus in your framing.
Counterplan- Provide a competitive counterplan and explain the NET BENEFITS of why the counterplan is better than the aff
Topicality- Prove the aff is untopical and tell me why it’s important
Kritik- Unfamiliar- explain every argument clearly. I strongly advise you not to run one. If you chose to run a K, narrow the argument down to the impacts of the K.

sohan.bellam@emory.edu

I won't adjudicate issues that happened outside of the debate. I do not like planless affirmatives. Do what you like.

UPDATE FOR TOC DIGITAL SERIES #12024

We should be using share.tabroom.com

Aasiyah (ah-see-yuh) Bhaiji (by-jee)

she/they

Conflicts: GBS, The Avery Coonley School

I do not know your acronyms; please explain things at the beginning of your rounds. Most of my work related to debate is with Chicago Debates, where I help to build and maintain programs.

SHORT VERSION

"Do your thing, so long as you enjoy the thing you do. My favorite debates to watch are between debaters who demonstrate a nuanced understanding of their literature bases and seem to enjoy the scholarship they choose to engage in...I think judging is a privilege."-Maddie Pieropan.

I flow as much as my fingers will allow me. Slow down on the important parts and always remember clarity should be prioritized over speed.

LONG VERSION--Policy

Debate as an activity loses all value when debaters do not consider that there has to be a reason why a team deserves the ballot. I try my hardest to stick to my flow and rely heavily on judge instruction as to how I will write my ballot. YOU DO NOT WANT ME TO CONNECT THE DOTS FOR YOU.

I appreciate debaters who are passionate, excited, and well-prepared. The best debaters I’ve witnessed throughout the years have been the ones who show kindness and respect towards their partners and opponents. I am not a fan of teams that openly mock, belittle, and disrespect the people they are debating.

I'd prefer you talk about the topic and that your affirmative be in the direction of the topic. I could not possibly care less if that is via policy debate or K debate.

Planless Affirmatives

I like planless affirmatives, but you absolutely need to defend the choices and explanations you give in early cross-exes. I need to know what your version of debate looks like, and I am finding that most teams aren’t willing to defend a solid interpretation, which makes it hard for me to vote for them.

Please stick to an interpretation once you’ve read it. Clash debates with affs that are centered around the resolution are fun, and I find myself in the back of those debates most of the time.

I am not comfortable judging rounds with affs that rely on "survival strategies" or rounds that force debaters to out themselves/explain their identity for an argument.

I have less thoughts on policy rounds, not because I don't enjoy them, but because they are a lot more clear cut for me.

CPs

I do not default to judge kick; you have to give me instructions. What does it mean to sufficiently frame something? I am so serious. I have been asking this question for what seems like forever now.

I miss advantage counterplans, and I am a less-than-ideal judge for Process CPs (I'm not saying I won’t vote for them, it might do you well to spend a couple more seconds on process cps good in the block).

Solvency advocates are good! Please read one!

DAs

DAs as case turns will inevitably end up on the same flow, so please just tell me where to flow things earlier on in the debate.

Please don't read any terror disads/impacts in front of me, I will not be a happy camper. If you have to read them, fine. But I do hope that you have an indepth explanation of your impact scenarios and understand the nuances of WHY terrorism occurs.

Ks

Biiig fan of 'em.

“Kritiks that rely entirely on winning through framework tricks are miserable. If I am not skeptical of the aff's ability to solve their internal links or the alt's ability to solve them, then I am unlikely to vote negative.”-AJ Byrne

If you cannot explain your alternative using a vocabulary a 7th grader can understand, you are likely using language and debate jargon that I find counterintuitive and, quite frankly, boring.

Most teams are very bad at sticking to their framework, unfortunatley for you all, I DO care about framework and will hold you accountable.

T

Why are we putting this as the first off? I will most likely miss the interpretation if you are speeding through it.

Also, can we please explain our impacts earlier on in the debate? Thank you in advance :)

FW

I am not good for “our interpretation is better for small schools"

Defend your interpretation early on and throughout the debate. I need to be able to know how to evaluate the debate by the time I start writing my ballot.

Also I do think that "roll of the judge" and "roll of the ballot" are different (roj is the mindset in which I should evaluate the debate and rob is what my ballot signifies). Define one, define both, but please try to do at least one of those things.

Other things:

1. If I could implement the no more than 5 off rule, I would. Obviously, against new affirmatives, the circumstances are different, but I firmly believe that everything in the 1NC should be a viable option for the 2NR.
2. DISCLOSURE IS GOOD!I will try my hardest to be in the room for when it happens and I am not afraid to check teams wikis to see their disclosure practices. If you post round docs and show before I give you my decision, you will be rewarded.
3. I am super expressive, and you will be able to tell if I am vibing with whatever you are saying. I do have a very prominent RBF. Don’t take it personally; it means I am trying to get everything down.
4. Fine with tag-team but have found myself becoming frustrated when one debater from a team dominates all of cx. I do think that all debaters should speak at some point during cross-ex.
5. CX as prep is only justified when there is a new aff or if you are maverick.
6. The 1AC should be sent out at the scheduled round start time, the only exception is if the tournament is behind schedule and Tab has alerted everyone of the timing change.

More things I have thought about in regards to debate but aren’t wholly necessary to pre-round prep.

1. There is a difference between speaking up and yelling, I do not do well with debaters talking over their partners.

2. Please give me time to get settled before you start your speech.

3. I LOVE good case debating, and I get sad when the block treats it as an afterthought.

4. I had no idea teams gained the ability to remember every single thing their opponent said. FLOW! PLEASE!

5. Why are we reading the tier 3 argument against planless affirmatives.... let's start using our critical thinking skills

6. Rehighlighting evidence is a lost art. Bring it back for 2024

7. Clipping is bad, don't do it. I will clear you twice, and after that, I will stop flowing. If there is a recording of you clipping, it's an auto loss and a talk with your coach

8. I flow straight down (primarily because of sloppy line-by-line); the more organized your speeches are, the happier I am.

9. DRINK WATER

10. I do not care if you put a single card in the body of the email chain.

11. Have fun and let the games begin!

Congress--

Not entirely sure if you all read these because I am supposed to explain my ethos rules at the begining of the session. You all should be clear, conscise and kind in your speeches. Have fun and good luck!

College Prep (2015-2019), Wake Forest (2019-2023)

ADA 2023 Champion, CEDA 2023 Co-Champion, NDT 2023 Quarterfinals

Coach at George Mason & Harker

anadebate07 at gmail

My only actual hardline stances are that I believe line-by-line is good and impact calculus wins debates.

I make decisions based on complete arguments, which require claims, warrants, and impacts/implications.

My favorite debates to judge are the ones in which teams do what they do best. I appreciate in-depth preparation and high-quality clash more than anything.

I prefer to judge debates in which the Affirmative is about the topic, and the Negative disagrees with the Affirmative's proposed change from the status quo.

I prefer not to judge a debate about an issue that would best be resolved outside the constraints of a competitive debate.

I auto-judge-kick.

I have no real preferences when it comes to framework - However, I do think it's strategic to have external impacts, turns case analysis, and defense to kritikal offense.

Theory debates aren't fun to judge, but I understand the strategic utility on both sides. 1 reason condo is good & impact calc >> spending a certain amount of time

If util and/or consequentialism are wrong, you have to say how I should evaluate impacts otherwise. I don't fill in the blanks for either side. Good impact calc tends to win debates in front of me.

Fairness is an impact, but you gotta do impact calc & can't skip out on warrants. I struggle to see how clash is an external impact but am open to hearing otherwise.

Will vote on presumption

T debates aren't my favorite to judge but Limits ---X--------------- AFF Ground

Will let you know if I need a card doc - probably won't.

You must read the re-highlighting aloud if the other team did not read those exact words in the card. Reading the line in cross-ex works for me. I think debate is a communication activity, not one where I read cards on my own and independently decide. However, that doesn't mean low-quality ev constitutes a good argument

I try to flow every word said in speeches & cross-ex unless instructed otherwise.

Speed = arguments effectively communicated per minute.

I am FAR more persuaded by negative criticisms that prove why the Affirmative as presented is bad, not just nonsolvent. I tend to struggle to see how the Negative does not have to respond to Affirmative defensive claims to the K -- framing out Affirmative offense still requires technical debating.

I stop flowing when the timer goes off.

Speaker Points? I try to default to this table's scale

[30 = nearly impossible to get/seniors at last tournament

29.9-29.7 = fabulous & expect to be in deep elims

29.6-29.4 = excellent & elim worthy performance

29.3-29.1 = good & expect to break

29-28.7 = median

28.6-28.4 = room for improvement

28.3-28 = some hiccups & things to work on

27.9-27.6 = room to improve and there is some debate stuff to learn

27.5 -27 = there is a lot of room to grow

26.9 and below = something went pretty wrong]

Not great for LD nonsense unless you want to explain things to me with an emphasis on impact calc & judge instruction.

I'm not a great judge for Phil because I don't understand the implications of a lot of arguments, so you have to fill in the blanks for me, especially how to evaluate arguments without being a consequentialist.

In LD, I do not believe the 1NC/AR has the burden to rejoin frivolous, ridiculous theory arguments placed in the 1AC/NC to avoid clash.

I think disclosure is, in nearly every case, good. I have zero tolerance for misdisclosure, lying, and shady practices designed to evade clashing with your opponent.

I care about debate. I don't particularly appreciate when teams read cringe and questionably ethical backfile checks designed to mess with opponents.

If I cannot explain your argument to you ethically or technically, the odds are that I cannot vote for you.

RVI's & tricks are nonstarters.

Debate Coach at NSU University School

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1---Big Picture

Please put me on the e-mail chain.

Policy--- uschoolpolicy@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

Public Forum--- uschoolpf@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

I actively coach and research policy and public forum debate. I enjoy technical, organized debates. My CX research is generally K-oriented and my PF research generally topic-oriented, but I'd like to believe I can grasp a wide range of debates.

Tech vs. Truth---Tech obviously informs truth, but if I have to decide between intuitive and well-explained arguments vs. terrible evidence, I’ll choose the former. There are few things I won’t vote on, but “death good” is among them.

Offense vs. Defense---This is a helpful paradigm for assessing relative risk, but risk can be reduced to zero.

2---General Practices

Speed---Go for it, but at the higher end you should scale back slightly. I flow on a computer without much shorthand.

Evidence---I read it during debates. When referenced in CX, I’ll likely go to it. Quality is in the back of my mind, consciously or not.

Re-Highlighting---If small, I don’t think you need to re-read in speech. Don’t expect me to read a giant card to figure out if you’re right.

Digital Debate---Make sure everyone is present with confirmation before starting. Be reasonable about tech issues, as I will track tech time. If there are major issues, I’ll default to tournament procedures.

Decorum---Sass, snark, or shade are fine within reason. I’m not a good judge for hostile approaches, e.g. interrupting speeches.

“New” Arguments---The more late-breaking, the more open I am to responses. “Late-breaking” is relative to me catching the initial argument. Happy to strike 1AR/2NR arguments rightly flagged as “too new.”

Alternative Practices---I’m here to flow and judge a debate, awarding a single win. If you’re trying to do something different, I’m not the judge for you.

3---T vs. Plans

“Competing Interpretations”---This makes more intuitive sense to me than “reasonability,” but that's often because the latter isn't explained as a frame. Affs are still better off prioritizing offense.

"Fiscal Redistribution" Specifics---I was not at camp this summer, and at this point in the season still do not have strong views on most of the debated T issues like “FR = tax and transfer” or “FJ = no subsets.” From grad school studying health policy, "Social Security can be turned into single-payer health insurance" seems a bit absurd, but I’ll let evidence dictate decisions.

4---T vs. K Affs

Frustrations---These debates are often two ships passing in the night due to reliance on pre-written blocks. Please make judges lives easier by:

A---Have a robust defense of your model of debate, including roles for teams/judge, examples of how debates play out, net-benefits, etc.

B---Pick and choose your offense and compare it with what the other team has actually said.

"Affirmation"---At a bare minimum, affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic and “affirm” a clear advocacy. I am not sympathetic to purely negative arguments/diagnoses of power relations.

"Debate is a Game" vs. "Subject Formation"----Debate is a complicated space that's competitive, academic, and personal space. Arguments that assume it’s only one seem a bit shallow. Offense can be made assuming all three.

Terminal Impacts---“Fairness” or “clash” can be terminal impacts, though often teams don’t seem to explain why.

"Truth Testing"---I am less persuaded by these arguments because all argumentation seems to rely on some outside/unstated assumptions. I can certainly be persuaded that the structure of debate warps content and that could be a reason for skepticism.

"TVAs"---The 2NR needs to explain what offense they think the TVA resolves instead of expecting me to figure it out.

"T = [X Violent Practice]"---Feel free to impact turn the resulting curriculum, models, debates, etc. of an interpretation of debate, but its difficult to convince me reading an argument about the topic of discussion is analogical to policing/"stop and frisk"/"drone strikes"/other material violence.

5---Kritiks

Framework---I don't get middle grounds by default. I will resolve this debate one way or the other based on what is said, and then determine what remaining arguments count as offense.

Uniqueness---The alt needs to resolve each link, or have some larger reason that’s not relevant, e.g. framework. Affs are often in a better spot pressing poorly explained alternatives/links.

Competition---I presume affs can test mutual exclusivity of alts, whether against a “plan” or “advocacy.” Feel free to argue different standards of competition. The less the aff outlines a clear method, the more I’m persuaded by “no plan, no perm.”

Perm Texts---They are great. This can be difficult when alts are amorphous, but 1AR/2AR explanation needs to rise above “do both.”

6---Counterplans

Judge Kicking---If you want me to explicitly consider multiple worlds post-2NR, e.g. both CP vs. aff and/or status quo vs. aff, make an explicit argument. Saying the words “the status quo is always an option” in CX is not enough for me.

Theory vs. Literature---Topic literature helps dictate what you can persuade me is reasonable. If your only basis for competition is a definition of “resolved”/“should” and a random law review, good luck. If you have evidence contextual to a topic area and a clear explanation of functional differences in implementation, I’m far easier to persuade.

Solvency Advocates---CPs should have solvency advocates of “comparable quality” to the 1AC. If your Advantage CP plank cites 1AC evidence, go for it. If you’re making something up, provide a card. If you’re trying to make card-less “Con Con” a thing, I’m a hard sell.

Intrinsicness---Both the aff/neg need to get better at debating intrinsic/“other issues” perms. I'm an easier sell than others that these obviate many of the sillier CPs.

7---Disadvantages

Framing---It's everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Internal Links > Impacts---I find most "DA Turns the Case" / "Case Turns the DA" debates don't spend enough time on causation or timing.

Politics Theory---Most 2AC theory blips against Politics DAs aren’t complete arguments, e.g. “fiat solves the link” or "a logical policymaker could do both." Still, intrinsicness arguments against DAs are underutilized.

8---Theory

Conditionality---It’s difficult to convince me some conditionality isn’t necessary for the neg to be viable. Things can certainly change based on substantive contradictions or quantity. Negs should be clear under what conditions, if any, they can kick individual CP planks.

Other Theory Issues---It’s difficult to persuade me that most theoretical objections to CPs or perms are reasons to reject the team.

“Tricks”/“Spikes”---Please no.

9---Public Forum Specifics

I am not a "lay"/"flay" judge.

A few views of mine may be idiosyncrasies:

Paraphrasing---I’m convinced this is a harmful practice that hides evidence from scrutiny. Evidence should be presented in full context with compete citations in real time. That means:

A---Author, Date, Title, URL

B---Complete paragraphs for excerpts

C---Underlining and/or highlighting indicating what is referenced.

D---Sending evidence you intend to read to opponents before the speech is delivered.

Purely paraphrased evidence compared to a team reading cut cards will be treated as baseless opinions.

Line-by-Line

A---You need to answer arguments in a coherent order based on when/where they were introduced.

B---You need to extend complete arguments, with warrants, in later speeches. If not in summary, it’s too late to bring back from the dead in final focus.

If neither side seems to be doing the needed work, expect me to intervene.

Disclosure---I generally think disclosure is beneficial for the activity, which is why our program open sources. However, I am not as dogmatic about disclosure when judging. It is difficult to convince me "disclosure in its entirety is bad," but the recent trend seems to be shifting interpretations that are increasingly difficult to meet.

Absent egregious lack of disclosure/mis-disclosure, I am not the best judge for increasingly demanding interpretations if opponents have made a good faith effort to disclose. For example, if a team forgot to disclose cites/round report for a single round, but is otherwise actively disclosing, it is difficult to convince me that a single mistake is a punishable offense.

While I don't want to prescribe what I think standard disclosure should be and would rather folks debate the specifics, I am an easier sell than others on some things:

A---The quality of debates is better when students know what arguments have been read in the past. This seems more important than claims that lack of disclosure encourages "thinking on your feet."

B---Debaters should provide tags/citations of previously read contentions. A doc with a giant wall of text and no coherent tags or labels is not meaningful disclosure.

C---Round reports don't seem nearly as important as other forms of disclosure.

Evidence Ethics---Evidence issues are getting egregious in PF. However, I also do not like some of the trends for how these debates are handled.

A---NSDA Rules---If an evidence challenge is invoked, I will stop the debate, inform the team issuing the challenge that the entire debate will hinge on the result of evaluating that challenge, and then consult both the NSDA rules and any tournament specific procedures to adjudicate the challenge. Questions of evidence ethics cannot be just "theory" or "off-case" arguments.

B---"Spirit" of Rules vs. Cheap Shots---I admittedly have idiosyncracies on specific issues, but if they come up will do my best to enforce the exact wording of NSDA rules.

i---"Straw" arguments where the cut section clearly does not represent the rest of the article, ellipses out of major sections, bracketing that changes the meaning of an article (including adding context/references the author didn't intend), and fabrication are easy to convince me are round-enders.

ii----A single broken URL, a card that was copy and pasted from a backfile incorrectly so the last sentence accidentally cut off a couple words, and other minor infractions do not seem worth ending a round over, but it's up for debate.

iii---Not being able to produce the original full text of a card quickly seems like a reason to reject a piece of evidence given NSDA wordings, though I worry this discourages the cutting of books which are harder to provide access to quickly during debates.

I am the debate coach at Blue Valley North HS. I was an NDT/CEDA debater at Wichita State University (2012) and a graduate assistant at the University of Kansas. I have taught camp at Michigan or Kansas every year since I graduated. I typically judge 50-80 policy rounds per year, plus some pf/ld/speech.

email: brianbox4@gmail.com

I really, really enjoy judging good debates. I really, really dislike judging debates that take two hours, lack clash and mostly involve unclearly reading a document into the screen. I care far more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments than the type of arguments you read. Good debate good, bad debate bad. I will vote for any argument you win.

Ultimately, the debate is not about me, and I will do my best to evaluate whichever strategy you pursue, but I am very bored by negative strategies that do not demonstrate an undesirable effect of the affirmative. There is a time and a place for most strategies, and I firmly believe there is no one right way to debate, but I wish more of the debates I judged were about core topic arguments and less about non-competitive counterplans (obviously debatable), generic critiques of fiat, poorly supported politics disads, ridiculous impact turns, etc.

I have found that 99% of high school debates are such clear technical victories that my argument specific thoughts aren't terribly relevant. As such, I want to emphasize a few points that are important for debating in front of me.

Use your flow to answer the other teams arguments. Don't read into your computer screen from start to finish.

Evidence matters a lot. I read lots of evidence and it heavily factors into my decision. Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the evidence. Highlighting is important. Definitely willing to lower the prioritization of an argument or ignore it entirely if it's highlighted nonsensically. Author qualifications, histories, intentions, purpose, funding, etc. matter. The application of meaningful author indicts/epistemic arguments about evidence mean more to me than many judges. I find myself more than willing to ignore poorly supported arguments.

I cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is. I can't believe how often I see judges transcribing the speech document. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping. Reading directly into the screen at top speed - no matter how clear you are - is nearly impossible for me to understand.

Go for theory? I will never be the judge who views all sides of any theory debate to be equal, but am far more likely than I once was to vote for an argument about the scope of negative fiat. Affirmatives should be extending theory arguments that say a type of counterplan or category of fiat is bad more often.

The link matters the most.The first thing I look at is the link. When in conflict, it is more important to contest the link than the impact.

CX is huge. This is where you separate debaters who have researched their argument and can intentionally execute a strategy from debaters who have practiced reading unclearly as fast as possible. I don't flow CX, but I am very attentive and you should treat me like a lay judge because these moments will be impactful.

gene bressler (they/them)

Calvert Hall '21

Wake Forest '25

genebresslerdebate[AT]gmail.com

If you're considering college debate, ask about Wake's debate program!

Paradigms are overrated. Nobody judges the way they think they judge.

That said, I think and care about debate a lot. I will pay attention to whatever you're doing, and try to think the way debaters are thinking, rather than send you on an intellectual masterclass in the RFD. Put differently, I don't care if you do things the way I would've done them. I re-wrote this, and am somewhat horrified by how long it is. Most is not all that relevant, I've put what is at the top

Here are the only things you "need to know,"

-2v2 debate, each person gives a constructive and a rebuttal (pre-scripted performance stuff is okay, giving all of every speech is not)

-"Clash judge."

-Be clear. Good judges vote for arguments they understand. In addition, I've noticed a concerning amount of clipping in extremely high-profile debates. If I can't understand you, I'll call clear. If I think you're clipping, I'll say that prior to ending the round, but, c'mon.

-Judge kick is my default, but if the AFF says no, I'll evaluate it technically.

-Most things that bother old people don't bother me (feel free to go to the bathroom, fill up your water, and be happy in the round)

-"defend what you say, hold people responsible for what they say. i’m not here to resolve your personal beef with someone, but i do find myself responsible for making sure this space is maximally safe" - asya taylor

Thoughts about debate

I've judged and debated a lot of different rounds, across varying styles and quality. I read about postmodernism "too much," have a generally decent knowledge of "policy relevant" disciplines, and think about debate a lot.

Debate is getting better, not worse! Evangelists of an era where "CO2 good," "patriarchy key to heg," and a singular "AT: K" file were found in every dropbox make me sad, and I have a strong desire to voice this opinion. To that end, I don't care if you use your computer to give speeches, but I do appreciate the aesthetic of line by line debating far more than 5 minutes of block reading. I will reward the former with speaker points, regardless of your choice of flowing medium.

I flow straight down, usually on a laptop. I am pretty "flow centric." To me, that means I begin from the presumption that I trust debaters more than their evidence. If something is dropped, I'm not going to scrutinize your cards and be sad when they don't quite line up perfectly. Maybe in an ideal world I'd have time to do this, but I find judges that engage in this practice do it quite unpredictably, and the burden is best left on the debaters to indict bad ev.

Unless instructed otherwise, I only read ev as a "last resort," when it seems too difficult to resolve an argument based purely on words on the flow. Judge instruction about how to read and prioritize evidence is a sign of quality debating - if you spend a lot of time prodicting/indicting cards, I am more likely to care about them.

It's hard to dissuade me from using an offense/defense paradigm to think about debate. There are two main implications to this

1) If both teams advance an interpretation, I will use one of those interpretations. Debaters are free to advance a middle ground, but I won't come up with one for you.

2) Reasonability must be framed offensively (ie. in terms of substance crowdout, arbitrariness, etc.) rather than as a plea to not care about the other teams offense. I treat questions of interpretations the same as questions of substance, and I don't vote AFF just because the link to the DA was "reasonably" low without being given a qualification to evaluate that versus some other offense

Disads:

I start by evaluating relative risk. This means that winning a big DA/advantage is often more important to me than ticky tacky on impact calculus. Of course, you should conduct impact calculus, but you're hitting diminishing returns pretty quickly with me.

You don't have to say "nuclear war turns climate change," certainly not for more than 5 words. I get it. Existential risks are bad.

I'm fine for agenda politics/elections/other "bad" DA's. Explicit judge instruction on how I should interpret/how much I should care about evidence goes a long way.

I haven't judged or been in many debates that pushed the limits of DA intrinsicness. You're free to explore this, but I will be entering with a slight bias towards the negative and very few critical thoughts.

Counterplans

Pretty neutral on competition questions. I think perm do the counterplan is often more strategic than the intrinsic perm, but whatever. Impact/internal link comparison should happen early - I'd prefer if both teams focused on central offense with framing devices as opposed to spamming arguments about how hard it is to be aff/neg and praying one is dropped.

Counterplan theory arguments are better used as competition standards than theory interpretations, because of how arbitrary they are. I'd rather you move "process cp bad" offense to the relevant perm debate than go for a contrived interp.

If "sufficiency framing," is just "compare the deficit to the DA," it seems impossible to not do that.

Conditionality is fine. My intuition is that in-round abuse doesn't matter as much as theoretical justifications, but I can be convinced otherwise. If condo is a winning 2AR, I won't be upset that you gave it. It's a massive uphill battle to get me to "reject the team" on any other theory argument.

K's on the negative

I decide on an interpretation for framework, none of this "it's a wash" nonsense. Debaters can (and perhaps should) advocate for a middle ground interp, but I won't do it if left to my own devices.

I might know what you're talking about, but I'd be more comfortable if you pretended I didn't. Besides that, I don't have a ton of takes. I'd prefer if the 2NR/2AR had a central strategy rather than spamming links and hoping I figure it out, but this is the case for all debates.

K's on the AFF

Framework/T-USFG: Pretty even voting record. Ballot solvency matters a lot more to me than groveling over what constitutes an impact. Equally fine for fairness and clash, but be careful when explaining them relative to what the ballot solves (e.g. if you say something like fairness first - nothing leaves the room, you need to think about how that reconciles with clash/skills/whatever).

Most of the below is about debates where the AFF has some form of counter-interp/counter-model. You're welcome to just impact turn the reading of framework. I think I'm worse for this on a personal opinion level, but tech trumps all else.

I'd like a counterinterpretation, or some vision of what voting AFF means for future debates. At the very least, I'd like to know what you think debate should be about - what are the controversies? Functional limits style arguments shouldn't just be "what could you have read this round," but instead "what does the counter interp hold the aff to defending," and how can the negative predictably engage with that premise.

Internal links matter a lot. Most framework arguments don't make a lot of intuitive sense to me, I'd prefer to vote for a "small" and specific impact with a lot of comparisons/defense than to go down the rabbit hole of "policy deliberation solves climate change," vs. "voting negative turns you into Karl Rove."

Method v method/ k v k thoughts: no perms in a method debate isn't great, but I evaluate it technically. I use an offense-defense paradigm, and care a lot about impact framing. Establish win conditions, points of competition, and what you're impact turning early and often

Topicality vs plans

I estimate I am better for T than a majority of the judging pool. I wouldn't consider myself a member of the "cult of limits," but T doesn't give me the ick the way it does for an increasing amount of judges.

Don't care if you go for precision or limits. Do care about the size of the internal link. Would prefer if the 2NR/2AR was more like "large limits difference outweighs small precision difference," than "limits are the only thing that matters."

I think the best impacts concern research/topic evolution. Groveling about how hard it is to debate more than 2 AFF's or how the AFF can never win if the negative researches the 1AC in advance seem equally unpersuasive, but these premises are rarely contested so what do I know.

Above thoughts on reasonability apply.

LD:

If you read plans, go for the K, do "LARP" things, etc. the above applies.

If you read "phil" I will almost certainly not know what is happening prior to you explaining it to me, but I won’t hate you or anything.

If you read "tricks," I will flow as carefully as I can without using the doc to fill in holes. You can win on anything, but the more inane, the worse your speaks. Empirically, I miss large swaths of the underview when debaters blaze through it. No remorse.

If you say "evaluate the debate after 'x' speech" I will give you the lowest speaks the tournament permits.

Associate Director of Debate @ KU

Last Updated: Pre-GSU 2016

Quick pre-round notes:

I would prefer speech docs while I judge. Please email them to bricker312@gmail.com.

The affirmative should read and defend a topical example of the resolution and the negative should negate the affirmative's example.

I reward teams that demonstrate a robust knowledge of the topic and literature concerning the topic.

More info:

1. The word "interpretation" matters more to me than some. You must counterdefine words, or you will likely lose. You must meet your theory interpretation, or you will likely lose.
2. The words "voting issue" matter more to me than some. I am not searching for cheap shots, nor do I especially enjoy theory debates. However, I feel that I would be intervening if I applied "reject the argument not the team" to arguments that debaters did not explicitly apply the impact takeout to. That said, proliferation of empty voting issues will not only hurt your speaker points, but can be grouped and pretty easily disposed of by opponents.
3. "Turns the case" matters more to me than some. Is it offense? Does the link to the advantage/fiat outweigh or prevent turning the case? Does it mean the aff doesn't solve? Questions that should be answered by the 1ar.

I believe that debaters work hard, and I will work hard for them. The more debaters can show they have worked hard: good case debates, specific strategies, etc. the more likely it is I will reward debaters with speaker points and higher effort. In the same vain, debaters who make clear that they don’t work outside of debates won’t receive high speaker points.

Argument issues:

Topicality – It is a voting issue and not a reverse voting issue. I have not yet been persuaded by arguments in favor of reasonability; however, the reason for this usually lies with the fact that affirmatives fail to question the conventional wisdom that limits are good.

Kritiks – It will be difficult to convince me that I should completely disregard my conceptions of rationality, pragmatism and my aversion to unnecessary death. As a general rule, I think of Kritiks like a counterplan with net-benefits. The more aff specific the better.

Counterplans – I am up in the air about textual vs. functional competition – they both have their time and place, and are probably not universal rules. The cross-ex answer “for your DAs but not your counterplans” has always made negative sense to me. I understand that there are MANDATES of the plan and EFFECTS of the plan; I find this distinction more understandable than the usual c-x answer.

Rundown of general thoughts about counterplans:

Conditionality – it's feeling like a little bit much at the moment
PICs – Good, especially if they PIC out of a part of the plan
Consult/Condition – Up in the air and context specific. Solvency advocates, aff stances, etc. can change my feelings.
Delay – Aff leaning, but might be more competitive based on the structure of the affirmative, or a cross-ex answer. For example, if the affirmative has an advantage that takes the position the advantage can only be solved if it happens before "X" date, then the counterplan to do it after that date seems competitive.
Word PICs – Aff leaning
Alternate non-USFG actors – Aff leaning


Demeanor issues:

Be respectful of your opponent, partner and judge. All types of discrimination are prohibited. Don’t clip cards, don’t cut cards out of context, etc. Don't misclose.

Finally, our community relies on host tournaments with classroom space - don't steal, defame or destroy it.

Any questions, ask.

I'm a teacher and debate coach at Montgomery Bell Academy.

Put me on the email chain: abrown123564@gmail.com

Here is how you can make me want to give you a ballot + good speaks:

1. Make the debate comfortable and fun. I am not a good judge for you if you get super aggressive, snarky, or rude in round. I am a teacher - treat your partner and opponents the way you'd treat your classmates.

2. Please do not "cut corners" in your prep - I get very sad when I see incomplete DAs, incoherent T arguments, meaningless Adv CP texts, or evidence so un-highlighted it doesn't say anything, etc, deployed for the purpose of winning through out-spreading instead of out-debating. I generally don't think teams should be reading more than 6 off.

3. Do not forget you are in a public speaking activity. I am not evaluating the debate based off your speech doc. You should be clear, and you should flow. Please stop offering or asking for marked docs unless it is absolutely necessary.

4. Please do not abuse tag-team CX in either asking or answering questions. If you're not debating a new aff/debating as a maverick, and you decide to take CX as prep instead of asking questions, then I will allow the other team to keep reading cards for the remainder of CX.

Sorry if that all came across as grumpy. If you can do all of those things, then I'm happy and I look forward to judging you.

My approach to judging:

I think that policy debate is good and that clash/fairness/etc. are all things which matter. I think debates should not exclude critical perspectives and we should seek to do what best improves the activity overall.

Tech > truth, but I still think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. My threshold for what I consider to be a warrant for a given argument tends to scale up or down based on the extent to which I think an argument is credible. To that end, I am a tremendously bad judge for arguments advocating death, human extinction, or nuclear war. I probably just won't vote for them.

I have historically given kind of crappy speaker points, I'll try to keep up with point inflation more this year.

Have fun!

I am a lay judge - make sense and I vote for you :).

Be kind and have a great debate.

Try not to spread because I won't be able to flow. If you don't see me flowing, you're probably going too fast.

Jeff Buntin
Northwestern University/Montgomery Bell Academy

Feelings----------------------------------------X--Dead inside

Policy---X------------------------------------------K

Tech-----------------------------X-----------------Truth

Read no cards-----------------------------X------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-------------------------X----Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-------x--------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Fairness is an impact-X------------------------------Fairness is not an impact

Tonneson votes aff-----------------------------X-Tonneson clearly neg

Try or die--------------x---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------------------X-----Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face---X--------------------------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

2017 speaker points---------------------X--------2007 speaker points

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

Dallas-style expressive----------X---------------D. Heidt-style stoic

Referencing this philosophy in your speech--------------------X-plz don't

Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

"It's inev, we make it effective"------------------------X---"It'S iNeV, wE mAkE iT eFfEcTiVe"

Bodies without organs---------------X---------------Organs without bodies

New affs bad-----------------------------------------X-Old affs bad

Aff on process competition--X-------------------------Neg on process competition

CPs that require the 'butterfly effect' card------------X- Real arguments

'Judge kick'----------------------------------X---Absolutely no 'judge kick'

Nukes topic--X-----------------------------------------Any other topic ever

Paradigm Last Updated – Summer 2023

Coach @ Shawnee Mission South and the University of Kansas.

Put me on the email chain :) azjabutler@gmail.com

@ the Nano Nagle (HS LD / PF)

"Did you read x card..." or "Which cards did you skip" are QUESTIONS so the CX timer should be started, this mess is flighted so please don't waste my or the tournament's time.

Arguments have three parts: 1] Claim 2] Data/Evidence 3]Warrant -- if these are not present your chance of winning in front of me are low.

I primarily judge high school and college policy -- at the point in which you integrate policy arguments, norms, and techne is the point in which I evaluate the debate as a 1v1 policy debate. I will take no notes.

I promise I have no problem clearing you or your opponent so please don't clear one another -- if it's actually unclear I will more than likely beat you to it.

I don't like having to read evidence in place of you all actually debating/making arguments. That being said if your evidence is just a series of one-liners / a sentence long, only partially highlighted I prob won't take your stuff seriously.

Don't read Kant in front of me and expect me to see the debate the way you do -- if you don't know that means: Don't read it.

TLDR:

Judge instruction, above all else, is super important for me – I think this looks differently depending on your style of debate. Generally, I think clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense is a must. For policy teams I think this is more about link and impact framing, and for more critical teams I think this is about considering the judge’s relationships to your theory/performance and being specific about their role in the debate.

For every "flow-check" question, or CX question that starts with a variation of "did you read..." I will doc you .5 speaker points. FLOW DAMNIT.

General:

I am flexible and can judge just about anything. I debated more critically, but read what you're most comfortable with. I will approach every judging opportunity with an open mind and provide feedback that makes sense to you given your strategy.

I care about evidence quality to the extent that I believe in ethically cut evidence, but I think evidence can come in many forms. I won’t read evidence after a debate unless there is an egregious discrepancy over it, or I've been instructed to do so. I think debaters should be able to explain their evidence well enough that I shouldn’t have to read it, so if I'm reading evidence then you haven't done your job to know the literature and will probably receive more judge intervention from me. That being said, I understand that in policy debate reading evidence has become a large part of judging etc, because I'm not ever cutting politics updates be CLEAR and EXPLICIT about why I am reading ev/ what I should be looking for.

Please know I am more than comfortable“clearing” you. Disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. Clipping/cutting cards out of context is academic malpractice and will result in an automatic loss.

___________________________________________________________________

Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth

For the most part, I am tech over truth, but if both teams are ahead on technical portions of the debate, I will probably use truth to break the tie.

Framework

I think debates about debate are valuable and provide a space for confrontation over a number of debate's disparities/conflicts. A strong defense of your model and a set of specific net-benefits is important. Sure, debate is a game, education is almost always a tiebreaker. Fairness is a fake impact -- go for it I guess but I find it rare nowadays that people actually go for it. I think impact-turning framework is always a viable option. I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.

Performance + Planless Affirmatives

Judge instruction and strong articulation of your relationship to the ballot is necessary. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base.

Kritiks

I filter a lot of what I have read through my own experience both in and out of academia. I think it’s important for debaters to also consider their identity/experience in the context of your/their argument. I would avoid relying too much on jargon because I think it’s important to make the conversations that Kritiks provide accessible. I have read/researched enough to say I can evaluate just about anything, but don't use that as an excuse to be vague or assume that I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links -- too many people try to kick the alt and I don't get it. Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair game. I don’t want to say I am 100% opposed to judging kicking alts for people, but I won’t be happy about it and doubt that it will work out for you. If you wanna kick it, then just do it yourself... but again I don't get it.

Any other questions, just ask -- at this point people should know what to expect from me and feel comfortable reaching out.

Goodluck and have fun!

Conor Cameron
ccameron3@cps.edu
he/him/his
Coach, Solorio, 2012 - present

TLDR: Better for CP / DA / impact turn debates

I'll do my best to evaluate arguments as made. When the way I make sense of a debate differs from the way debaters make sense of a debate, here seem to be some common sources of the disparity:

1) I'm pretty ingrained in the offense defense model. This means that even if the NB is substantially unpersuasive, if the aff cannot generate a solvency deficit against the CP, and the aff has no offense against the DA, I am highly likely to vote negative.

Some notes: a) I do not think a solvency deficit needs to be carded; b) more difficult, but I could envision voting on analytic offense against a DA, c) I'm willing to vote on zero risk of the DA, but we'd both benefit from you taking a moment to explain why the offense-defense model is inapplicable in the debate at hand

2) I still think I have a relatively high bar for voting negative on topicality; however, I've tried to begin evaluating this debate more from an offense-defense perspective. In my mind, this means that if the affirmative does not meet the negative's interpretation, and does not have its own counterinterpretation, it is essentially arguing that any affirmative is topical and is conceding a 100% link to the limits disadvantage. I'm highly likely to vote negative in such a debate.

General argument notes:
3) I'm probably more sympathetic to cheaty process counterplans than most.

4) While I may complain, I do vote on the standard canon of negative kritiks. Things like cap, security, standard topic kritiks, etc. are fine. Extra explanation (examples, stories, analogies, etc.) is always appreciated, all the more so the further from my comfort zone you venture.

5) FW vs K Affs: I lean negative. However, I judge few of these debates. Both teams would benefit from accepting that I know very little here, slowing down, speaking clearly, and over-explaining (depth, not repetition) things you assume most judges know.

Other notes
6) I judge because:
a) I still really enjoy debate.
b) Judging is an opportunity to continue to develop my understanding of debate.
c) I am covering my students' judge commitment so that they too can benefit from this activity.

7) Quick reference
Policy---X------------------------------------------K

Tech-----------------------------X-----------------Truth

Read no cards-------X----------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good----X------------------------------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-----X------------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Limits----------------------------------X------------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------------------X-----Never votes on presumption

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

Associate Director of Debate @ Greenhill

Still helping KU in my free time

Please add me to the email chain: a.rae.chase@gmail.com

I love debate and I will do my absolute best to make a decision that makes sense and give a helpful RFD.

Topicality

Competing interpretations are easier to evaluate than reasonability. You need to explain to me how we determine what is reasonable if you are going for reasonability.

Having said that if your intep is so obscure that there isn't a logical CI to it, perhaps it is not a good interpretation.

T debates this year (water topic) have gotten too impact heavy for their own good. I've judged a number of rounds with long overviews about how hard it is to be negative that never get to explaining what affirmatives would be topical under their interp or why the aff interp links to a limits DA and that's hard for me because I think much more about the latter when I think about topicality.

T-USFG/FW

Affirmatives should be about the topic. I will be fairly sympathetic to topicality arguments if I do not know what the aff means re: the topic after the 1AC.

I think teams are meming a bit on both sides of this debate. Phrases like "third and fourth level testing" and "rev v rev debates are better" are kind of meaningless absent robust explanation. Fairness is an impact that I will vote on. Like any other impact, it needs to be explained and compared to the other team's impact. I have also voted on arguments about ethics, education, and pedagogy. I will try my best to decide who wins an impact and which impact matters more based on the debate that happens.

I do not think the neg has to win a TVA to win topicality; it can be helpful if it happens to make a lot of sense but a forced TVA is generally a waste of time.

If the aff is going for an impact turn about debate, it would be helpful to have a CI that solves that impact.

DA’s

I would love to see you go for a disad and case in the 2NR. I do not find it persuasive when an affirmative team's only answer to a DA is impact framing. Impact framing can be important but it is one of a number of arguments that should be made.

I am aware the DA's aren't all great lately. I don't think that's a reason to give up on them. It just means you need a CP or really good case arguments.

K's

I really enjoy an old-fashioned k vs the aff debate. I think there are lots of interesting nuances available for the neg and the aff in this type of debate. Here are some specific thoughts that might be helpful when constructing your strategy:

1. Links of omission are not links. Links of “commission” will take a lot of explaining.

2. Debating the case matters unless there is a compelling framework argument for why I should not evaluate the case.

3. If you are reading a critique that pulls from a variety of literature bases, make sure I understand how they all tie to together. I am persuaded by aff arguments about how it's very difficult to answer the foundation of multiple bodies of critical literature because they often have different ontological, epistemological, psychoanalytic, etc assumptions. Also, how does one alt solve all of that??

4. Aff v. K: I have noticed affirmative teams saying "it's bad to die twice" on k's and I have no idea what that means. Aff framework arguments tend to be a statement that is said in the 2AC and repeated in the 1AR and 2AR - if you want fw to influence how I vote, you need to do more than this. Explain how it implicates how I assess the link and/or alternative solvency.

5. When ontology is relevant - I feel like these debates have devolved into lists of things (both sides do this) and that's tough because what if the things on the list don't resonate?

CP's

Generic counterplans are necessary and good. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author - excellent! I don't have patience for overly convoluted counterplans supported by barely highlighted ev.

I do not subscribe to (often camp-driven) groupthink about which cp's "definitely solve" which aff's. I strongly disagree with this approach to debate and will think through the arguments on both sides of the debate because that is what debate is about.

Solvency deficits are a thing and will be accounted for and weighed along with the risk of a DA, the size of the DA impact, the size of the solvency deficit, and other relevant factors. If you are fiating through solvency deficits you should come prepared with a theoretical justification for that.

Other notes!

Some people think it is auto-true that politics disads and certain cp's are terrible for debate. I don't agree with that. I think there are benefits/drawbacks to most arguments. This matters for framework debates. A plan-less aff saying "their model results in politics DA's which is obviously the worst" will not persuade absent a warrant for that claim.

Love a good case debate. It's super under-utilized. I think it's really impressive when a 2N knows more about the aff evidence than the aff does.

Please don't be nasty to each other; don't be surprised if I interrupt you if you are.

I don't flow the 1AC and 1NC because I am reading your evidence. I have to do this because if I don't I won't get to read the evidence before decision time in a close debate.

If the debate is happening later than 9PM you might consider slowing down and avoiding especially complicated arguments.

If you make a frivolous or convoluted ethics challenge in a debate that I judge I will ask you to move on and be annoyed for the rest of the round. Legitimate ethics challenges exist and should/will be taken seriously but ethics challenges are not something we should play fast and loose with.

For debating online:

-If you think clarity could even possibly be an issue, slow down a ton. More than ever clarity and quality are more important than quantity.

-If my camera is off, I am not there, I am not flowing your speech, I probably can't even hear you. If you give the 1AR and I'm not there, there is not a whole lot I can do for you.

I've coached LASA since 2005. I judge ~120 debates per season on the high school circuit.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: yaosquared@gmail.com.

If you have little time before the debate, here’s all you need to know: do what you do best. I try to be as unbiased as possible and I will defer to your analysis. As long as you are clear, go as fast as you want.

Most judges give appalling decisions. Here's where I will try to be better than them:

• They intervene, even when they claim they won't. Perhaps "tech over truth" doesn't mean what it used to. I will attempt to adjudicate and reach a decision purely on only the words you say. If that's insufficient to reach a decision either way--and it often isn't--I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. The more work I have to do, the wider the range of uncertainty for you and the lower your speaks go.
• They aren't listening carefully. They're mentally checked out, flowing off the speech doc, distracted by social media, or have half their headphones off and are taking selfies during the 1AR. I will attempt to flow every single detail of your speeches. I will probably take notes during CX if I think it could affect my decision. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve a judge who works hard as well.
• They give poorly-reasoned decisions that rely on gut instincts and ignore arguments made in the 2NR/2AR. I will probably take my sweet time making and writing my decision. I will try to be as thorough and transparent as possible. If I intervene anywhere, I will explain why I had to intervene and how you could've prevented that intervention. If I didn't catch or evaluate an argument, I will explain why you under-explained or failed to extend it. I will try to anticipate your questions and preemptively answer them in my decision.
• They reconstruct the debate and try to find the most creative and convoluted path to a ballot. I guess they're trying to prove they're smart? These decisions are detestable because they take the debate away from the hands of the debaters. If there are multiple paths to victory for both teams, I will take what I think is the shortest path and explain why I think it's the shortest path, and you can influence my decision by explaining why you control the shortest path. But, I'm not going to use my decision to attempt to prove I'm more clever than the participants of the debate.
• If you think the 1AR is a constructive, you should strike me.

Meta Issues:

• I’m not a professional debate coach or even a teacher. I work as a finance analyst in the IT sector and I volunteer as a debate coach on evenings and weekends. I don’t teach at debate camp and my topic knowledge comes primarily from judging debates. My finance background means that, when left to my own devices, I err towards precision, logic, data, and concrete examples. However, I can be convinced otherwise in any particular debate, especially when it’s not challenged by the other team.
• Tech over truth in most instances. I will stick to my flow and minimize intervention as much as possible. I firmly believe that debates should be left to the debaters. I rarely make facial expressions because I don’t want my personal reactions to affect how a debate plays out. I will maintain a flow, even if you ask me not to. However, tech over truth has its limits. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim.
• Evidence comparison is under-utilized and is very important to me in close debates. I often call for evidence, but I’m much more likely to call for a card if it’s extended by author or cite.
• I don’t judge or coach at the college level, which means I’m usually a year or two behind the latest argument trends that are first broken in college and eventually trickle down to high school. If you’re reading something that’s close to the cutting edge of debate arguments, you’ll need to explain it clearly. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear new arguments. On the contrary, a big reason why I continue coaching debate is because I enjoy listening to and learning about new arguments that challenge my existing ways of thinking.
• Please mark your own cards. No one is marking them for you.
• If I feel that you are deliberately evading answering a question or have straight up lied, and the question is important to the outcome of the debate, I will stop the timer and ask you to answer the question. Example: if you read condo bad, the neg asks in CX whether you read condo bad, and you say no, I’ll ask if you want me to cross-out condo on my flow.

Framework:

• Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge on impact calculus and comparison.
• When I vote neg, it’s usually because the aff team missed the boat on topical version, has made insufficient inroads into the neg’s limits disad, and/or is winning some exclusion disad but is not doing comparative impact calculus against the neg’s offense. The neg win rate goes up if the 2NR can turn or access the aff's primary impact (e.g. clash and argument testing is vital to ethical subject formation).
• When I vote aff, it’s usually because the 2NR is disorganized and goes for too many different impacts, there’s no topical version or other way to access the aff’s offense, and/or concedes an exclusion disad that is then impacted out by the 2AR.
• On balance, I am worse for 2ARs that impact turn framework than 2ARs that have a counter-interp. If left to my own devices, I believe in models and in the ballot's ability to, over the course of time, bring models into existence. I have trouble voting aff if I can't understand what future debates look like under the aff's model.

Topicality:

• Over the years, “tech over truth” has led me to vote neg on some untruthful T violations. If you’re neg and you’ve done a lot of research and are ready to throw down on a very technical and carded T debate, I’m a good judge for you.
• If left to my own devices, predictability > debatability.
• Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff. The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I am towards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks:

• The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points give highly organized and structuredspeeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, and emphasize key moments in their speeches.
• Just like most judges, the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.
• I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview and do as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. If your overview is 6 minutes, you make blippy cross-applications on the line-by-line, and then you drop the last three 2AC cards, I’m going to give the 1AR a lot of leeway on extending those concessions, even if they were somewhat implicitly answered in your overview.
• Framework debates on kritiks often don't matter. For example, the neg extends a framework interp about reps, but only goes for links to plan implementation. Before your 2NR/2AR, ask yourself what winning framework gets you/them.
• I’m not a good judge for “role of the ballot” arguments, as I usually find these to be self-serving for the team making them. I’m also not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out, not a gatekeeping issue for me to enforce.
• I’m an OK judge for K “tricks”. A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained. The floating PIK needs to be clearly made in the 2NC for me to evaluate it. If your K strategy hinges on hiding a floating PIK and suddenly busting it out in the 2NR, I’m not a good judge for you.

Counterplans:

• Just like most judges, I prefer case-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.
• I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.
• I will not judge kick the CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.
• Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Disadvantages:

• I’m a sucker for specific and comparative impact calculus. For example, most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims.
• Uniqueness only "controls the direction of the link" if uniqueness can be determined with certainty (e.g. whip count on a bill, a specific interest rate level). On most disads where uniqueness is a probabilistic forecast (e.g. future recession, relations, elections), the uniqueness and link are equally important, which means I won't compartmentalize and decide them separately.
• Zero risk is possible but difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Theory:

• I actually enjoy listening to a good theory debate, but these seem to be exceedingly rare. I think I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important. You're unlikely to win that a single intrinsic permutation is a round-winning voter, even if the other team drops it, unless you are investing significant time in explaining why it should be an independent voting issue.
• I think that I lean affirmative compared to the rest of the judging community on the legitimacy of counterplans. In my mind, a counterplan that is wholly plan-inclusive (consultation, condition, delay, etc.) is theoretically questionable. The legitimacy of agent counterplans, whether domestic or international, is also contestable. I think the negative has the right to read multiple planks to a counterplan, but reading each plank conditionally is theoretically suspect.

Miscellaneous:

• I usually take a long time to decide, and give lengthy decisions. LASA debaters have benefitted from the generosity of judges, coaches, and lab leaders who used their decisions to teach and trade ideas, not just pick a winner and get a paycheck. Debaters from schools with limited/no coaching, the same schools needed to prevent the decline in policy debate numbers, greatly benefit from judging feedback. I encourage you to ask questions and engage in respectful dialogue with me. However, post-round hostility will be met with hostility. I've been providing free coaching and judging since before you were birthed into the world. If I think you're being rude or condescending to me or your opponents, I will enthusiastically knock you back down to Earth.
• I don't want a card doc. If you send one, I will ignore it. Card docs are an opportunity for debaters to insert cards they didn't read, didn't extend, or re-highlight. They're also an excuse for lazy judges to compensate for a poor flow by reconstructing the debate after the fact. If your debating was disorganized and you need a card doc to return some semblance of organization, I'd rather adjudicate the disorganized debate and then tell you it was disorganized.

Ways to Increase/Decrease Speaker Points:

• Look and sound like you want to be here. Judging can be spirit murder if you're disengaged and disinterested. By contrast, if you're engaged, I'll be more engaged and helpful with feedback.
• Argument resolution minimizes judge intervention. Most debaters answer opposing positions by staking out the extreme opposite position, which is generally unpersuasive. Instead, take the middle ground. Assume the best out of your opponents' arguments and use "even if" framing.
• Demonstrate that you flowed the entire debate. If you're reading pre-scripted 2NC/2NR/2AR blocks without adapting the language to the specifics of your debate, you've only proven that you're literate but possibly also an NPC. I would much rather hear you give a 2NR/2AR without a laptop, just off your paper flows, even if it's not as smooth.
• I am usually unmoved by aggression, loud volume, rudeness, and other similar posturing. It's both dissuasive and distracting. By contrast, being unusually nice will always be rewarded with higher points and never be seen as weakness. This will be especially appreciated if you make the debate as welcoming as possible against less experienced opponents.
• Do not steal prep. Make it obvious that you are not prepping if there's not a timer running.
• Do not be the person who asks for a roadmap one second after the other team stops prep. Chill. I will monitor prep usage, not you. You're not saving us from them starting a speech without giving a roadmap.
• Stop asking for a marked doc when they've only skipped or marked one or two cards. It's much faster to ask where they marked that card, and then mark it on your copy. If you marked/skipped many cards, you should proactively offer to send a new doc before CX.

Joshua Clark

Montgomery Bell Academy - 2013 - current

University of Michigan - Institute Instructor (2007 - Current)
Email: jreubenclark10@gmail.com

Past Schools:
Juan Diego Catholic 09-13
Notre Dame in Sherman Oaks 08-09
Damien 04-06

Debating:
Jordan (UT) 96-98
College of Eastern Utah 99
Cal St Fullerton 01-04

Website:
policydebatecentral.com

Speaker Points
Points will generally stay between 27.5 and 29.9. It generally takes a 28.8 average to clear. I assign points with that in mind. Teams that average 28.8 or higher in a debate mean I thought your points were elimination round-level debates. While it's not an exact science, 29-29.1 means you had a good chance of advancing in elimination rounds, and 29.2+ indicates excellence reserved for quarters+. I'm not stingy with these kinds of points; they have nothing to do with past successes. It has everything to do with your performance in THIS debate.


Etiquette
1. Try to treat each other with mutual respect.

2. Cards and tags should have the same clarity
3. Cards MUST be marked during the speech. Please say, "Mark the card," and please have you OR your partner physically mark the cards in the speech. It is not possible to remember where you've marked your cards after the speech. Saying "mark the card" is the only way to let your judge and competitors know that you do not intend to represent that you've read the entirety of the card. Physically marking the card in the speech is necessary to maintain an accurate account of what you did or didn't read.

Overview
My 25 years in the community have led me to formulate opinions about how the activity should be run. I'm not sharing these with you because I think this is the way you have to debate but because you may get some insight about how to win and earn better speaker points in front of me.

1) Conceded claims without warrants - These aren't complete arguments. A 10-second dropped ASPEC is very unlikely to decide a debate for me. Perm, do the CP without a theoretical justification; it also makes zero sense. Perm - do both needs to be followed by an explanation for how it resolves the link to the net benefit, or it is not an argument.

2) Voting issues are reasons to reject the argument. (Other than conditionality)

3) Debate stays in the round -- Debate is a game of testing ideas and their counterparts. Those ideas presented in the debate will be the sole factor used in determining the winning team. Things said or done outside of this debate round will not be considered when determining a winning team.

4) Your argument doesn't improve by calling it a "DA" -- I'm sure your analytical standard to your framework argument on the K is great, but overstating its importance by labeling it a "DA" isn't accurate. It's a reason to prefer your interpretation.

Topicality vs Conventional Affs: I default to competing interpretations on topicality but can be persuaded by reasonability. Topicality is a voting issue.

Topicality vs Critical Affs: I generally think that policy debate is a good thing and that a team should both have a plan and defend it. Given that, I have no problem voting for "no plan" advocacies or "fiat-less" plans. I will be looking for you to win that your impact turns to topicality/framework outweighs the loss of education/fairness that would be given in a "fiated" plan debate. Affirmative teams struggle with answering the argument that they could advocate most of their aff while defending a topical plan. I also think that teams who stress they are a pre-requisite to topical action have a more difficult time with topical version-type arguments than teams who impact turn standards. If you win that the state is irredeemable at every level, you are much more likely to get me to vote against FW. The K aff teams who have had success in front of me have been very good at generating a good list of arguments that opposing teams could run against them to mitigate the fairness impact of the T/FW argument. This makes the impact turns of a stricter limit much more persuasive to me.

I'm also in the fairness camp as a terminal impact, as opposed to an emphasis on portable skills. I think you can win that T comes before substantive issues.

One note to teams that are neg against an aff that lacks stable advocacy: Make sure you adapt your framework arguments to fit the aff. Don't read..." you must have a plan" if they have a plan. If a team has a plan but doesn't defend fiat, base your ground arguments on that violation.


Counterplans and Disads: The more specific to the aff, the better. There are few things better than a well-researched PIC that just blind sites a team. Objectively, I think counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy are not legitimate. However, I still coach teams to run these arguments, and I can still evaluate a theory debate about these different counterplans as objectively as possible. Again, the more specific the evidence is to the aff, the more legitimate it will appear.


The K: I was a k debater and a philosophy major in college. I prefer criticisms that are specific to the resolution. If your K links don't discuss Intellectual Property rights this year, then it's unlikely to be very persuasive to me.

I also do not think Fiat bad is negative ground. Obviously, that can change based on the debate, but when so many K teams kick their topic-specific links to go for the Fiat K in the 2nr, I can't help but mourn how great the debate would have been actually negating the substance of the affirmative.

Impact comparisons usually become the most important part of a kritik, and the excessive link list becomes the least of a team’s problems heading into the 2nr. It would be best if you won that either a) you turn the case and have an external impact or b) you solve the case and have an external impact. Root cause arguments are sound but rarely address the timeframe issue of case impacts. If you are going to win your magnitude comparisons, then you better do a lot to mitigate the case impacts. I also find most framework arguments associated with a K nearly pointless. Most of them are impacted by the K proper and depend on you winning the K to win the framework argument. Before devoting any more time to the framework beyond getting your K evaluated, you should ask yourself and clearly state to me what happens if you win your theory argument. You should craft your "role of the ballot" argument based on the answer to that question. I am willing to listen to sequencing arguments that EXPLAIN why discourse, epistemology, ontology, etc., come first.


Conclusion: I love debate...good luck if I'm judging you, and please feel free to ask any clarifying questions.

To promote disclosure at the high school level, any team that practices near-universal "open source" will be awarded .2 extra per debater if you bring that to my attention before the RFD.

clara conry - she/her - Minneapolis South 22 - Emory University 26

Email: cc.june20@gmail.com

tech > truth

offense-defense (if you are going for perm do both you need a defecit)

it is extremely obvious when you're not flowing. the amount of high school rounds i've watched this year where it is abundantly clear that not a single person is flowing is egregious. i can SEE you and i can SEE that you have paper out but not a word written.

all my argument biases don't matter as much as technical debating. i won't automatically kick the cp. i'm fine for basically any theory but condo is probably the only reason to reject the team. i find that long explanations of argument biases often don't help that much in mitigating judge bias. especially in policy v policy debates given they usually come down to dropped arguments/explanation.

k debates. i judge a lot of these. i am going to judge them technically ie even if i don't fully understand the minutia of the k as long as i understand what was dropped + there is judge instruction that explains why the argument matters i'm fine. i do think that debate is a game. I'm going to evaluate the flow on a technical level. i will always start evaluating aff v k debates with framework and framework is never a wash.

I need more judge instruction on how winning ontology means you win. "ontology means nuclear war is NUQ" isn't a full argument.

Pronouns - him/he\they
Email(s) - abraham.corrigan@gmail.com, catspathat@gmail.com

Hello!

Thank you for considering me for your debate adjudication needs! Judging is one of my favorite things & I aspire to be the judge I wanted when I debated, namely one who was flexible and would judge the debate based on arguments made by debaters. To do that, I seek to be familiar with all debate arguments and literature bases such that my own ignorance will not be a barrier to judging the arguments you want to go for. This is an ongoing process and aspiration for me rather than an end point, but in general I would say you should probably pref me.

I'm fun!

Sometimes I even have snacks.

<*Judging Quirks*>

- I have absolutely zero poker face and will make a lot of non verbals. Please do not interpret these as concrete/100% definitive opinions of mine but rather as an expression of my initial attempts to place your argument within the particular context of the other arguments advanced in a debate.

- All arguments are evaluated within their particular context - Especially on the negative, as a debater in high school and college I went for and won a lot of debates on arguments which would be described, in a vacuum, as 'bad.' Sometimes, all you have to say is a turd and your rebuttal speeches will largely be what some of my judges described as 'turd-shinning.' This means (unless something extreme is happening which is unethical or triggering my mandatory reporter status as a public school employee) I generally prefer to let the arguments advanced in the debate dictate my view of what is and what isn't a 'good' argument.

- I am not a 'k' or 'policy' judge. I just like debate.

<*My Debate History*>

I am a 2a. This means, if left to my own devices and not instructed not to look for this, the thing that I will implicitly try to do is identify a way to leave stuff better than we found it.

High School

- I debated at H-F HS, in Illinois, for my first two years of debate where I was coached by creeps.

- My junior & senior year in HS I transfered to Glenbrook South where I was coached most by Tara Tate (now retired from debate), Calum Matheson (now at Pitt), & Ravi Shankar (former NU debater).

My partner and I largely went for agenda politics da & process cps or impact turns. We were a bit k curious, but mostly read what would be described as 'policy' arguments.

College

- I debated in college for 4 years at Gonzaga where I was coached by Glen Frappier (still DoF at GU), Steve Pointer (now [mostly] retired from debate), Jeff Buntin (current DoD at NU), Iz-ak Dunn (currently at ASU), & Charles Olney (now [mostly] retired from debate).

My partner and I largely went for what is now be described as 'soft left' arguments on the affirmative and impact turns and unusual counterplans when we were negative.

Coaching

- After graduating, I coached at Northwestern University for a year. My assignments were largely 2ac answers & stuff related to translating high theory arguments made by other teams into things our less k debaters could understand.

- I then moved to Lexington, Kentucky and coached at the University of Kentucky for two years. My assignments were largely aff & all things 2a & answering k stuff on the negative.

- I then coached/did comm graduate work at Wake Forest for two years.

- I then took a break from debate and worked as a paralegal at a law firm which was focused on civil lawsuits against police, prisons, whistleblower protections as well as doing FOIA requests for Buzzfeed.

- I then came back to debate, did some logistics for UK, then worked as an in building assistant coach at GBS.

- I am currently seeking my Masters Degree in teaching.

WFU '23

Now at UT-Austin for grad school

Yes email chain — ask before the debate.

Harvard Update:

This is my first tournament judging on the Energy topic. I’ve been judging a lot of high school rounds this semester and as a result was not at Northwestern or Kentucky. That doesn’t mean idk what’s going on; I’ve done a lot of research from all angles. But it does mean you may need to explain acronyms or solvency intricacies a little more than other judges who have heard you give the same shpiel 20 times. Don’t take the other team’s arguments for granted: even if you think a certain norm about the topic was settled at Northwestern, I wasn’t there so I wouldn’t know.

If you are a team that reads carded evidence, I expect quality to be very high and will find it hard to vote for you if your cards are from Exxon execs or bloggers without degrees when up against an opponent of near-peer skill level with better/more specific/more qualified evidence. Every author on all sides has a take on climate change. Say something smart about it!

Paradigm:

Say what you want and defend what you say. I reward clash of all kinds and dislike cowardice more than almost anything. I will attempt to write down every argument presented in the way you present it, regardless of your argumentative or speaking “style”, to repeat it in my RFD. This means clarity, both in argument explanation and words coming out of your mouth, is imperative. Don’t over-adapt to what you (probably wrongly) think I want to hear. Debate is for the debaters, just have fun and say smart things and I’m your judge.

The only caveat to this is I have very little interest in parsing through interpersonal disputes between debaters over events that occurred outside of the debate round. I understand that sometimes we have personal disagreements with one another as a community founded on discord, and I also understand that sometimes we don't feel comfortable sharing how we feel with the people we disagree with in other interpersonal settings — and that is reasonable. But I struggle to find why the solution to this is to have that precise conversation during a debate round and for judges to insert their own interpretations over events they have little knowledge of. This applies doubly to high school debate. Given this, while I will not ignore any words you say in a debate, you will notice that my decision proper will not pertain to/include the content of personal disagreements tangential to the topics of the debate. To clarify, if you find something the other team has said or done in the debate round to be objectionable, this is obviously fair game and I am more than happy to hear reasons why it should be a voting issue. I think issues of disclosure fall into this category as well given that prep time is part of a debate round and proper disclosure is what enables proper pre-round preparation.

Also, say words if you want me to judge kick the counterplan. I’m indifferent personally, but prefer to go with what debaters say out loud in a debate. If neg conditionality is not contested, saying “the neg should never be stuck with an option worse than the status quo” is sufficient.

Speaker Points:

My speaker points vary widely. This is because the quality of debates I judge vary widely. I make no apology for the points I give. I try to adjust my points to the tournament and division, so for example if you got a 29 at a regional and a 28.5 at a major it does not necessarily mean you got worse (in fact, your performance may have improved!)

Here is my approximate scale for the open division (does not apply to JV and Novice):

30: I've only given one of these in policy debate, and it was due to a combination of celebrating a senior's wonderful career at her last tournament ever along with amazingly proficient execution. Requires devastating speeches that show novel and tailored strategy, technical proficiency, and efficient and effective cross-examination periods (on both sides). A 30 is earned if it is apparent to me that not a single second, word, or breath was wasted in the debate.

29.7-29.9: Near perfect execution. If your performance was replicated consistently, you would deserve to be in the top 5 speakers at the tournament and reach deep elims. I do not give this out very often

29.4-29.6: Great execution, but not novel or exciting/parts of the debate seemed like throwaway arguments. There were a couple missed opportunities or mistakes, but overall a proficient performance. If this speaking was replicated consistently, you would be in the top 20 speakers at the tournament and reach the quarters. This is where most of my higher-end points lie.

29-29.3: Very good execution. If replicated, you might get a speaker award, you'd certainly clear, and you may win an elim. This is where most of my "winning" points lie.

28.7-28.9: Above average execution + you could clear.

28-28.6: On par with the middle of the pack. Speeches need work on technical proficiency, block writing, proper use and comparison of evidence, etc.

27.5-27.9: Speeches and CX execution need work, we're not effectively answering the opponent's arguments, speech order is messy and not cohesive, speaker is unclear and could benefit from speaking drills.

27-27.4: Lack of attention to opponent's arguments, improper division of speech/CX time and energy, dead speech time, ineffective use of prep, etc.

26-26.9: Speeches seem lost, leaving time on the clock, CX is spent asking clarification or "wouldn't you agree that..." questions, etc.

25: You have done something wrong interpersonally and I'm sure we will discuss it before points come out.

LD Addendum:

I've been out of the game for a few years now, but I did just teach three weeks at NSD, which gave me a deep refresher across the vast LD argumentative spectrum.

I will not constitutively rule out any particular style of argument, but I will apply a strict "makes sense" test to all arguments. This applies just as much to a sparsely-highlighted DA as to a misrepresented K or a poorly-explained philosophy argument.

I will not pretend that I understood your arguments if you were unclear in your speech. Clarity comprises both structure, in explanation of arguments, as well as my physical ability to hear and type words coming out of your mouth. If an argument in the first constructive was 5 seconds long, but it comprises several minutes of the rebuttal(s), it will be hard to convince me that it was structurally clear enough to warrant deciding the debate on it (I'm looking at you, "resolved a priori"). If an argument was analytically made at top speed with no pen time and it does not appear on my flow in an earlier speech, it will be near-impossible to convince me that it was physically clear enough to appear in my decision given that my decisions rely on repeating words flowed back to the debaters.

Despite my belief that debate is for the debaters and you should be able to make the arguments you want, I will not pretend that I don't have biases.

Regardless of style, I prefer arguments to be about the topic. I prefer advantages to be germane to the plan presented. I prefer criticisms, on both the aff and neg, to use topic language throughout the evidence presented (whether that's carded evidence or organic scholarship). I prefer Process Counterplans to compete off core resolutional mechanisms. I prefer philosophical syllogisms to reflect core topic controversy rather than rely on tricks or theoretically-justified standards. I prefer topicality arguments to be grounded in evidence interpreting words in the resolution.

This is not to say that I will not vote on your generic positions. I will vote on any argument executed proficiently. However, there is a proportional, linear relationship between the specificity of your arguments and the energy necessary for your opponent to defeat them -- as one goes up, so does the other; as one goes down, so does the other.

Won’t flow RVIs. Make real arguments.

After judging, observing, and coaching a significant number of LD debates at the first tournament, I have concluded this activity has a specific dearth of knowledge surrounding counterplan competition on all sides. Teams who effectively exploit this -- on both sides -- will see an exponential increase in win-rate in front of me. Do with this information what you will.

Procedural Addendum:

I follow along with speech documents because I am curious about evidence quality, applicability, as well as your adherence to the text of the evidence. I have noticed an epidemic of clipping across all debate events that I judge at all skill levels. Clipping is generally defined as misrepresenting the words in your evidence you actually read by highlighting more than what is spoken. The brightline of this is contested, but the most lenient, universally-agreed-upon one is "five words skipped in a row in any card, even once."

To this end, if I notice this, I will apply a "yellow card/red card" method for dealing with speaking infractions. I very much understand it's possible a debater has clipped despite their trying not to/without their knowledge. They're stressed, trying to go fast, and sometimes are reading cards they haven't read before (in some instances, they've never read cards before!). Even more, sometimes people have trouble processing words quickly so they don't even know that they've skipped anything because their brain hasn't told them or they're scrolling too fast. I am sympathetic to all of this. Given that, if I notice that a team debating in front of me has clipped and it seems unintentional (it's less than 5 words in a row here or there, or it only happens once), I will let you know after the debate as a warning for the future. If it happens again in another debate, the debater who clipped will lose with 25 speaker points. If it is particularly egregious the first time around, you may lose the debate without a warning. However, for the educational merit of the activity, I will still flow and detail a decision I would have given if it was not decided on clipping.

Yay debate!

My email is ian.k.dill [at] gmail

I am a graduate student and coach at the University of Texas. My graduate studies are in public policy, with a focus on global agrarian policy, sustainability, and ecological economics. I previously taught at Churchill high school and coached for Trinity University. I debated at Trinity for 4 years and at Highland Park in Minnesota for 4 years.

I strongly prefer more academically rigorous arguments. I will reward you for reading and leveraging qualified evidence (peer reviewed, written by people with relevant quals, from reputable sites , etc). When you are pointing me towards evidence to read you should compare qualifications and ev quality explicitly. Don't expect me to do that comparison for you when I am making the decision.

I will not vote for incomplete arguments (claim and warrant). "no perms its a method debate" or "da's not intrinsic" are not sufficient arguments on which I will decide a debate.

Topicality: I like T debates quite a lot, and have no qualms voting for T against any aff if the offense is clearly outlined by the neg, and impact calculus is done well. Caselists and evidence quality are important.

Kritiks: Specificity is the key. I most enjoy k debating that relies on da's to the plan as well as broader philosophical disagreements. I am happy to vote on "link is a da that turns case + try or die for alt" as well as "framework + link." I think the former is underutilized, but requires good case debating, evidence, and a well thought-out answer to perm double bind.

Specificity on the aff is also key. That means explaining how the perm solves the links. It also means explicitly answering links beginning in the 2ac. When I vote for the k, I find that it is often because the aff hasn't answered the thesis claim supporting the links, turns case, and framework arguments. Make sure you dedicate time to identifying and answering that thesis.

Counterplans: Counterplans should be both textually and functionally competitive. I will always reward the recutting of a cp from aff ev. I also think a lot of counterplans cheat, and will be receptive to theory presses against cp's that compete based on definitions of 'should' or 'resolved', for example.

planless affs/framework: I think debate is inevitably competitive and intrinsically valuable. Affs answering framework should clearly outline what debates look like under their interpretation. I enjoy non-fw strategies with well-researched, specific links.

Theory: Do not make weak theory arguments in the 2ac, add specific analysis about the argument you are debating. Also slow down when delivering them.

Random things: I won't flow things being said by anyone besides the person giving the speech.

judge kick: unless complete arguments are made to the contrary by either side, I will default to the logical option. This usually either means judge kicking the cp or voting for a perm that shields the link.

Debated 4 years at Dowling HS in Des Moines, Iowa (09-12, Energy, Poverty, Military, Space)
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School

UPDATE 10/1: CX is closed and lasts three minutes after constructive. I won't listen to questions or answers outside of those three minutes or made by people that aren't designated for that CX. I think it's a bummer that a lot of CXs get taken over by one person on each team. It doesn't give me the opportunity to evaluate debaters or for debaters to grow in areas where they might struggle. I'm going to start using my rounds to curb that.

Top Level
Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.

Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)

General
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.

Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.

CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.

Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.

T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.

Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.

K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.

Speaker points.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.

FOR ONLINE DEBATE- please please please go 70% of your top speed and send all analytics- it is very difficult to catch blips and high tech clash over zoom.

My pronouns are he/him. I'd love to be on the email chain. henry.eberhart@gmail.com

If you are an inexperienced debater, WELCOME! Do your best, I believe in you. I'm here to help and provide feedback! Do your best to explain why your impacts are more important than your opponents, and you will do well!

Now for the Nat circuit nerds,

TLDR: As a debater my goal was to go into every tournament reading something that nobody else is reading. If you are a debater who thinks the same way pref me. I will listen to and evaluate fairly rounds with a common recycled aff vs the camp politics da, they just aren't the rounds I've had the most experience with.

I was a performance and k debater in high school. I went 1 off k basically every single round my sophomore -> senior year. I won't front and say that I'm some magical "blank slate" judge. My internal biases will probably lean me toward arguments I read, but this bias is extremely easy to overcome if you debate clearly and explain why I should vote for you.

Truth> Tech. Let me explain myself. If one debater spits some truth, and your response is to spew off 10 blips from your block file that aren't responsive, and they drop 7 of them, I will be very likely to vote for some truth, and not for 7 conceded analytical blips. But if your opponent concedes an argument, and you spend time to develop it, flesh it out, warrant, impact, weigh, then I will vote for it. That's what I mean when I say Truth>Tech.

critical arguments: These arguments are important. It is my personal belief that kritik literature ought not be run for the sole purpose of strategy. The violences that you speak of in round impacts many in the debate community and the world at large. Please approach these arguments with care and respect.

Theory/tricks: *UPDATE* I have been judging worse and worse theory rounds and am now willing to gut check shells if I do not think they are legitimate abuse. If your strategy is running 1ar thoery and random 1nc shells for the sake of out tech-ing your opponent, I am not the judge for you. At the very least your speaks will be as low as I can go without walking to tab.

I do not vote on skepticism.

Non-black people should not run afropessimism (https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/)

You should probably disclose if you have the ability to do so ("ability to do so"= your school won't threaten your program due to the arguments you make, your parents won't react negatively if they see your arguments, etc, etc)

I'm cool with speed if I have a doc, do slow down a little in rebuttals, or I will miss arguments.

High speaks if you make me laugh.

If you use actively oppressive argumentation or argue for oppression in any light (racism, sexism, classism, hetero-patriarchy, settler colonialism, ableism, etc), I will stop the round immediately, vote you down and go to tab so I can give you 0 speaks.

If you have any questions on my paradigm, ask me before round!

updated sept 2024

i debated [2019-2024] at Iowa and read primarily critical arguments on both the aff and the neg. i have a background in plan-style debating and did that in HS and the start of college so run what you're good at. i judge off the flow and am comfortable adjudicating whatever style of debate I am put in. i will admit that the part of debate i find the most interesting, useful, and engaging will always be critical debate. however, my main goal as judge will always be to be an educator, not to be influenced by my personal argumentative biases. overcorrection to appease my biases likely will go poorly for you. so please just do what you do best (this includes fwk, despite popular belief). judge instruction is super important for me, and i often find myself voting for the team who has outframed their opponent, this means top 30sec of the 2a/nr should be writing my ballot for me. i flow cx and you should too, i tend to reward teams who utilize their cx in speeches and find myself using cx moments in my rfds more than most.

please put me on chains -- ask me for email before the round if u dont have it.

clipping and offensive behavior is an auto L + contacting coaches.

for online debates: zoom audio is garbage so please prioritize clarity over speed. also probably dont start a speech if my camera is off

didn't think i'd have to add this but... I am all for debaters questioning my RFD, if something doesn't make sense to you please ask me to elaborate and I will. however, if the way you go about questioning me is disrespectful to me or the other debaters in the room (ie laughing at what i have to say, belittling opponents' arguments, etc) you should probably not pref me.

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net,

I am the head debate coach at Washburn Rural High School. I dedicate a large portion of my free time to coaching and teaching debate. I will work very hard during debates to keep an accurate flow of what is being said and to provide the best feedback possible to the debaters that are participating. I cannot promise to be perfect, but I will do my best to listen to your arguments and help you grow as a debater, just like I do with the students that I coach at Washburn Rural.

Because I care about debate and enjoy watching people argue and learn, I prefer debates where people respond to the arguments forwarded by their opponents. I prefer that they do so in a respectful manner that makes debate fun. Tournaments are long and stressful, so being able to enjoy a debate round is of paramount importance to me. Not being able to have fun in a debate is not a reason I will ever vote against a team, but you will see your speaker points rise if you seem to be enjoying the activity and make it a more enjoyable place for those you are competing against.

I will do my best to adjudicate whatever argument you decide to read in the debate. However, I would say that I generally prefer that the affirmative defend a topical change from the status quo and that the negative team says that change from the status quo is a bad idea. I am not the best judge on the planet for affs without a plan (see the first part of the previous statement), but I am far from the worst. I am not the best judge on the planet for process counterplans (see the second part of the previous statement), but I am far from the worst. Much like having fun, the above things are preferences, not requirements for winning a debate.

Topic specific things about intellectual property rights:

• The neg is in a tough spot on this year's topic in terms of generics. If you are good at debating topicality, it will likely not be difficult to convince me that a more limited version of the topic could be better. However, limits for the sake of limits is not really a persuasive argument, so a big limits DA alone does not automatically result in a negative victory.
• Equally debated, I can be convinced that the mere presence of resolutional words in the plan is insufficient to prove that the affirmative's mandate is topical.
• Please debate the affirmative case. I know it can be tempting to just impact turn the aff, but generally the scenario you are turning lacks solvency or an internal link, and perhaps that would be a better use of your time than ripping into heg bad cards off your laptop for 13 minutes.
• This topic is dense and difficult to research. Speaks will likely reward teams who engagein specific research, affirmative or negative, for the positions that they present.
• We are in an election year. One of the most important things that young people can do is read about and learn about the election. IPR links are not very good, but if you think about the way some of these plans would be exploited by one party or the other in other ways, I can easily be convinced that elections is a viable disadvantage.

About me/TL;DR:

• She/her
• Debated at Iowa City West High School 2014-2018
• Education: UMich - Bachelor's ('22) and Master's ('23) studying Economics, Cognitive Science, Biopsychology, Cognition and Neuroscience (BCN), and Management (Master's)

If you get one thing out of my paradigm, it's that I don't flow off docs, I don't look at docs during the debate, and I only look at cards if the debate is really close and the debate hinges on 1-3 cards and there's something about the card itself that is contested (rare event).

Another thing: prep stops when you hit send on your email, not "stop prep, okay I'm sending it out"

With that being said, please put me on the email chain: laernst@umich.edu just in case that rare situation happens.

I have a name, please use it. I will be sad if I am only referred to as "judge".

IF ONLINE: please speak a little slower (tech sound distortion makes you and me sad), and hold timers away from your computer mic, I'm jumpy and the loud beeps are yucky to my brain(especially if they're mid speech, I will likely stop flowing for a sec and potentially miss something)

Ask questions if you want clarification or if I forgot anything :)

Please put trigger warnings on your args as needed and ask if they're okay before the round (for the sake of myself and your opponents) -- one caveat: please do not read su*cide arguments in front of me -- I will go to tab and get you a different judge if needed but no one wants to deal with me crying in the back.

Long Overview --

I debated primarily policy arguments throughout high school and if you rely on jargon my brain will shut off and you will be just as frustrated with me as I am with you. However, I'll be open to whatever you want to debate, just be aware I might need additional explanation. In general, case-specific everything is wonderful. I also actually enjoy well-executed kritiks, just don't read a 2-minute overview, and if you say "sarcophagous DA" I will mentally cry.

Caveat to "open to whatever": if you make the round an unsafe space (race, gender, mental health, disability, etc based), I will end the round, drop you and give you the lowest speaks I can and probably follow up with your coach. Be mature, and good people. If you think "can I say this?" don't. Also, asking for pronouns is always okay. You also are never obligated to share your pronouns.

Also, debate is supposed to be fun, not stressful. Have fun, be nice, and if you make me laugh or excited your speaks will increase. Also, if you get excited about an argument, I'll get excited because smiles and laughter are contagious.

I vote on what I can give a coherent RFD on. If I look lost, I probably am. Help me help you. If at the end of the round, I don't understand your theory, I will not vote on it. I avoid going into the email chain and I do not flow off speech docs. I make decisions based on the shortest path.

Since I do not flow off of speech docs, I would recommend looking up occasionally to see if I am flowing. If I'm not and you want me to be, slow down and fix your clarity. It is not on me to fix your clarity. I will stop flowing and stare at you if I can't understand what you're saying. Oh I also flow cross x. Same thing applies. During cross and in general, remember you should be facing and speaking to the judge. Also, if it's early, you should slow down, no one can go their fastest first thing in the morning.

It has recently come to my attention that ethics violations with respect to broken links, forgetting authors in a cite, etc., are popular ballot-winning tactics. I, for the most part, will not vote on this. Save your crappy ethics violation for a different round, you probably need those 20 seconds to explain a warrant in your card. That being said, if something is legitimately an ethics violation (e.g. clipping cards), I'll vote on that in a heartbeat.

Generic stuff --

I will do my best to be open if you're doing your best to communicate. Debate isn't about who can speak the fastest, it's about who can EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE ARGUMENTS the best (aka how many arguments the judge gets on their flow per minute). I love watching people do what they love and I love to learn, so feel free to do whatever as long as you're confident you can communicate your argument to me and teach me something.

I will not make arguments for you, something has to be on the flow and I try to avoid judge intervention as much as possible. Also along those lines, dropped = true, but you have to tell me WHY IT MATTERS that they dropped it. Otherwise, I'll be frustrated.

If you make any argument vaguely related to behavioral or decision science there will be at least a small part of me that gets really excited, especially if it's psychology related.

My high school experience would land me squarely in the "policy" camp, but y'know I'm here to watch you do something you love so don't stop doing what you love because you're afraid I'll drop you on principle. I read big stick policy affs my first two years in high school, then ended with my senior year reading a soft left aff I cared about and going for the cap k consistently (was a 2A, switched to 2N). Also, I discovered that I like Ks more after finishing my undergrad and returning to debate.

T --

I default to competing interpretations, usually because reasonability is incorrectly debated most of the time. Reasonability applies to the definition, not the aff, that is, is your definition something a reasonable person thinks that word means. Please go slower on T. Don't spread it like you would a card because I'll miss half your standards and everyone will be sad at the end of the debate. Probably especially you.

K --

I'm most comfortable with cap and security. Pomo usually makes me want to cry because it relies so heavily on jargon. If you can successfully explain your kritik with minimal (preferably zero) jargon, I am 110% here for that. However, I am not heavily versed in the lit. The same goes for identity Ks. I love a good identity debate, but I'll need additional explanation because I do not read the lit. Psychoanalysis is a) a pseudo-science, b) written by Freud and I just disagree with what he called "science," and c) is usually not deployed well in debate. I will vote on it, but I'll be sad.

The alt better solve the impacts of the kritik. Otherwise, everyone will be sad.

Also, it'll be difficult to convince me to exclude either the aff or the k.

If I haven't made it clear enough, I hate jargon. It's a crutch and to me, usually functions as words to freak the other team out. My main issue with kritiks is that the theories behind them are usually deployed poorly in debate and come off as an attempt to confuse or intimidate the other team. I am intrigued by the theories behind most Ks, so please explain your argument to me, I'd love to learn more about your theories.

Planless affs --

Look, I went for f/w consistently. I can be persuaded either way, but everyone has to do explanation otherwise I'm going to be sad. Specific analysis of each other's arguments makes the debate better for everyone. I'd rather see a negative strategy engaging with the thesis of the aff rather than framework. For the love of debate and coherent RFDs please explain things.

Aff, labeling your DAs is nice and all but "Sarcophagus DA" makes me sad. That tells me not a lot about the DA and honestly, you probably could have made the same argument without labeling it as a DA. Also, if you show that there is a role for the neg in your world of debate, I am much more likely to vote for you.

Rejecting debate altogether will probably make me sad.

Neg, fairness can be won as an impact in itself, but can also be an internal link to other stuff - e.g. there's a distinction between fairness as a competitive incentive and fairness in terms of education. Make your analysis specific to the aff, don't just read the blocked-out version that your coach gave you.

Topic-specific planless affs actually make me really happy. There was an identity team that I debated on the education topic that had a beautiful model minority aff without a plan and I loved that debate. If you can teach me, great.

CP --

I love me a smart counterplan. Be it a PIC or winged in the 1NC because of a card in the 1AC, if it's smart and kinda sneaky I love it. However, don't be awful and read a lot of one-liner counterplans because that ends up being a waste of paper which will make me sad because I like trees. Plus that sucks as a 2A and I'll listen to theory.

Process counterplans are cool IF THE PROCESS MAKES SENSE IN CONTEXT OF THE AFF. Throwing a process CP at an aff and hoping it sticks is bad. I'll listen to process theory, but it usually isn't a reason to reject the team. These just get kinda tricky so you'd better have a darn good explanation for competition and a legitimate net benefit that isn't contrived and just kinda awful *insert snarky GBN comment here*

2 advocacies, you're fine. 3, you're probably still okay. 4 is pushing it, but if you have a really good reason you might be able to pull it off.

Disclaimer, since I was a 2A for a while, I am sympathetic to theory. However, I usually default to reject the argument, not the team (add reasoning for this please please please if you spread theory I'll be sad).

Theory (because it fits under counterplans best)-- I will just about only vote on condo unless it's something that is never answered but is impacted out. Please, if I have to vote on intrinsic bad or severance bad for a perm you do not go for because you forgot to say "reject the argument not the team solves all of their offense," I will be SAD. Seriously, could be the LAST SPEECH OF THE ROUND AND YOU DROPPED IT THE REST OF THE ROUND BECAUSE IT WAS BLIPPY and I'll grant "reject the arg not the team."

DA --

The more case-specific the better. I am a fan of storytelling and if you can coherently explain link chains and internal links and have it sound more plausible than some DAs sound, I'll be happy.

I feel like I have to mention politics DAs at some point in this. I love politics but gut check yourself, don't pick your most obscure scenario, and hope the other team doesn't have answers because if it's that obscure, a good 2A will wipe the floor with you with just analytics.

For economics, please understand the economic theory behind your disad. I studied econ and I enjoy these arguments, but they're bad disads when not understood or executed poorly. Hopefully it's not an issue this year.

Also, case turns are good. Really good.

email: eforslund@gmail.com

Copied and Pasted from my judge philosophy wiki page.

Recent Bio:

Director of Debate at Pace Academy

15 years judging and coaching high school debate. First at Damien High School then at Greenhill. Generally only judge a handful of college rounds a year.

Zero rounds on the current college topic in 2020.

Coached at the University of Wyoming 2004-2005.

I have decided to incentivize reading strategies that involve talking about the specifics of the affirmative case. Too many high school teams find a terrible agent or process cp and use politics as a crutch. Too many high school teams pull out their old, generic, k's and read them regardless of the aff. As an incentive to get away from this practice I will give any 2N that goes for a case-only strategy an extra point. If this means someone who would have earned a 29 ends up with a 30, then so be it. I would rather encourage a proliferation of higher speaker points, then a proliferation of bad, generic arguments. If you have to ask what a case strategy involves, then you probably aren't going to read one. I'm not talking about reading some case defense and going for a disad, or a counterplan that solves most of the aff. I'm talking about making a majority of the debate a case debate -- and that case debate continuing into the 2NR.

You'll notice "specificity good" throughout my philosophy. I will give higher points to those teams that engage in more specific strategies, then those that go for more generic ones. This doesnt mean that I hate the k -- on the contrary, I wouldn't mind hearing a debate on a k, but it needs to be ABOUT THE AFF. The genero security k doesnt apply to the South Korean Prostitutes aff, the Cap k doesnt apply to the South Korea Off-Shore Balancing aff - and you arent likely to convince me otherwise. But if you have an argument ABOUT the affirmative --especially a specific k that has yet to be read, then you will be rewarded if I am judging you.

I have judged high-level college and high school debates for the last 14 years. That should answer a few questions that you are thinking about asking: yes, speed is fine, no, lack of clarity is not. Yes, reading the k is ok, no, reading a bunch of junk that doesn't apply to the topic, and failing to explain why it does is not.

The single most important piece of information I can give you about me as a judge is that I cut a lot of cards -- you should ALWAYS appeal to my interest in the literature and to protect the integrity of that literature. Specific is ALWAYS better than generic, and smart strategies that are well researched should ALWAYS win out over generic, lazy arguments. Even if you dont win debates where you execute specifics, you will be rewarded.

Although my tendencies in general are much more to the right than the rest of the community, I have voted on the k many times since I started judging, and am generally willing to listen to whatever argument the debaters want to make. Having said that, there are a few caveats:

1. I don't read a lot of critical literature; so using a lot of terms or references that only someone who reads a lot of critical literature would understand isn’t going to get you very far. If I don’t understand your arguments, chances are pretty good you aren’t going to win the debate, no matter how persuasive you sound. This goes for the aff too explain your argument, don’t assume I know what you are talking about.

2. You are much better off reading critical arguments on the negative then on the affirmative. I tend to believe that the affirmative has to defend a position that is at least somewhat predictable, and relates to the topic in a way that makes sense. If they don’t, I am very sympathetic to topicality and framework-type arguments. This doesn’t mean you can’t win a debate with a non-traditional affirmative in front of me, but it does mean that it is going to be much harder, and that you are going to have to take topicality and framework arguments seriously. To me, predictability and fairness are more important than stretching the boundaries of debate, and the topic. If your affirmative defends a predictable interpretation of the topic, you are welcome to read any critical arguments you want to defend that interpretation, with the above stipulations.

3. I would much rather watch a disad/counterplan/case debate than some other alternative.

In general, I love a good politics debate - but - specific counterplans and case arguments are THE BEST strategies. I like to hear new innovative disads, but I have read enough of the literature on this year’s topic that I would be able to follow any deep debate on any of the big generic disads as well.

As far as theory goes, I probably defer negative a bit more in theory debates than affirmative. That probably has to do with the fact that I like very well thought-out negative strategies that utilize PICS and specific disads and case arguments. As such, I would much rather see an affirmative team impact turn the net benefits to a counterplan then to go for theory (although I realize this is not always possible). I really believe that the boundaries of the topic are formed in T debates at the beginning of the year, therefore I am much less willing to vote on a topicality argument against one of the mainstream affirmatives later on in the year than I am at the first few tournaments. I’m not going to outline all of the affs that I think are mainstream, but chances are pretty good if there are more than a few teams across the country reading the affirmative, I’m probably going to err aff in a close T debate.

One last thing, if you really want to get high points in front of me, a deep warming debate is the way to go. I would be willing to wager that I have dug further into the warming literature than just about anybody in the country, and I love to hear warming debates. I realize by this point most teams have very specific strategies to most of the affirmatives on the topic, but if you are wondering what advantage to read, or whether or not to delve into the warming debate on the negative, it would be very rewarding to do so in front of me -- at the very least you will get some feedback that will help you in future debates.

Ok, I lied, one more thing. Ultimately I believe that debate is a game. I believe that debaters should have fun while debating. I realize that certain debates get heated, however do your best not to be mean to your partner, and to the other team. There are very few things I hate more than judging a debate where the teams are jerks to each other. Finally, although I understand the strategic value to impact turning the alternative to kritiks and disads (and would encourage it in most instances), there are a few arguments I am unwilling to listen to those include: sexism good, racism good, genocide good, and rape good. If you are considering reading one of those arguments, don’t. You are just going to piss me off.

Yes, email chain. debateoprf@gmail.com

ME:

Debater--The University of Michigan '91-'95

Head Coach--Oak Park and River Forest HS '15-'20

Assistant Coach--New Trier Township High School '20-

POLICY DEBATE:

Top Level

--Old School Policy.

--Like the K on the Neg. Harder sell on the Aff.

--Quality of Evidence Counts. Massive disparities warrant intervention on my part. You can insert rehighlightings. There should not be a time punishment for the tean NOT reading weak evidence.

--Not great with theory debates.

--I value Research and Strategic Thinking (both in round and prep) as paramount when evaluating procedural impacts.

--Utter disdain for trolly Theory args, Death Good, Wipeout and Spark. Respect the game, win classy.

Advantage vs Disadvantage

More often than not, I tend to gravitate towards the team that wins probability. The more coherent and plausible the internal link chain is, the better.

Zero risk is a thing.

I can and will vote against an argument if cards are poor exclusive of counter evidence being read.

Not a big fan of Pre-Fiat DA's: Spending, Must Pass Legislation, Riders, etc. I will err Aff on theory unless the Neg has some really good evidence as to why not.

I love nuanced defense and case turns. Conversely, I love link and impact turns. Please run lots of them.

Counterplans

Short answer to every question is "Having a solvency advocate solves all neg problems."

Conditionality—

I am largely okay with a fair amount of condo. i.e. 4-5 not a big deal for me. I will become sympathetic to Aff Theory ONLY if the Neg starts kicking straight turned arguments. On the other hand, if you go for Condo Bad and can't answer Strat Skew Inevitable, Idea Testing Good and Hard Debate is Good Debate then don't go for Condo Bad. I have voted Aff on Conditionality Theory, but rarely.

Competition—

1. I have grown weary of vague plan writing. To that end, I tend think that the Neg need only win that the CP is functionally competitive. The Plan is about advocacy and cannot be a moving target.

2. Perm do the CP? Intrinsic Perms? I am flexible to Neg if they have a solvency advocate or the Aff is new. Otherwise, I lean Aff.

Other Stuff—

PIC’s and Agent CP’s are part of our game. I err Neg on theory. Ditto 50 State Fiat.

No object Fiat, please. Or International Fiat on a Domestic Topic.

Otherwise, International Fiat is a gray area for me. The Neg needs a good Interp that excludes abusive versions. Its winnable.

Solvency advocates and New Affs make me lean Neg on theory.

If you don't have one, it is acceptable in cases where CP's just ban something detrimental to impact. That just shows good strategic thinking.

I will judge kick automatically unless given a decent reason why not in the 1AR.

K-Affs

If you lean on K Affs, just do yourself a favor and put me low or strike me. I am not unsympathetic to your argument per se, I just vote on Framework 60-70% of the time and it rarely has anything to do with your Aff.

That said, if you can effectively impact turn Framework, beat back a TVA and Switch Side Debate, you can get my ballot.

Topic relevance is important.

If your goal is to make blanket statements about why certain people are good or bad or should be excluded from valuable discussions then I am not your judge. We are all flawed.

I do not like “debate is bad” arguments. I don't think that being a "small school" is a reason why I should vote for you.

Kritiks vs Policy Affs

Truth be told, I vote Neg on Kritiks vs Policy Affs A LOT.

I am prone to voting Aff on Perms, so be advised College Debaters. I have no take on "philosophical competition" but it does seem like a thing.

I am not up on the Lit AT ALL, so the polysyllabic word stews you so love to concoct are going to make my ears bleed.

I like reading cards after the debate and find myself understanding nuance better when I can. If you don’t then you leave me with only the bad handwriting on my flow to decipher what you said an hour later and that’s not good for anybody.

When I usually vote Neg its because the Aff has not done a sufficient job in engaging with core elements of the K, such as Ontology, Root Cause Claims, etc.

I am not a great evaluator of Framework debates and will usually err for the team that accesses Education Impacts the best.

Topicality

Because it theoretically serves an external function that affects other rounds, I do give the Aff a fair amount of leeway when the arguments start to wander into a gray area. The requirement for Offense on the part of the Affirmative is something on which I place little value. Put another way, the Aff need only prove that they are within the predictable confines of research and present a plan that offers enough ground on which to run generic arguments. The Negative must prove that the Affirmative skews research burdens to a point in which the topic is unlimited to a point beyond 20-30 possible cases and/or renders the heart of the topic moot.

Plan Text in a Vacuum is a silly defense. In very few instances have I found it defensible. If you choose to defend it, you had better be ready to defend the solvency implications.

Limits and Fairness are not in and of themselves an impact. Take it to the next level.

Why I vote Aff a lot:

--Bad/Incoherent link mechanics on DA’s

--Perm do the CP

--CP Solvency Deficits

--Framework/Scholarship is defensible

--T can be won defensively

Why I vote Neg a lot:

--Condo Bad is silly

--Weakness of aff internal links/solvency

--Offense that turns the case

--Sufficiency Framing

--You actually had a strategy

PUBLIC FORUM SUPPLEMENT:

I judge about 1 PF Round for every 50 Policy Rounds so bear with me here.

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at things from a cost benefit perspective. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Impacts need to be tangible.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote on what is on the flow (yes, I flow) and keep my personal opinions of arguments in check as much as possible. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

While I am not a fan of formal “Kritik” arguments in PF, I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. Racism and Sexism will not be tolerated. You can attack your opponents scholarship.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. Again, I am not a fan of the Kritik, but if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Often the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance and not style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

UK, Niles North

CONTACT

---add arielgabay1710@gmail.com

---please also add: devanemdebate@gmail.com

GENERAL

---I love debate, I think it is the greatest thing ever and I understand how much work it takes to do the activity. I will try and meet everyone halfway and try hard to judge.

---technical execution overdetermines everything. I will try my absolute hardest to be non-interventionist and minimize it, in any regard, to as close to zero as I can. That said, in some debates, that's impossible, and if that is the case, I will let debaters know why I intervened, but will try and optimize that intervention towards what I believe is most fair.

---what I mean by this is that I have zero preference for what argument you go for, debaters work hard and are passionate about different things, you should let rip whatever you feel best increases the chances of you winning, nothing is off the table.

---this is purposefully short for the reason that I do not want you to try and 'adapt' to me, rather I want you to debate in the ways you most enjoy, and as long as it results in technical proficiency, I will try my absolute best to meet you half-way.

OTHER

---please let me know if you are interested in debating in college, and want to know more about kentucky, don't hesitate to ask via email or at tournaments!! I almost always have kentucky debate stickers in my bag.

---I do not like dead time and will lower speaks and take prep if it gets egregious. for every 3 minutes, the round starts after the posted start time -0.2 speaks to the team whose fault it is (obv accidents or whatever happened). Adrienne Brovero has a thorough list of things she would include as dead time that I agree with, but if you have any confusion about whether something is or isn't deadtime, assume it is.

Lily - not "judge" :) - she/they

Walter Payton ‘22

Michigan ‘26

Asst. Coach at Niles North

Please include me on the email chain - lily.g.debate@gmail.com AND nilesnorthdocs@gmail.com
Please send word docs, not google docs :)

First and foremost, BE NICE TO EACH OTHER, and do not be arrogant. Debate is (supposed to be) fun!

I love debate. It was one of the best parts of my high school career and is something I actively enjoy doing in college. Debate is for the debaters. I will work as hard as possible while judging and will give the same care and commitment to the debate that I would like if I was debating.

I have done both kinds of argumentation: policy and kritikal. I feel confident evaluating either. However, I am probably less familiar with the HS topic than you are, so please be deliberate in explaining key concepts.

I will not vote on things that happened out of round.

If you read an ethics violation, I will ask if you want me to stop the round and go to Tab. If you do not want me to do that, I will ignore said violation.

That being said, I’m good to vote on pretty much any argument that is likely to be introduced, as long as there are warrants to do so. I would vote on wipeout, afropessimism, Russia war good, libertarianism, structural violence is a d-rule that outweighs extinction, spark, the reverse security K, framework is a micro-aggression that outweighs the impacts to their model, T 3-tier, etc. Harassment in round becomes a Tabroom issue, but I am extremely confident that any argument introduced by debaters trying to win will be okay, and the only limiting factor will be my ability to keep up with the flow.

I don't like judges who pretend to be tech over truth but then vote on the perceived quality of an argument. Whether or not a judge "buys" an argument is irrelevant to whether or not a debater won that argument. I read arguments I don't believe and will try to win on them, I expect you all to do the same. I will reward the strategic deployment and technical execution of bad arguments; I will not punish the better debaters for being scrappy.

I am a philosophy major, so I feel pretty comfortable with a variety of theory lit bases, regardless of how common they are in debate. I think that this can either help or hurt you, that is to say that you should be careful about shoddily explaining philosophical ideas in front of me. If you are wrong, but technically ahead or the other team doesn't point this out, I will always give it to you, but I might be a little grumpy about it and give you a long boring explanation in the RFD.

One of my biggest pet peeves is when debaters immediately take their opponents' arguments in bad faith and give them a weak read. You should ALWAYS give your opponents’ arguments the strongest read so that you are arguing against the most threatening version of their points. Chances are, what they are actually saying is not going to be as threatening as you take it to be, but if you argue against the best possible interpretation, then you set yourself up for success when the actual argument ends up falling short. This is both best academic practice and will help you win debate rounds. If you assume that the other team’s arguments are bad/dumb/stupid without trying to hear them out or listening to their articulation of said arguments, you will often be operating under a different understanding than the judge (me). I will be listening and TRYING to understand both teams, you should too.

In person:

- Make sure you're facing me during CX and speeches.

Online:

- Please turn your cameras ON for CX and during speeches, it'll be better for your speaks! Plus looking at an actual person talk is so much more interesting that staring at a black box for 8 minutes.

- My camera will always be on, if it isn't that usually means there is a problem with my wifi/tech so wait until you can see me before you start your speech.

- When sending speech docs PLEASE do not just share one big 2AC/2NC/1NR doc that has every arg your team prepped and then make me scroll through it while you skip the args that were not read in the round. You should send a doc that only has cards you are going to read that are relevant to the round.

Background

First, and most importantly, I am a Black man. I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge. Summer '22 I chaired the Wording Committee for NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection; do with this information what you want.

Include me on all email chains at cgdebate1906@gmail.com. If it’s a policy round then ALSO includelrchdebatedocs@gmail.com,If it’s an LD round then ALSO include lrc.lddocs@gmail.com please and thank you

Randoms

I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole

I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just run them.

I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim. I flow on a computer so I need typing time. Your speed will always outpace my ability to type; please be conscious of this.

Intentionally saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me. That being said, I’m sure most people would prefer to win straight up and not because a person was rhetorically problematic, in round.

Judge Commitments

I’m SO sick and tired of circuit-level teams/competitors providing NON-circuit/lay judges to cover their commitment. Debaters spend a LOT of time crafting/drafting arguments and deserve to come to tournaments and have judges who will work equally as hard, when it comes to evaluating debates. If I am judging you and your school did/does NOT provide quality judging then expect me to be more arbitrary in judging debates than I would normally; if you are unwilling to provide others with a quality judge experience then I have no qualms giving bad, arbitrary, or other non-flow based decisions. IF you want me to provide you with a quality judging experience then you should populate the pool with similar-minded people. If you are unsure of what constitutes non-quality judging then see the non-comprehensive list below:

- parent judges

- lay judges

- judges who refuse to listen to certain arguments because they don’t like them (excluding tricks)

- judges who would prefer high school kids capitulate to what THEY want and not what the kids want to discuss

We as a community understand that some people cannot hire out judges and maybe only their parent is available but the lack of training that they give to those parents/certain questionable ways that they teach them to judge are still not good. In short, if you want me to be the best version of myself then provide other judges who are willing to work equally as hard.

Update for Online Debate

Asking "is anyone not ready" before an online speech an excise in futility; if someone's computer is glitching they have no way of telling you they aren’t ready. Wait for verbal/nonverbal confirmation that all individuals are ready before beginning your speech, please. If my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech. Online debate makes speed a problem for all of us. Anything above 75% of your top speed ensures I will miss something; govern yourselves accordingly.

Please make sure I can see your face/mouth when you are speaking if at all possible. I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I understand how invasive of an ask this is. If you CANNOT for reasons (tech, personal reasons, etc.) I am completely ok with going on with the camera off. Debate is inherently an exclusive activity, if the camera on is a problem I would rather not even broach the issue.

I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case someone's internet cuts out. When this issue arises, a local recording is a life saver. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent; that is a quick way to earn a one-way trip to L town sponsored by my ballot.

Lastly, if the round is scheduled to start at 2, don’t show up to the room asking for my email at 1:58. Be in the room by tech time (it’s there for a reason) so that you can take care of everything in preparation for the round. 2 o’clock start time means the 1ac is being read at 2, not the email chain being set up at 2. Timeliness, or lack thereof, is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves. Too often debaters are too cavalier with time. Two things to keep in mind: 1) it shortens my decision time and 2) it’s a quick way to short yourself on speaks (I’m real get-off-my-lawn about this).

Short Version

My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated, I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author(s) use.

I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.

T-USfg

Yes I coach primarily K teams but I have voted for T/framework quite often; win the argument and you win my ballot. Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.

I am less persuaded by fairness arguments; I think fairness is more of an internal link to a more concrete impact (e.g., truth testing, argument refinement). Affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.

When aff teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they neglect to articulate why the claims they make in the 1ac implicate/inform the neg’s interp and impacts here. A lot of times they go for a poorly explained, barely extended impact turn without doing the necessary work of using the aff to implicate the neg’s standards.

When neg teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they don’t engage the aff. Often times, I find myself having a low bar for presumption when the aff is poorly explained (both in speeches and CX) yet neg teams rarely use this to their advantage. A good framework-centered 2NR versus most k affs involves some type of engagement on case (solvency deficit, presumption, case turn, etc.) and your framework claims; I think too often the neg gives the aff full risk of their aff and solvency which gives them more weight on impact turns than they should have. If you don’t answer the aff AT ALL in the 2NR I will have a hard time voting for you; 2AR’s would be smart to point this out and leverage this on the impact debate.

If you want toread a kritik of debate,I have no problems with that. While, in a vacuum, I think debate is an intrinsic good, we too often forget we exist in a bubble. We must be introspective (as an activity) about the part(s) we like and the part(s) we don't like; if that starts with this prelim round or elim debate then so be it. As structured, debate is super exclusionary if we don't allow internal criticism, we risk extinction in such a fragile world.

LD

If you don't read a "plan" then all the neg has to do is win a link to the resolution. For instance, if you read an aff that's 6 minutes of “whole rez” but you don't defend a specific action then the neg just needs to win a link based on the resolution OR your impact scenario(s). If you don't like it then write better affs that FORCE the neg to get more creative on the link debate.

If theory is your go-to strategy, on either side, please strike me. I am sick and tired debaters refusing to engage substance and only read frivolous theory arguments you barely understand. If you spend your time in the 1AR going for theory don’t you dare fix your lips to go for substance over theory and expect my ballot in the 2AR. LD, in its current state, is violent, racist, and upholds white supremacy; if you disagree do us both a favor and strike me (see above). Always expecting people to open source disclose is what is driving a lot of non-white people from the activity. I spend most of my time judging policy so an LD round that mimics a policy debate is what I would prefer to hear.

I’m sick of debaters not flowing then thinking they can ask what was read “before” CX starts. Once you start asking questions, THAT IS CX TIME. I have gotten to the point that I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS if you do this; I keep an exceptional flow and you should as well. If you go over time, I will stop you and your opponent will not be required to answer questions. You are eating into decision time but not only that it shows a blatant lack of respect for the "rules" of activity. If this happens and you go for some kind of "fairness good" claim I'm not voting for it; enjoy your Hot L (shoutout to Chris Randall and Shunta Jordan). Lastly, most of these philosophers y’all love quoting were violently racist to minorities. If you want me (a black man) to pick you up while you defend a racist you better be very compelling and leave no room for misunderstandings.

Parting Thoughts

I came into this activity as a fierce competitor, at this juncture in my life I’m in it solely for the education of the debaters involved; I am less concerned with who I am judging and more concerned with the content of what I debate. I am an educator and a lover of learning things; what I say is how I view debate and not a roadmap to my ballot. Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.

Last Updated: November, 2023. Please put me on the chain: nathanglancy124@gmail.com

***Background***

Debated at:

Niles West High School (2014-2018)

Trinity University (2018-2020)

Michigan State University (2020-2023)

Coached for:

Winston Churchill (2018-19)

Niles West High School (2020-2023)

Niles North HS (2023-now)

University of Wyoming (2023-now)

I debated for 9 years, all the way from Oceans to Personhood. I've been a 2n for longer than I've been a 2a, but at heart I am a 2a. I currently coach at Niles North High School in northwest Chicagoland and do remote coaching for the University of Wyoming. I went for policy-style arguments throughout my debate career and relied on debate to help realize/finance my college education. Debate's done a lot for me and I'd like to think I'm doing what I can for debate. If you already know me, say hi!! If you don't know me yet, don't mind the fact that I have a grumpy resting face! I'm not shy and would love to show you pictures of my dog.

***TL;DR***

I really want to ensure you all have a satisfying judging experience. I think this means it is my role as a judge to try my best to render a decision based on the arguments made in the debate. I care about debate's existence and success. I hope that is reflected in my feedback and my efforts as a judge.

High school debaters will do well in front of me if they keep the round organized and moving, show their motivation to improve/learn/win, and maintain a positive approach to the round despite the competitive nature of debate. They'll do even better if this is coupled with good, SPECIFIC arguments :)

College Debaters should consider me capable of judging whatever you need me to. I don't have any large predispositions and therefore I would consider myself quite impressionable if faced with good judge instruction and application of arguments at the end of the debate.

I have comparatively lower amounts of college topic knowledge - fair word of warning for acronyms

*Non-argument Things*

CLIPPING: I am soooooo done with people getting away with murder clipping everywhere. In that light, I will now start dropping non-novice teams that meet my minimum standard for clipping. Triggering any one of these conditions will result in an immediate loss after the speech, with minimum speaks to the individual who does it...

1. Speaker skips a paragraph of a card in a speech

2. Speaker skips a sentence that is 10 or more words in a speech

3. Speakers skips 3-5 words 5 times within a speech

4. Speaker systematically skips 1-2 words throughout a speech

Speaks: I will reward speaks mostly on the following criteria...

1. How did you impact your team's ability to win?

2. How did you impact my judging? Did something impress me?

3. Mastery of Material - "knowing what's going on" at the highest level

4. Mastery of Tech/Organization - did you cause/fix any unnecessary/avoidable decision time hurdles?

Clarity: I'm starting to care way way more about the clarity of argument communicated earlier for how I assess risk later in the debate. I really feel like rewarding good packaging of arguments, labeling, and organization that guides the judge through what you're saying AND why that matters. I will try and highly prioritize this analysis over reading every card and seeing who did the better research project. However, instructing me to read a portion of a card obviously constitutes a form of argument that I will take into account.

Conduct: The more we have good vibes in the round, the better the experience will be for everyone. Feel free to have competitive spirit, but don't let that turn you into an unlikeable person!! That's not a winning recipe. Also I am a fan of corny humor, often to a fault. I have given one 30 in my lifetime, and it was to someone who's joke made me uncontrollably laugh during the 2ar (they lost). Don't reach for a bad joke though that's never funny.

Online Debate: Before EVERY speech and EVERY CX, please confirm that everyone is here AND that the sound is clear! Feel free to do camera on or off, I understand everyone has their reasons. Please be understanding of the different complications of online debate and let's do everything we can to keep online accessible and effective. Oh and I HATE prep stealing and doing it while online doesn't excuse it.

Inserting Evidence: If you plan to "insert evidence re-highlighting" it should only come after a clear, comprehensive analytical argument. Re-highlighting can be referred to, but not inserted. If you want to say "their ev goes neg" then you're gonna read the re-highlighting.

***Argument Things***

Case:

I should understand a consistent explanation of the 1ac and its advantages throughout the debate. Changing this narrative or being dodgy/vague is easily subject to punishment by a good neg team. AFF teams should punish teams that are light on case using clear 2ac articulations of dropped arguments instead of being equally as vague. 2NRs on case should focus on identifying what AFF impacts your case defense is responding to.

I am starting to get really tired of bad highlighting here and teams that point this out can mitigate offense here.

DAs:

They're cool, but oh my gosh do teams double, triple, quadruple turn themselves with these so often! I don't care about spamming DAs, but I wish more AFF teams would exploit contradictions in "neg flex". Neg teams can best win their DAs by getting impact framing out early and being clear about 1ar concessions to establish a high risk of your offense.

I am starting to get really tired of bad highlighting here and teams that point this out can mitigate offense here.

T:

I think explaining your vision of the topic is one of the most underrated and underutilized ways to win a T debate. Please just explain to me why in your squad room you decided that T made sense? What's the "core thing" that the AFF did that is the controversy being debated?

Things that help a lot: TVA, case-list of good AFFs under your interpretation, case-list of bad AFFs under their interpretation, definition comparison, explanation of neg ground under your interpretation AND the other teams'.

Theory:

I HATE bad theory arguments and don't want to vote on them, but I hate teams that don't flow slightly more so I will vote on that stuff (and if I miss one line ASPEC that's on you, debate's a communication activity!). Bad theory debating is a one way ticket to low speaks, but good theory debating can drastically alter how rounds go down.

I'm pretty good for theory all things considered. I went for states CP theory a lot on the education topic and am a 2a at heart, but as someone who was a 2n I understand the deep, deep love we share for condo. I feel like the best theory debaters are FLOWABLE while doing their theory debating, SPECIFIC in their impact articulation beyond just talking about clashing and doing some fair education, and INSTRUCTIVE to the judge on questions of impact comparison and justifying new arguments.

CPs:

CPs are defense and should be explained in the context of what it is defending against (the 1ac's mandate, evidence, and how the advantages are explained). This is how I often think about deficits and how a CP implicates my ballot. Re-cutting the 1ac/AFF evidence is usually the gold standard for proving a CP sufficiently solves. I feel like fore-fronting how you explain a CP early and not deviating from that is the best way to ensure you don't bring in new explanations so I don't let the AFF get new answers. I lowkey hate process CPs but sometimes it must be done.

Ks:

I'm better for the K than you think, but likely need more judge instruction about how to apply X argument. Better for evidence-heavy OR depth-focused debate. Any amount of generic evidence is best addressed through specific analysis.

"Exceeds expectations"/I've gone for: Cap, Security, Biopolitics/Agamben

"Meeting expectations"/I feel fine judging: Set Col, Anti-blackness (Nihilism, Pessimism, to name a few), Orientalism/Colonialism, Imperialism, Queer pessimism, Trans pessimism, Ableism

"Needs improvement"/err towards over-explaining: Psychoanalysis, Bataille, Heideggerian stuff, Baudrillard, Deleuze

I have not judged a KvK debate yet.

Framework:

I almost exclusively went for t-usfg/framework in HS and college, but that doesn't make me care about dropping a policy team. Impact articulation matters for me but far too often I find teams blending concepts such as fairness and clash in incoherent ways. I don't care about the label, but rather the underling explanation and how it is being applied in the debate. If you have any other questions look at Josh Harrington's philosophy on K AFFs, that'll reflect roughly how I feel.

Nate's sliding scales about debate:

Tech/Truth----------------------------X-Facts are Facts & Dropped args are as true as the warrants conceded

Condo-------X----------------------Respect the Aff Peasant (have and will vote on it, clear args in the 1ar key)

Process CP/Normal Means Competition----------------------------X- 100 plank case-specific advantage CP

Super Big CP-----------------X------------Deep Case Debating

Simply saying "Sufficiency Framing"-----------------------------X-Explain why CP solves sufficiently

Zero Risk Framing----------X-------------------Any Risk Framing

Perm Double Bind--------------X---------------Haha Silly Policy Hacks

Deb8=Karl Rove----------------------------X-That was one dude

Salad K----------------------------X-Single K Thesis

Economic Growth----------------------------X-( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

***Miscellaneous***

Email chain is always preferable to anything else barring tech issues

I don't like cards in the body of the email... but nobody seems to care... oh well...

I am fine with open cx. All people should be.

The Prep Rule: I will increase speaks from what I would have given by .1 for every minute of prep not used - speaks can be earned by specifically telling me the balance of prep your team had remaining before their last rebuttal. Capped at .5 boosted speaks.

Massive pet peeve: if you call a CP a "see-pee" I will think about it so much that it might disrupt my flowing and you might instantly lose (I am being sarcastic).

here's a photo collage about debate that I made in high school:

Put me on the e-mail chain - aegoodson@bluevalleyk12.org and annie.goodson@gmail.com

**I'll be honest, I wrote my dissertation this summer and have done basically zero reading in this topic literature. Assume I'm unfamiliar with the specific scholarship you are reading.

Top Level:

I'm the head coach at Blue Valley West. I tend to value tech over truth in most instances, but I 100% believe it's your job to extend and explain warrants of args, and tell me what to do with those args within the context of the debate round. I expect plans to advocate for some sort of action, even if they don't present a formal policy action. I won't evaluate anything that happens outside of the debate round. This is an awesome activity that makes us better thinkers and people, and when we get caught up in the competition of it all and start being hateful to each other during the round (which I've 100% been guilty of myself) it bums me out and makes me not want to vote for you. Be mindful of who you are and how you affect the debate space for others--racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will result in you losing the round and I won't feel bad about it.

Delivery:

Clarity is extremely important to me. Pause for a minute and read that last sentence again. Speed is only impressive if you are clear, and being incomprehensible is the same as clipping in my book. I'm generally fine with [clear] speed but need you to slow down on authors/tags. You need to speak slower in front of me than you do in front of a college kid. Slow down a few clicks in rebuttals, and slow down on analytics. The more technical your argument, the slower I need you to go. I won't evaluate anything that's not on the flow. Please signpost clearly and extend warrants, not just authors/dates. Good rebuttals need to explain to me how to fill out the ballot. I'm looking for strong overviews and arguments that tell a meaningful story. We often forget that debate, regardless of how fast we are speaking, is still a performative activity at its core. You need to tell a story in a compelling way--don't let speed get in the way of that. Going 9 off in the 1NC is almost always a bad call. I'd rather you just make a few good arguments then try to out-spread the other team with a lot of meh arguments. I think going a million-off in the 1NC is a bad trend in this activity and is often a bad-faith effort to not engage in a more substantive debate.

T:

I default to competing-interps-good, but I've voted on reasonability in the past. Give me a case list and topical versions of the aff. If I'm being honest I definitely prefer DA/CP or K debates to T debates, but do what you enjoy the most and I will take it seriously and evaluate it to the best of my ability.

Performance-based:

These are weird for me because I don't have as nuanced an understanding of these as some other judges in our community, but also I vote for them a lot? I'm not the best judge on these args because they're not my expertise--help me by explaining what your performance does, why it should happen in a debate round, and why it can't happen elsewhere, or is less effective/safe elsewhere. I have the most fun when I'm watching kids do what they do best in debates, so do you. Know that if the other team can give me examples of how you can access your performance/topic *just as meaningfully* through topical action within the round, I find that pretty compelling.

CPs:

These need to be specific and include solvency advocates, and they need to be competitive. I'll defer to just not evaluating a CP if I feel like it's not appropriately competitive with the aff plan, unless the aff completely drops it. I think delay and consult CPs are cheating generally, but the aff still needs to answer them.

K:

Assume I'm unfamiliar with the specific texts you're reading. You'll likely need to spend some more time explaining it to me than you would have to in front of another judge. One thing I like about this activity is that it gives kids a platform to discuss identity, and the K serves an important function there. Non-identity based theoretical arguments are typically harder for me to follow. K affs need to be prepared to articulate why the aff cannot/should not be topical--again, TVAs are really persuasive for me.

DAs:

Love these, even the generic ones. DAs need to tell a story--don't give me a weak link chain and make sure you're telling a cohesive story with the argument. I'll buy whatever impacts you want to throw out there.

Framework:

Make sure you're explaining specifically what the framework does to the debate round. If I vote on your framework, what does that gain us? What does your framework do for the debaters? What does it make you better at/understand more? Compare yours to your opponents' and explain why you win.

General Cranky Stuff:

1. A ton of you aren't flowing, or you're just flowing off the speech doc, which makes me really irritated and guts half the education of this activity. You should be listening. Your cross-x questions shouldn't be "Did you read XYZ?" It's equally frustrating when kids stand up to give a speech and just start mindlessly reading from blocks. Debate is more than just taking turns reading. I want to hear analysis and critical thinking throughout the round, and I want you to explain to me what you're reading (overviews, plz). I'll follow along in speech docs, and I'll read stuff again when you tell me take a closer look at it, but I'm not a computer with the magic debate algorithm--you need to explain to me what you're reading and tell me why it matters.

2. 1NCs, just label your off-case args in the doc. It wastes time and causes confusion down the line when you don't.

3. The point of speed is to get in more args/analysis in the time allotted. If you're stammering a ton and having to constantly re-start your sentences, then trying to go fast gains you nothing.....just......slow down.

4. You HAVE to slow down during rebuttals for me--other judges can follow analytics read at blistering speed. I am not one of those judges.

5. In my old age I have become extremely cranky about disclosure. Unless you're breaking new, you should disclose the aff and past 2NRs before the round. Anything else wastes everyone's time.

**Clipping is cheating and if I catch you it's an auto-loss

**Trigger warnings are good and should happen whenever needed BEFORE the round starts. Don't run "death good" in front of me.

I try to use this scale for speaks:http://www.policydebate.net/points-scale.html

Anything else, just ask!

David Griffith

Coach at Kentucky and New Trier.

No judge is an impartial critic. This paradigm is meant to explain the preferences that most often make me less than impartial. The two non-negotiables are there because I'm entirely uninterested in adjudicating debates about them. The rest is meant to tell you something about how I feel when neither side clearly wins an argument or how you can avoid having my personal beliefs inform my decision.

This paradigm is organized in order of importance. Non-negotiables are exactly that and only focus on where I may differ from the average judge. The stylistic pointers will maximize your chances of winning/my chances of flowing you. The rest is mostly just general thoughts that may or may not be relevant to you.

Emails for Email Chains:

High School: griffithd2002@gmail.com, ntpolicydebate@gmail.com

College: griffithd2002@gmail.com, debatedocs@googlegroups.com, ukydebate@gmail.com

Non-negotiables:

Aff must depart from the status quo---the easiest way to meet this is to have an identifiable actor outside of the debate and an action they should take. That can mean any number of things, but a good litmus test is whether there is an advocacy statement in the 1AC that clearly identifies both. If the only change that you advocate for is that the aff having another win on Tabroom, you have failed the test. The more the aff relies on simply describing the world and asking for a ballot, the more likely it is that I will invoke this rule and vote neg.

The neg gets infinite conditional worlds---the neg should not be punished for the way they chose to negate. Strategic time allocation and cross-applications will stop any 1NC from skewing the 2AC. Therefore, I will never, under any circumstances, vote on conditionality bad. This includes when it is dropped by the neg. Arguments about judge kick and performative contradictions are fair game.

Other than that, I don't care about much, but here are some stylistic pointers that may help:

Debate like you mean it---I love judging. Making me not want to be there it is the easiest way to lose. If you don't want to win or disrespect your opponents, you won't win.

Be organized---I strongly prefer debaters number arguments. Forcing me to flow straight down is the number one way to make me grumpy. I don't flow the speech doc. If you talk in paragraphs or fly through every argument at the same speed, I will miss arguments and won't feel bad about it. I will vote for pretty much anything so long as I can flow it and explain it after the round.

Tell me what to do---robust judge instruction is your only hope of avoiding catastrophic judge intervention.Final rebuttals should clearly explain the implication of winning your most important arguments relative to other arguments in the debate. Doing so will result in a faster, clearer decision and better speaker points. Failing to do so will result in me taking the easy way out if possible.

Explain why technical concessions matter---the bar I use for this is that I have to be able to explain to the other team what the implication was of them dropping a certain argument. Often, teams will assert that something like "turns case" is dropped but won't say what this means. If you truly believe something is conceded and important enough to jump up and down about, don't leave it up to my intuition to figure out if it wins you the debate.

Complain about new arguments---I generally think new 1AR arguments have gotten out of hand. If the block makes deliberate choices informed by 2AC errors/concessions and tells me this, I am highly likely to obey 2NR judge instruction to ignore whatever the 1AR cooked up. For the aff, I am more than willing to entertain the idea that the 1NR does not get new impacts to the DA (or perhaps give the 1AR add-ons in response). For the neg, I am more than willing to strike an unwarranted "perm do both" from my flow of the 2AC if the 1NC explained why the CP avoided the net benefit (emphasis on explained).

Make complete arguments, and refuse to answer incomplete ones---the 2AC doesn't have to make solvency deficits if the 1NC doesn't have solvency arguments. Often, I consistently see 2ACs that accurately assess that a 1NC position was incomplete and then spend an inordinate amount of time on that sheet. This will make me second-guess whether the 1NC applied because it tells me that you take the argument seriously. Stop doing that.

Think of me as close to a stock issues judge---I am more likely than most to vote on presumption. The burden of proof is the foundation of debate, and "any risk" logic is mostly ridiculous. I'm happy to conclude the world is doomed if I don't know what the aff does to stop it. The need for a particular change is something that must be demonstrated and is never assumed.

How should you approach framework debates involving critical affirmatives?

Focus on what debate ought to look like for everyone---the way that you avoid my intervention for either side is by explaining how the sides in every debate function. I am equally unpersuaded by the neg team that only complains about fairness and the aff team that only talks about how educational their particular aff is. I'm much more concerned with what an entire season looks like because not every debate is going to mirror the one happening in front of me. This makes me a good judge for creative counter-interpretations from the aff as well as neg arguments about switching sides.

Explanation matters more here than in any other debate---I need to understand the implications of what you're saying. I vote neg on framework most when the aff says the topic is bad and fails to explain why that should be allowed. I vote aff most often on creative counter-interps and/or critiques of voting on topicality.

What should you know in debates where the neg goes for the K against a policy aff?

I really hate tricks---I'm a terrible judge for teams that rely on dropped tricks in order to win, especially if those tricks are vague assertions of "serial policy failure" or "ontology" or "root cause" without tailored application to the aff. I'm a great judge for nuanced link debating, competing ethical frameworks, and in particular alternatives oriented towards changing the world in some capacity rather than simply analyzing it. Remember, I must be able to explain why arguments interact in order for me to weigh one in your favor, so if I can't explain why the link turns case, the link does not turn the case.

Tougher sell than most on strong ontology arguments---I struggle a lot with evaluating arguments that say the world must always be a certain way. It is very difficult to convince me that the world cannot get better or worse (especially that last one). This means I have a significantly higher threshold for evaluating ontology arguments than a lot of judges. To me, one ontology argument being true doesn't intuitively mean all others are off the table, and ontology is just a characterization of the world, not an indictment of political action.

By default, perms test advocacy, not scholarship---I generally think that the alt must be mutually exclusive with the plan, not its representations. Therefore, permutations can sever representations, and absent a framework argument, links must be to the plan alone.

Here is a list of thoughts related to counterplans!

I need to understand CP solvency---I do not presume that a CP solves the case in the same way that I do not presume the 1AC reading a plan text automatically means it solves its advantages. This means vague CP texts, especially without cards attached to them, are not likely to persuade me.

Not great in complex competition debates---these debates tend to suck a lot. You need to hold my hand. Too often, these debates end up as block-reading contests where debaters are way more in tune with what's going on than I am. I need to know what arguments you're making, why they matter, and what you're answering more in competition debates more than any other debate.

Judge kick is my default, I guess?---does this even matter in the year of our lord 2024, where no one goes for "links to the net benefit" and very few teams have full-throated defenses of permutations against anything but the slimiest of process junk? If no one tells me to kick the counterplan, I guess I'll kick it, but I'm a very easy sell on the argument that I shouldn't.

Impacts matter---solvency deficits need connections to them. "Delay" and "certainty" only matter if the aff has a short-term impact that requires certainty. These concepts alone are unlikely to win a debate.

Regarding topicality against policy affs.

What is plan in a vacuum?---seriously, someone tell me. How do you interpret the plan in a vacuum? The 1AC read evidence that informs what the plan means. This is why the aff can go for solvency deficits against CPs and nuanced no link arguments against DAs. To me, it seems untenable to suggest that the evidence the 1AC used to define plan function should be ignored when deciding topicality. Now, if I can use the neg interpretation when interpreting the plan and still conclude the aff's characterization of the plan is feasible, plan in a vacuum makes sense.

Unpredictable limits aren't limits at all---I think that the more precise or predictable an interpretation is, the less it matters how good its limits are on the topic in a vacuum. If a "bad" definition is more precise or predictable, limits are solely a reason we should've written the resolution better. I am not compelled by neg limits arguments when attached to unpredictable interpretations. I am equally unpersuaded by whining about aff ground when attached to interpretations that barely define words in the resolution.

2ARs should go for reasonability against most T interps---this is the ultimate conclusion to my disdain for limits. Most neg impacts to T can be taken out easily enough that offense about substance crowd-out can outweigh them.

In the event that the neg goes for the status quo...

This is where I am the most neg biased---I am better than average for believing the world is better now than it is post-plan. I'm generally bad for structural uniqueness arguments if there's adequate link debating by the neg, and I am such a sucker for case defense that even weak DAs end up doing enough for me a lot of the time.

Evidence quality matters---this is in the DAs section of the paradigm because it is where it matters most. Far too often, teams read lots of bad cards that gesture at vague economic concepts for a few rebuttals, tell me to read the cards, and then don't look alarmed when I conclude that the cards sucked. Debates over bad evidence result in more intervention, particularly when that evidence is under-explained by the 2NR/2AR. This means that if you're going for the status quo with a DA that doesn't have the best evidence, you cannot afford to let your cards do the debating for you.

Be smart---I am not a particularly smart person but know one when I see one. Smart arguments as an alternative to getting lost in the cards will not only increase your chances of winning, but it will also boost your speaker points. Knowing stuff about the world is really cool.

Some thoughts on impact turns, since I seem to judge them often.

If you read an impact, you should have to answer the impact turn---it is nearly impossible to get me to toss an impact turn (or any argument really) without substantive refutation. If you can't explain why spark or wipeout or warming good is incorrect, you deserve to lose because the majority of impact turns are academically ridiculous and/or philosophically inconsistent.

Impact framing matters more than impact defense---I am more than willing to pull the trigger on impact framing even with unmitigated impacts from the other side. I am not averse to stomaching a nuclear war if animals come first or risking the heat death of the universe if future generations don't matter. I think people care too much about impact defense in this debates when it rarely matters. Invest more time in explaining how I should decide the debate than assuming I can follow the implication of every technical drop exactly how you envision I should.

Updated 2023 Pre-Northwestern College Season Opener

Assistant Policy Debate Coach at UT-Dallas and Greenhill

Debated at C.E. Byrd HS in Shreveport, Louisiana (class of ’14). Debated in college policy for Baylor University (2014-2016) and the University of Iowa (2017-2019)

Have also coached: Caddo Magnet HS, Hendrickson HS, Little Rock Central HS, Glenbrook South HS, University of Iowa, James Madison University

Email chain should be set up/sent before start time. sam.gustavson@gmail.com

Top level

Please be respectful of one another. We are all sacrificing our weekends to be here and learn, you can be passionate about your arguments without being mean, rude, condescending, hostile, etc. I’d almost always prefer you convince me that your opponent’s arguments are bad, not that they’re bad people. Chances are, none of us know each other well enough to make that determination.

Please prioritize clarity over speed.Everything else you can take with a grain of salt and ultimately do what you are best at, but me being able to understand you comes before anything else.

Debate is hard. People make it harder by making it more complicated than it needs to be. I like debaters who take complex ideas and bring them down to the level of simplicity and common sense.

Judge instruction, impact framing, comparison of evidence, authors, warrants, etc. or “the art of spin” is the most important thing for telling me how I should decide a debate. Making strategic decisions is important.

One of the things that makes debate truly unique is the research that is required, and so I think it makes sense to reward teams who are clearly going above and beyond in the research they’re producing. Good cards won’t auto win you the debate, but they certainly help “break ties” on the flow and give off the perception that a team is deep in the literature on their argument. But good evidence is always secondary to what a debater does with it.

I care about cross-x A LOT. USE ALL OF YOUR CX TIME PLZ

Organization is also really important to me. Debaters that do effective line by line, clearly label arguments and use things like subpoints are more likely to win in front of me and get better speaks.

High School Specific Thoughts

I did a lot of work in the summer on IPR but I will be doing mainly college debate during the regular season. If I am judging you in high school, don't assume I know everything about the topic, especially how things have evolved since camp in terms of argument norms and things like that.

If you’re interested in doing policy debate in college, feel free to talk to me about debating at UT-Dallas! I am a full-time assistant coach there. We have scholarships, multiple coaches, and a really fun team culture.

CLARITY OVER SPEED APPLIES DOUBLE TO HIGH SCHOOL

Set up the email chain as soon as you get to the room and do disclosure. If you’re aff, ask for the neg team’s emails and copy and paste mine from the top of my paradigm. Let’s get started on time!

Please keep track of your own prep, cx, and speech time.

Don’t flow off the speech doc, it’s the easiest way to miss something and it’s super obvious. Don’t waste cross-x time asking what the did and didn’t read! Flowing is so important.

Aff thoughts

I don’t care what “style” of aff you read, I just care that it is consistently explained and executed throughout the debate.

I like most judges enjoy 2ACs that make strategic choices, smart groupings and cross applications, and effectively and efficiently use the 1AC to beat neg positions in addition to reading new cards.

2ACs and ESPECIALLY 1ARs are getting away with murder in terms of not actually extending the aff.

Pretty aff leaning on a lot of CP theory questions (Process especially, 50 states, agent CPs. With the exception of PICs), but usually think they’re a reason to reject the argument. You can win it’s a reason to reject the team, but my bar for winning the 2ac was irrevocably skewed by the existence of a single 1NC position is pretty high. I don’t really lean one way or the other on condo (ideologically at least, I have no clue what my judge record is in condo debates).

Neg Thoughts - General

I like negative strategies that are well-researched specific responses to the aff. I think case debating is super important and underutilized. Nothing is more persuasive than a negative team who seems to know more about the 1AC than the Aff team does.

The 1NR should be the best speech in the debate, you have so much prep.

The 2NR should make strategic decisions, collapse down, and anticipate 2ar framing and pivots. The block is about proliferating options, the 2NR is about making decisions and closing doors.

Counterplans

Like I said above, prefer aff-specific CPs to generics. Counterplans that only compete on immediacy and certainty and net benefits that don’t say the aff is bad are not my favorite. I definitely prefer Process CP + Politics to Process CP + internal net benefit, because the politics DA disproves the desirability of the plan.

Because of the above thoughts, I am more aff leaning on CP theory in a lot of instances, with the exception of PICs. I think PICs that disprove/reject part of the aff are probably good.

People say sufficiency framing without doing the work to explain why the risk of the net benefit actually outweighs the risk of the solvency deficit. You have to do some type of risk calculus to set up what is sufficient and how I should evaluate it.

I have no feelings one way or another about judge kick. Win that it’s good or win that it’s bad.

Counterplans vs K affs are underutilized.

Disads

Comparison is important and not just at the impact level. Telling me what warrants to prioritize on the uniqueness and link debate, rehighlighting evidence, doing organized labeling and line by line, etc. Don’t just extend the different parts of the DA, do comparative work and framing on each part to tell me to tell me why you’re winning it and what matters most in terms of what I evaluate.

Like I said in the neg general section, I usually prefer an aff/topic specific DA to politics, but those concerns can be easily alleviated with good link debating on the politics DA. Your link being specific to the aff/resolution is usually important especially for link uniqueness reasons. I typically like elections more than agenda politics just as a research preference.

Impact Turns

Get in the weeds early in these debates and read a lot of cards. Don’t be afraid to read cards late in the debate either. Teams that get out-carded in these debates early have a tough time getting back in the game.

Recency, specificity, and evidence quality really matter for most every argument, but these debates especially. It’s pretty obvious when one team has updates and the other is reading a backfile

These debates get unorganized in a hurry. Labeling, line by line, using subpoints/numbers, and making clear cross applications are super important

Topicality

I really like T debates vs policy affs. I think creative arguments like extra T and effects T are underutilized or at least often underexplained and that there are affs getting away with fiating a lot of extra-resolutional/non-resolutional things.

Typically default to competing interps, and I’ll be totally transparent here: reasonability is kind of an uphill battle for me. When people go for reasonability with an interp, I almost always understand reasonability as a standard for why the aff’s interp is good. If you’re arguing your interpretation is better because it’s more reasonable, how is that not also an appeal to competing interpretations? And in the other scenario, if you’re going for reasonability with a we meet argument, I feel like a lot of the time it just begs the question of the violation and it’s easy for the neg to frame it as a yes/no question, not something that you can kind of/reasonably meet. Ultimately superior debating supersedes everything. If you win reasonability, you win reasonability. But you are probably better off just winning the we meet or going for a counter-interp

Impact comparison on standards is super important. I don’t have any strong preferences in terms of how I evaluate limits vs precision, aff ground vs neg ground, etc. Those are things you have to win and do the work of framing for me.

For the neg: Case lists, examples of ground lost under the aff’s interp, examples of why the debates under your model over the course of the year, topical versions of the aff, etc. will all help me understand in practice why your interp is better for the year of debate on the topic rather than just in theory.

For the aff: A well-explained we meet and/or counter interpretation, a case list of things you allow and things you don’t, and explanation of what ground the neg gets access to under your interp beyond quickly listing arguments and saying functional limits check, explain the warrant for why your interp preserves that ground and why those debates are good to have. N

Not super persuaded by “we meet – plan text in a vacuum” without much additional explanation. If the aff reads a plan text but then reframes/clarifies what that means in cross-x, in 1ac solvency evidence, or in the 2ac responding to neg positions, I think it’s easy for the neg to win those things outweigh plan text in a vacuum.

Framework

I judge a lot of these debates, and I’m fine with that. I think debating about debate is useful.

Fairness can be and impact or an internal link, just depends on how it’s debated. For it to be an external impact, it needs to not be circular/self-referential, which I think it often is in terms of how teams execute it. “Debate is a game, so it needs to be fair, because games need to be fair, and without fairness we can’t debate” is a circular argument that lacks an impact. To me, the argument becomes more offensive the more teams emphasize the time commitment we all put into debate and why maintaining fairness is important for honoring that time commitment, or explaining why it’s important for participation.

If either side is claiming participation as an impact, you have gotta explain how voting for you/your model would solve it. I think that’s hard to do but I’ve seen it done effectively both with fairness and with K affs doing for access/participation outweighs. The impact is obviously very big, but the internal link is often sketchy and not flushed out, in addition to largely being untrue because things like budget cuts have a lot more to do with who can participate than any particular team reading any particular argument.

I prefer clash as an impact more because I feel like it gets to a bigger impact that is more at the heart of why debate is good and that it often causes the neg to interact with the aff more. Your warrants for why clash turns the aff should be aff specific – same with TVAs. Nothing hurts me worse than ultra-generic framework debating where the argument could apply to literally any K aff. The best way to win your model can account for the aff’s impacts is to use the language of the aff in your explanation of things like clash, Switch-Side, and the TVA.

Affs that have something to do with the topic and can link turn things like topic education and clash are more persuasive to me than affs that try to impact turn every single part of framework. You probably will need to win some defense, because so much of the neg side of framework is defense to the stuff you want to go for.

Having a counter-interpretation really helps me understand how to evaluate offense and defense in these debates. This does not necessarily require the 2AC to redefine words in the resolution, but rather to tell me what the aff’s vision of debate is, what the role is for the aff and neg, and why those debates are good. Even if you are going to impact turn everything, having a counter-interpretation or a model of debate helps me understand what the role of the aff, neg, and the overall role of debate are.

Kritiks

The more aff-specific the better. Links do not necessarily have to be to the plan (it would be nice if they were), but they should implicate the 1ac in specific ways whether it’s their rhetoric, impact scenarios, etc. 2NCs that quote and rehighlight aff evidence, read new cards, proliferate links, and give the 2nr options are good. If you are criticizing/kritiking the aff, you should quote as much of their evidence, indict as many of their authors, and apply your criticism to the aff as much as possible. The most common advice I give 2Ns going for the K is to quote the aff more

Making decisions in the 2NR is still important even when reading the K one-off. You cannot go for every link, framing argument, perm answer, etc. in the 2NR.

The best K 2NRs I’ve ever seen effectively use case to mitigate parts of the aff’s offense. If you give them 100% risk of the aff vs the K, it’s harder to win!

Kicking the alt/going just for links or case turns is not the move in front of me. There are almost always uniqueness problems and I end up usually just voting aff on a risk of case. Whether it’s an alternative or a framework argument, you gotta explain to me how voting neg solves your offense.

I have noticed that in a lot of K debates I find that both the aff and the neg over-invest in framework. I honestly don’t see a scenario where I don’t let the aff weigh the 1AC if they win that fiat is good. I also don’t see a scenario where I vote aff because Kritiks on the neg are unfair. If the neg is making links to the aff, the aff obviously gets to weigh their offense against those link arguments. I really think both sides in most cases would be better served spending time on the link/impact/alt rather than overinvesting time on the framework debate.

I don’t really understand a lot of the form/content distinction stuff people go for because I think that the way arguments about “form” are deployed in debate are usually not actually about the form of anything and almost exclusively refer to disagreements in content

Ethics challenges/Clipping/Out of Round Stuff:

In the case that anyone calls an ethics violation for any reason I reserve the right to defer/go to tab, and then beyond that I can only vote based on my interpretation of events. This used to really only apply to clipping, but I’ve been a part of a bunch of different types of ethics challenges over the years so I’ve decided to update this.

Clipping: Hot take, it’s obviously bad. If I have proof you clipped the round will end and you’ll lose. I don’t follow along in speech docs unless someone starts being unclear, so if your opponent is clipping it’s up to you to notice and get proof. I need a recording if I don’t catch it live, even if we are on a panel and another judge catches it. Without a recording or proof, I’m not pulling the trigger.

Be careful about recording people without their consent, especially minors. Multiple states require two-party consent to record, don’t get yourself in legal trouble over a debate round.

I don’t vote on out of round stuff, especially stuff I wasn’t there for. For clarification, I suppose there could be exceptions to this and my opinions on it have gone back and forth. If you feel that someone in the round has jeopardized your safety, made you uncomfortable, or anything remotely similar, I will do everything in to advocate for you if I witness any of the following. If I am not a witness, I will make sure that the proper channels are used to address the complaint.

This is obviously distinct from criticizing something that someone has said or calling people out for being problematic. I’m saying if something so bad has happened that we have to stop the round, I have to go to the tournament and my bosses and look at my options. For your safety and mine I am required to think about how I’m protected, and my role and qualifications as a coach and educator as it relates to resolving officially lodged complaints of discrimination or harassment.

LD Paradigm:

Tech over truth but asserting that an argument is dropped/conceded is not the same thing as extending a full argument

My debate background is in policy, so I have much more familiarity with policy/LARP and Kritikal debates than I do with phil. I like phil debate, but you need to treat me like more of a beginner for the more advanced stuff.

Not the best for tricks but I won't outright reject them. Theory is fine, the more frivolous it is the more annoyed I'll be, but I'll flow it.

Clarity is more important than speed. Slow down a bit on counterplan texts, interps, etc. Spreading as fast as you can through theory shells or a million a priori's means there's probably a good chance that I am not going to get everything.

My policy paradigm has a lot of my K/policy specific thoughts as well.

jeremy.hammond@pinecrest.edu, pinecrestdebatedocs@gmail.com (please put both).

I have experience judging most policy debates that would occur. I have found that there is really only one argument type that I currently won't evaluate which are wipeout based arguments which prioritize saving unknown life to that of saving known life (human/non-human life).

I haven't calculated the percentages but I below are some feelings of where I am in various types of debates.

Policy aff v Core DA - Even

Policy aff v Process CP - 60% for the neg (mostly due to poor affirmative debating rather than argument preference)

Policy aff v K - Probably have voted neg more mostly due to poor affirmative debating or dropped tricks. Side note i'm pretty against the you link you lose style of negative framework, but I have regretfully have voted for it.

Theory v Policy Neg - Probably voted more neg than aff when the aff has a non-sense counter-interpretation (i.e. CI - you get 2 condo). When the aff is just going for condo bad with a more strict counter-interpretation I have voted aff more.

K aff v FW - Probably even to voted aff more (like due to poor negative debating)

K aff v K Neg - Probably judged these the least honestly they don't stick out for me to remember how I voted. I have definitely voted for the Cap K against K affs but I don't know the percentages.

K aff v Policy Neg - (Think State good, Alt Bad, or CP) have judged but can't remember.

I have plenty of more specific thoughts about debate, but mostly those don't play into my decisions. I will add more as the year progresses if something bothers me in a round.

Assistant Director of Speech and Debate at Presentation High School and Public Admin phd student. I debated policy, traditional ld and pfd in high school (4 years) and in college at KU (5 years). Since 2015 I've been assistant coaching debate at KU. Before and during that time I've also been coaching high school (policy primarily) at local and nationally competitive programs.

Familiar with wide variety of critical literature and philosophy and public policy and political theory. Coached a swath of debaters centering critical argumentation and policy research. Judge a reasonable amount of debates in college/hs and usually worked at some camp/begun research on both topics in the summer. That said please don't assume I know your specific thing. Explain acronyms, nuance and important distinctions for your AFF and NEG arguments.

The flow matters. Tech and Truth matter. I obvi will read cards but your spin is way more important.

I think that affs should be topical. What "TOPICAL" means is determined by the debate. I think it's important for people to innovate and find new and creative ways to interpret the topic. I think that the topic is an important stasis that aff's should engage. I default to competing interpretations - meaning that you are better off reading some kind of counter interpretation (of terms, debate, whatever) than not.

I think Aff's should advocate doing something - like a plan or advocacy text is nice but not necessary - but I am of the mind that affirmative's should depart from the status quo.

Framework is fine. Please impact out your links though and please don't leave me to wade through the offense both teams are winning in that world.

I will vote on theory. I think severance is prolly bad. I typically think conditionality is good for the negative. K's are not cheating (hope noone says that anymore). PICS are good but also maybe not all kinds of PICS so that could be a thing.

I think competition is good. Plan plus debate sucks. I default that comparing two things of which is better depends on an opportunity cost. I am open to teams forwarding an alternative model of competition.

Disads are dope. Link spin can often be more important than the link cards. But
you need a link. I feel like that's agreed upon but you know I'm gone say it anyway.

Just a Kansas girl who loves a good case debate. but seriously, offensive and defensive case args can go a long way with me and generally boosters other parts of the off case strategy.

When extending the K please apply the links to the aff. State links are basic but for some reason really poorly answered a lot of the time so I mean I get it. Links to the mechanism and advantages are spicier. I think that if you're reading a K with an alternative that it should be clear what that alternative does or does not do, solves or turns by the end of the block. I'm sympathetic to predictable 1ar cross applications in a world of a poorly explained alternatives. External offense is nice, please have some.

I acknowledge debate is a public event. I also acknowledge the concerns and material implications of some folks in some spaces as well. I will not be enforcing any recording standards or policing teams to debate "x" way. I want debaters at in all divisions, of all argument proclivities to debate to their best ability, forward their best strategy and answers and do what you do.

Card clipping and cheating is not okay so please don't do it.
NEW YEAR NEW POINT SYSTEM (college) - 28.6-28.9 good, 28.9-29.4 really good, 29.4+ bestest.

This trend of paraphrasing cards in PFD as if you read the whole card = not okay and educationally suspect imo.

Middle/High Schoolers: You smart. You loyal. I appreciate you. And I appreciate you being reasonable to one another in the debate.

I wanna be on the chain: jyleesahampton@gmail.com

Paideia 2019

Michigan 2023

Currently Pursuing a Ph.D. in Philosophy at Emory University

Email: harrington.joshua33@gmail.com

TLDR:

Policy debaters lie and K debaters cheat. If you believe both of these, you should pref me in the 1-25 percentile. If you believe only one of these, you should consider how much you disagree with the other then put me somewhere in the 25-50 percentile. If you disagree with both of these, consider preffing someone else. Any and all thoughts in this paradigm are malleable and determined by the debating done in a given round. My ideal tournament is one in which any judge from any program can fairly adjudicate any argument without any prior ideological commitments.

I fully believe that the role of the judge is to consider the arguments presented and do their best to render a decision that best reflects the round presented to them. Throughout my debate career I have seen judges allow personal bias and apathy render meaningless the hours of time and energy that debaters give to this activity that we all have limited time in. Therefore, I will do my best to flow all arguments made, listen to CX’s, render a decision, and give comments that I think will aid you in future debates. With that being said, this paradigm reflects my current thoughts on policy debate and how I render my decisions.

If at any point you read this paradigm and think I am referencing a specific ideological position in an attempt to cement a singular vision of debate, I am not. I find equal flaws and absurd arguments across the ideological spectrum and equally dislike most of the arguments, practices, and trends rewarded in this activity. I have felt this sentiment for a few years now. Despite this reality, the one truth I consistently return to is that I love debate. I love this activity and will do my best as a judge to make this activity a welcoming place to all argumentative styles and positions. If you have any questions or concerns, I encourage you to reach out via email or even come up to me at a tournament and introduce yourself. Far too many of us are strangers and fail to reach out, so know I am more than open to dialogue.

Background:

I am currently pursuing my Ph.D. in philosophy at Emory University and plan to continue coaching alongside. I debated for 8 total years and during that time, I was lucky enough to debate across a range of argumentative styles and strategies. I found value in all argumentative forms but have also developed my own argumentative preferences in doing so. I strongly prefer strategies that open oneself to deliberation and defend controversial positions. I believe the issue of clash and what kinds of education we produce are important ones to explore, as I continue to judge. I believe the difference between a good argument and a bad argument is often about packaging and impact calculus and often vote against teams that poorly articulate concepts and the implications of the arguments presented. Similarly, I often vote against arguments not because they are wrong, but because they have not been packaged in a manner that is responsive and/or implicated enough for me to vote on. Once again, any and all arguments are open for me, but if I cannot articulate the impact of an argument and its implications on the other arguments presented, I am very unlikely to vote on it.

Online Debate:

I encourage you to have face cams on, at least during speeches and CX but understand if you are not comfortable with that or just choose not to. I'm a pretty good flow overall, but if there is a tech issue or the speech becomes unclear, I'll do my best to let that be known.

Case/impact:

I will likely read your 1AC and be annoyed if you claim to do things and solve impacts not supported by your current 1AC construction. Many people claim the 2AR lies, but I believe the lies start as early as 1AC CX. This is not to say that new articulations, warrants, and impacts cannot be accessed throughout the process of debating, but I am annoyed by AFF inconsistency. I do not care what 1AC is read or what 2AR is given, just do your best to maintain consistency.

In terms of engagement with case, your negative strategy should implicate the case page in some way. When I say “implicate”, I mean that in the loosest of definitions possible. This can stem from going for terminal defense all the way to fully mooting the 1AC via framework. Remember, no matter what, at the end of the round, a negative ballot will likely have to answer the question, “what should I do with the 1AC?”

DA’s:

Read any and all of them as you please so long as it is substantiated by evidence. These debates often come down to impact calc and card quality. In case vs DA debates, I find myself often voting aff on try or die. Your impact calculus should anticipate that you are defending the status quo and do your best to overcome that.

CP’s:

I am fine with any counterplan so long as it has a solvency advocate, or as long as I can intuitively understand how the counterplan would function. I am working to become a better judge at in-depth counterplan competition debates, but for now err towards over explaining rather than under explaining. Judge kick seems to be good, however if I am judge kicking a counterplan, I am likely to vote on case outweighs unless sufficient case mitigation.

Theory:

I very much do not want to judge condo debates. I default to three being good, four being up for debate, and five or more being bad. The common rebuttal to this format is “number of condo doesn’t matter/it is about the practice/no clear difference between four and five”. I recognize these arguments even though I believe they are said in bad faith. This is an instance where technical execution can overcome ideology for me. However, in most theory debates (including condo), the aff needs to prove in-round abuse in order to persuade me. With theory arguments besides condo, I am likely to just reject the argument and not the team.

I care very little about negative contradictions at a theoretical level. Performative contradictions are not reasons you get to sever your reps, but they can be reasons that I ought to be skeptical of certain arguments.

Kritiks:

Any and all kritiks are viable options when I am in the back. I believe links should either be in the context of doing the plan, the assumptions around particular impacts, or the failures of a particular understanding the 1AC relies on. I find most one card kritiks incredibly unconvincing. I like kritiks that are not just kritiks of fiat and will give you a speaker points boost for developing your kritik beyond “fiat is bad”. I read and enjoy kritiks that defend a theory of power and apply that theory to the link debate; those were the kritiks that I read as a debater.

Answering Kritiks:

For answering the kritik, I am very good for many of the classical policy argumentative pushes that people use against common kritiks. That includes but is not limited to arguments such as: humanism good, psychoanalysis wrong, state inevitable/good/will crackdown, scenario analysis good etc. When a floating PIK/utopian alt is read, I am likely to be convinced by the permutation and a fairness push on framework. Otherwise, I would highly recommend going for a clash impact over fairness against most kritiks.

Defending your 1AC and implicating the kritik is the most effective and likely path to the ballot. I believe the FW (fairness) + extinction outweighs is a more than viable 2AR to give. That said, 75% of the time debaters do not articulate these arguments in a manner that is responsive to the negative’s kritik. I believe it is bad to only have extinction outweighs and fairness-centric framework in your arsenal because there are instances where clash is more responsive and debating the warrants of the kritik will increase your chances of the ballot. In addition, you should be willing to push NEG team on what they are saying. Pressing on the truth of a theory, the relevance of a link, and the viability of the alternative are all more than viable strategies and far more enjoyable to judge than the “two ships passing in the night” trend of Policy vs K debates we currently have.

K AFF’s:

K AFF’s are likely to be most successful in front of me when they take a stance on the resolution and a defend a theory of power that can be applied to the NEG’s offense. What a theory of power constitutes can be very broad, but I am likely to make you defend the implications and solvency of your 1AC. What it means to solve something likely depends upon your 1AC choice, but I must know what you are trying to do to know whether it is good, worthwhile, or even possible.

My three preferred 2NRs vs K AFFs were the Cap K, Topicality, and Afropessimism. I write this to demonstrate, I believe every AFF is answerable, and sometimes the best answer is Topicality.

Similar to the case section, I am most likely to vote NEG when NEG teams make arguments that meaningfully implicate the case page. I think presumption is a necessary tool that is often poorly deployed. I believe it can supplement most strategies and can be won in 1AC CX by a creative 2N who asks the right questions.

I enjoy topicality debates, both going for it and answering it. Fairness and clash are both impacts that should be explained more than you currently plan on. Most of these debates come down to who best articulates the role of the ballot and its ability to solve both sides’ offense. If you are AFF, I am likely to want an answer to the question, “what is the role for the negative”. Through smart defensive arguments, a counter interp, and/or a large defense of an impact turn, I can be easily convinced to never vote on topicality. On the opposite side, you should use fairness/clash to implicate case impacts and beat logical inconsistencies in most 2AC’s to framework. Different K AFF’s have different strategic strengths and weaknesses; different K AFF’s also produce different discussions and forms of clash (maybe). Recognizing the most strategic deployment of the 1AC in addition to your most strategic articulation of fairness, clash, tva, ssd, etc. will increase your chances of getting my ballot.

For K v K debates, I am increasingly conflicted on my beliefs of whether the AFF gets a perm and whether that perm requires a net benefit. I believe it is possible for 2N’s to craft competitive alternatives that disagree with core parts of the affirmative. At the same time, I recognize the potential fluidity of many K AFF’s and am thus sympathetic to different visions of competition. This analysis must be done and resolved otherwise I will abide by traditional rules of competition and consider whether the alt is mutually exclusive with the AFF. I very much dislike floating PIKs, but depending on the PIK and relevant offense, I can be convinced that PIKs in the 1NC can be good.

Procedurals/Ethics violations/RVI’s:

The only procedural I am likely to vote on is topicality. The vast majority of non-topicality procedurals that I have been exposed to are incredibly arbitrary and lose to a 2AR on “we meet”. If you find an 1AC you feel as though you cannot debate with a substantive strategy, I encourage you to find a topicality violation based in the resolution or find a way to out cheat your opponent.

Similarly, when issues of evidence become potential grounds for the rejection of the team, I am highly likely to strike the card and/or the argument rather than the team. Similar to the condo section, I do not particularly want to judge these debates and very rarely am certain enough that the practice should end the debate and/or be grounds for voting a team down.

Lastly, I am a very poor judge for strategies dependent upon out of round interactions. I believe the competitive aspects of debate makes the conversations incredibly unproductive and conversations outside of round are necessary (when possible) to resolve such disputes.

Misc:

My ideal debater combines the persuasion and ethos of Giorgio Rabbini and Natalie Robinson, the technical skill of Rafael Pierry and Elan Wilson the work ethic of DML, Kris Wallen, Don Pierce, Hana Bisevac, and Pranay Ippagunta, the judging abilities of Corey Fisher, Vida Chiri, Devane Murphy, Shree Awsare, and Taylor Brough and the attitudes of Nate Glancy, Jimin Park, Ariel Gabay, and Ben McGraw. If you are able to display any of these qualities to the level that these debaters have, you have set yourself up to thrive in this activity.

Margaret Hecht, she /her

New Trier alum, Debating at Emory, Coaching for Westminster

margaretdebate@gmail.com

The most important thing when I'm your judge: Please time everything (prep, speeches, cx, tech time) yourselves. I am awful about timing things and will forget 99% of the time.

Please be nice. Respect your opponents, respect me, don't swear a ton, etc. This activity should be fun.

I don't have strong argumentative preferences. I care much more about how you debate than what you debate about. I prefer judging policy debates because it's what I can adjudicate best, but I do judge a good number of K debates and can usually keep up.

Pleasego in line-by-line order. This means no long overviews or 'I'll do the uniqueness debate here.' This is the easiest way to get good speaker points.

Debates are best when people make fewer, more developed arguments. This means referencing specific lines of your evidence, line by line, extending warrants, doing good impact calc, and reading things that are well-researched rather than stuff meant to confuse your opponents.

I care about evidence quality more than most people.

I will only read what's highlighted when reading cards at the end of a debate.

[Update Jan. 2023: I have recently judged a few K v. K debates and have found them particularly hard to follow. I might not be the best judge for these debates.]

If you have any questions about my philosophy, please email me! (Or if you have any questions about Emory debate)

Nikola Helixon

Assistant Coach @ BVSW

Chain: helixon.niko@gmail.com

I don't know as much about the topic as you do. I am not as heavily invested in the activity as I used to be. Please speak slower and be clear.I will not clear you. There are some debaters who can be both very fast and clear. You are probably not that debater.

I won't vote on out of round issues.

You don't need your computer as much as you think you do. Please look away from blocks or I will just take my hands off my keyboard and read alongside you.

I don't like to read evidence when making a decision. I will if I feel I need to. I don't want a card doc.

Whatever argument you read needs a clear reason why you win and you should tell me that reason explicitly.

• I've noticed a sharp increase in the amount of time between when prep ends and when you start speaking. There's very little reasons why this should take more than a minute, especially since you just have to click a button to send the document out.

- "Marked copy" does not mean "remove the cards you didn't read." You do not have to do that, and you should not ask your opponents to do that.

• You cannot use Cross-ex as prep.

No, I don't care which side you sit on.

As of 2019, 15 years of debate experience as a student (Policy), judge (All events), and coach (PF)

Prefers traditional style debate. Evidence should be used to support arguments, but articulate analysis and explanation of your argument and why it is important is key

Tabula Rasa - I try to stay as neutral as possible on arguments. This means I expect you to explain your arguments and impacts during every round and you cannot assume that I will credit you with information that you did not say or extrapolate your argument/impact for you.

Prefer a well structured narrative carried through the round to a bunch of arguments which are kicked in later speeches - but some strategic collapse is fine

Impacts should be realistic - I am not voting on extinction

I do not like speed and speakers should be articulate. I don't believe in spreading because it destroys the educational value of debate and students' ability to interact in a meaningful way.

Stick to time

Be civil. There is a difference between being confident and condescending.

I almost never make a decision until the final two speeches. Weighing your impacts is important. I will not vote on something you did not say (and continue to say until the end)

Email: jessmhilbrich@gmail.com

Email: khirn10@gmail.com --- of course I want to be on the chain

Program Manager and Debate Coach, University of Michigan (2015-)

Debate Coach, Westwood HS (2024-)

Previously a coach at Whitney Young High School (2010-20), Caddo Magnet (2020-21), Walter Payton (2018, 2021-23), University of Chicago Lab Schools (2023-24).

Last updated: August, 2024

Philosophy: I attempt to judge rounds with the minimum amount of intervention required to answer the question, "Who has done the better debating?", using whatever rubrics for evaluating that question that debaters set up.

I work in debate full-time. I attend a billion tournaments and judge a ton of debates, lead a seven week lab every summer, talk about debate virtually every day, and research fairly extensively. As a result, I'm familiar with the policy and critical literature bases on both the college energy topic and the HS intellectual property rights topic. For intellectual property rights, I wrote the topicality file and delivered the topic lecture for the Michigan debate camp.

I’ve coached my teams to deploy a diverse array of argument types and styles. Currently, I coach teams that primarily read policy arguments. But I was also the primary argument coach for Michigan KM from 2014-16. I’ve coached many successful teams in both high school and college that primarily read arguments influenced by "high theory", postmodernist thought, and/or critical race literature. I'm always excited to see debaters deploy new or innovative strategies across the argumentative spectrum.

Impact turns have a special place in my heart. There are few venues in academia or life where you will be as encouraged to challenge conventional wisdom as you are in policy debate, so please take this rare opportunity to persuasively defend the most counter-intuitive positions conceivable. I enjoy judging debaters with a sense of humor, and I hope to reward teams who make their debates fun and exciting (through engaging personalities and argument selection).

My philosophy is very long. I make no apology for it. In fact, I wish most philosophies were longer and more substantive, and I still believe mine to be insufficiently comprehensive. Frequently, judges espouse a series of predictable platitudes, but I have no idea why they believe whatever it is they've said (which can frequently leave me confused, frustrated, and little closer to understanding how debaters could better persuade them). I attempt to counter this practice with detailed disclosure of the various predispositions, biases, and judgment canons that may be outcome-determinative for how I decide your debate. Maybe you don't want to know all of those, but nobody's making you read this paradigm. Having the option to know as many of those as possible for any given judge seems preferable to having only the options of surprise and speculation.

What follows is a series of thoughts that mediate my process for making decisions, both in general and in specific contexts likely to emerge in debates. I've tried to be as honest as possible, and I frequently update my philosophy to reflect perceived trends in my judging. That being said, self-disclosure is inevitably incomplete or misleading; if you're curious about whether or not I'd be good for you, feel free to look at my voting record or email me a specific question (reach me via email, although you may want to try in person because I'm not the greatest with quick responses).

0) Online debate

Online debate is a depressing travesty, although it's plainly much better than the alternative of no debate at all. I miss tournaments intensely and can't wait until this era is over and we can attend tournaments in-person once again. Do your best not to remind us constantly of what we're missing: please keep your camera on throughout the whole debate unless you have a pressing and genuine technical reason not to. I don't have meaningful preferences beyond that. Feel free to record me---IMO all debates should be public and free to record by all parties, especially in college.

1) Tech v. Truth

I attempt to be an extremely "technical" judge, although I am not sure that everyone means what everyone else means when they describe debating or judging as "technical." Here's what I mean by that: outside of card text, I attempt to flow every argument that every speaker expresses in a speech. Even in extremely quick debates, I generally achieve this goal or come close to it. In some cases, like when very fast debaters debate at max speed in a final rebuttal, it may be virtually impossible for me to to organize all of the words said by the rebuttalist into the argumentative structure they were intending. But overall I feel very confident in my flow).

In addition, being "technical" means that I line up arguments on my flow, and expect debaters to, in general, organize their speeches by answering the other team's arguments in the order they were presented. All other things being equal, I will prioritize an argument presented such that it maximizes clear and direct engagement with its counter-argument over an argument that floats in space unmoored to an adversarial argument structure.

I do have one caveat that pertains to what I'll term "standalone" voting issues. I'm not likely to decide an entire debate based on standalone issues explained or extended in five seconds or less. For example, If you have a standard on conditionality that asserts "also, men with curly unkempt hair are underrepresented in debate, vote neg to incentivize our participation," and the 1ar drops it, you're not going to win the debate on that argument (although you will win my sympathies, fellow comb dissident). I'm willing to vote on basically anything that's well-developed, but if your strategy relies on tricking the other team into dropping random nonsense unrelated to the rest of the debate entirely, I'm not really about that. This caveat only pertains to standalone arguments that are dropped once: if you've dropped a standalone voting issue presented as such in two speeches, you've lost all my sympathies to your claim to a ballot.

In most debates, so many arguments are made that obvious cross-applications ensure few allegedly "dropped" arguments can accurately be described as such. Dropped arguments most frequently win debates in the form of little subpoints making granular distinctions on important arguments that both final rebuttals exert time and energy trying to win. Further murkiness emerges when one realizes that all thresholds for what constitutes a "warrant" (and subsequently an "argument") are somewhat arbitrary and interventionist. Hence the mantra: Dropped arguments are true, but they're only as true as the dropped argument. "Argument" means claim, warrant, and implication. "Severance is a voting issue" lacks a warrant. "Severance is a voting issue - neg ground" also arguably lacks a warrant, since it hasn't been explained how or why severance destroys negative ground or why neg ground is worth caring about.

That might sound interventionist, but consider: we would clearly assess the statement "Severance is a voting issue -- purple sideways" as a claim lacking a warrant. So why does "severence is a voting issue - neg ground" constitute a warranted claim? Some people would say that the former is valid but not sound while the latter is neither valid nor sound, but both fail a formal test of validity. In my assessment, any distinction is somewhat interventionist. In the interest of minimizing intervention, here is what that means for your debating: If the 1ar drops a blippy theory argument and the 2nr explains it further, the 2nr is likely making new arguments... which then justifies 2ar answers to those arguments. In general, justify why you get to say what you're saying, and you'll probably be in good shape. By the 2nr or 2ar, I would much rather that you acknowledge previously dropped arguments and suggest reasonable workaround solutions than continue to pretend they don't exist or lie about previous answers.

Arguments aren't presumptively offensive or too stupid to require an answer. Genocide good, OSPEC, rocks are people, etc. are all terribly stupid, but if you can't explain why they're wrong, you don't deserve to win. If an argument is really stupid or really bad, don't complain about how wrong they are. After all, if the argument's as bad as you say it is, it should be easy. And if you can't deconstruct a stupid argument, either 1) the argument may not be as stupid as you say it is, or 2) it may be worthwhile for you to develop a more efficient and effective way of responding to that argument.

If both sides seem to assume that an impact is desirable/undesirable, and frame their rebuttals exclusively toward avoiding/causing that impact, I will work under that assumption. If a team read a 1AC saying that they had several ways their plan caused extinction, and the 1NC responded with solvency defense and alternative ways the plan prevented extincton, I would vote neg if I thought the plan was more likely to avoid extinction than cause it.

I'll read and evaluate Team A's rehighlightings of evidence "inserted" into the debate if Team B doesn't object to it, but when debated evenly this practice seems indefensible. An important part of debate is choosing how to use your valuable speech time, which entails selecting which pieces of your opponent's ev most clearly bolster your position(s).

2) General Philosophical Disposition

It is somewhat easy to persuade me that life is good, suffering is bad, and we should care about the consequences of our political strategies and advocacies. I would prefer that arguments to the contrary be grounded in specific articulations of alternative models of decision-making, not generalities, rhetoric, or metaphor. It's hard to convince me that extinction = nbd, and arguments like "the hypothetical consequences of your advocacy matter, and they would likely produce more suffering than our advocacy" are far more persuasive than "take a leap of faith" or "roll the dice" or "burn it down", because I can at least know what I'd be aligning myself with and why.

Important clarification: pragmatism is not synonymous with policymaking. On the contrary, one may argue that there is a more pragmatic way to frame judge decision-making in debates than traditional policymaking paradigms. Perhaps assessing debates about the outcome of hypothetical policies is useless, or worse, dangerous. Regardless of how you debate or what you debate about, you should be willing and able to mount a strong defense of why you're doing those things (which perhaps requires some thought about the overall purpose of this activity).

The brilliance and joy of policy debate is most found in its intellectual freedom. What makes it so unlike other venues in academia is that, in theory, debaters are free to argue for unpopular, overlooked, or scorned positions and ill-considered points of view. Conversely, they will be required to defend EVERY component of your argument, even ones that would be taken for granted in most other settings. Just so there's no confusion here: all arguments are on the table for me. Any line drawn on argumentative content is obviously arbitrary and is likely unpredictable, especially for judges whose philosophies aren't as long as mine! But more importantly, drawing that line does profound disservice to debaters by instructing them not to bother thinking about how to defend a position. If you can't defend the desirability of avoiding your advantage's extinction impact against a wipeout or "death good" position, why are you trying to persuade me to vote for a policy to save the human race? Groupthink and collective prejudices against creative ideas or disruptive thoughts are an ubiquitous feature of human societies, but that makes it all the more important to encourage free speech and free thought in one of the few institutions where overcoming those biases is possible.

3) Topicality and Specification

Overall, I'm a decent judge for the neg, provided that they have solid evidence supporting their interpretation.

Limits are probably desirable in the abstract, but if your interpretation is composed of contrived stupidity, it will be hard to convince me that affs should have predicted it. Conversely, affs that are debating solid topicality evidence without well-researched evidence of their own are gonna have a bad time. Naturally, of these issues are up for debate, but I think it's relatively easy to win that research/literature guides preparation, and the chips frequently fall into place for the team accessing that argument.

Competing interpretations is potentially less subjective and arbitrary than a reasonability standard, although reasonability isn't as meaningless as many believe. Reasonability seems to be modeled after the "reasonable doubt" burden required to prove guilt in a criminal case (as opposed to the "preponderence of evidence" standard used in civil cases, which seems similar to competing interps as a model). Reasonability basically is the same as saying "to win the debate, the neg needs to win an 80% risk of their DA instead of a 50% risk." The percentages are arbitrary, but what makes determining that a disad's risk is higher or lower than the risk of an aff advantage (i.e. the model used to decide the majority of debates) any less arbitrary or subjective? It's all ballpark estimation determined by how persuaded judges were by competing presentations of analysis and evidence. With reasonability-style arguments, aff teams can certainly win that they don't need to meet the best of all possible interpretations of the topic, and instead that they should win if their plan meets an interpretation capable of providing a sufficient baseline of neg ground/research parity/quality debate. Describing what threshold of desirability their interpretation should meet, and then describing why that threshold is a better model for deciding topicality debates, is typically necessary to make this argument persuasive.

Answering "plan text in a vacuum" requires presenting an alternative standard by which to interpret the meaning and scope of the words in the plan. Such seems so self-evident that it seems banal to include it in a paradigm, but I have seen many debates this year in which teams did not grasp this fact. If the neg doesn't establish some method for determining what the plan means, voting against "the plan text in a vacuum defines the words in the plan" is indistinguishable from voting for "the eighty-third unhighlighted word in the fifth 1ac preempt defines the words in the plan." I do think setting some limiting standard is potentially quite defensible, especially in debates where large swaths of the 1ac would be completely irrelevent if the aff's plan were to meet the neg's interp. For example: if an aff with a court advantage and a USFG agent says their plan meets "enact = Congress only", the neg could say "interpret the words USFG in the plan to include the Courts when context dictates it---even if 'USFG' doesn't always mean "Courts," you should assume it does for debates in which one or more contentions/advantages are both impertinent and insoluable absent a plan that advocates judicial action." But you will likely need to be both explicit and reasonable about the standard you use if you are to successfully counter charges of infinite regress/arbitrariness.

4) Risk Assessment

In front of me, teams would be well-served to explain their impact scenarios less in terms of brinks, and more in terms of probabilistic truth claims. When pressed with robust case defense, "Our aff is the only potential solution to a US-China war that's coming in a few months, which is the only scenario for a nuclear war that causes extinction" is far less winnable than "our aff meaningfully improves the East Asian security environment through building trust between the two great military powers in the region, which statistically decreases the propensity for inevitable miscalculations or standoffs to escalate to armed conflict." It may not be as fun, but that framing can allow you to generate persuasive solvency deficits that aren't grounded in empty rhetoric and cliche, or to persuasively defeat typical alt cause arguments, etc. Given that you decrease the initial "risk" (i.e. probability times magnitude) of your impact with this framing, this approach obviously requires winning substantial defense against whatever DA the neg goes for, but when most DA's have outlandishly silly brink arguments themselves, this shouldn't be too taxing.

There are times where investing lots of time in impact calculus is worthwhile (for example, if winning your impact means that none of the aff's impact claims reach extinction, or that any of the actors in the aff's miscalc/brinkmanship scenarios will be deterred from escalating a crisis to nuclear use). Most of the time, however, teams waste precious minutes of their final rebuttal on mediocre impact calculus. The cult of "turns case" has much to do with this. It's worth remembering that accessing an extinction impact is far more important than whether or not your extinction impact happens three months faster than theirs (particularly when both sides' warrant for their timeframe claim is baseless conjecture and ad hoc assertion), and that, in most cases, you need to win the substance of your DA/advantage to win that it turns the case.

Incidentally, phrasing arguments more moderately and conditionally is helpful for every argument genre: "all predictions fail" is not persuasive; "some specific type of prediction relying on their model of IR forecasting has little to no practical utility" can be. The only person who's VTL is killed when I hear someone say "there is no value to life in the world of the plan" is mine.

At least for me, try-or-die is extremely intuitive based on argument selection (i.e. if the neg spots the aff that "extinction is inevitable if the judge votes neg, even if it's questionable whether or not the aff solves it", rationalizing an aff ballot becomes rather alluring and shockingly persuasive). You should combat this innate intuition by ensuring that you either have impact defense of some sort (anything from DA solves the case to a counterplan/alt solves the case argument to status quo checks resolve the terminal impact to actual impact defense can work) or by investing time in arguing against try-or-die decision-making.

5) Counterplans

Counterplan theory/competition debating is a lost art. Affirmatives let negative teams get away with murder. Investing time in theory is daunting... it requires answering lots of blippy arguments with substance and depth and speaking clearly, and probably more slowly than you're used to. But, if you invest time, effort, and thought in a well-grounded theoretical objection, I'll be a receptive critic.

The best theory interpretations are clear, elegant, and minimally arbitrary. Here are some examples of args that I would not anticipate many contemporary 2N's defeating:

--counterplans should be policies. Perhaps executive orders, perhaps guidence memos, perhaps lower court decisions, perhaps Congressional resolutions. But this would exclude such travesties as "The Executive Branch should always take international law into account when making their decisions. Such is closer to a counterplan that says "The Executive Branch should make good decisions forever" than it is to a useful policy recommendation. It's relatively easy for CPs to be written in a way that meets this design constraint, but that makes it all the easier to dispose of the CPs that don't.

--counterplans should not be able to fiat both the federal government and additional actors outside of the federal government. It's utopian enough to fiat that Courts, the President, and Congress all act in concert in perpetuity on a given subject. It's absurd to fiat additional actors as well.

Admittedly, these don't exclude a ton of counterplans, but they're extremely powerful when they apply. There are other theoretical objections that I might take more seriously than other judges, although I recognize them as arguments on which reasonable minds may disagree. For example, I am somewhat partial to the argument that solvency advocates for counterplans should have a level of specificity that matches the aff. I feel like that standard would reward aff specificity and incentivize debates that reflect the literature base, while punishing affs that are contrived nonsense by making them debate contrived process nonsense. This certainly seems debateable, and if I had to pick a side, I'd certainly go neg, but it seems like a workable debate relative to alternatives.

Competition debates are a particularly lost art. Generally, I prefer competition debates to theoretical ones, although I think both are basically normative questions (i.e. the whole point of either is to design an ideal, minimally arbitrary model to produce the debates we most desire). I'm not a great judge for counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy based on "should"/"resolved" definitions. I'm somewhat easily persuaded that these interpretations lower the bar for how difficult it is to win a negative ballot to an undesirable degree. That being said, affs lose these debates all the time by failing to counter-define words or dropping stupid tricks, so make sure you invest the time you need in these debates to win them.

"CPs should be textually and functionally competitive" seems to me like a logical and defensible standard. Some don't realize that if CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive, permutations may be either. I like the "textual/functional" model of competition BECAUSE it incentives creative counterplan and permutation construction, and because it requires careful text-writing. There are obvious and reasonable disadvantages to textual competition, and there is something inelegant about combining two models together, but I don't think there's a clear and preferable alterantive template when it comes to affs going for competition/theory against new or random process CPs.

And to be clear about my views: "functional-only" is an extremely defensible model, although I think the arguments to prefer it over functional/textual hinge on the implication of the word being defined. If you say that "should is immediate" or "resolved is certain," you've introduced a model of competition that makes "delay a couple weeks" or "consult anyone re: plan" competitive. If your CP competes in a way that introduces fewer CPs (e.g. "job guarantees are admininstered by the states", or "NFUs mean no-first-use under any circumstance/possibility"), I think the neg's odds of winning are fairly likely.

Offense-defense is extremely intuitive to me, and so teams should always be advised to have offense even if their defense is very strong. If the aff says that the counterplan links to the net benefit but doesn't advance a solvency deficit or disadvantage to the CP, and the neg argues that the counterplan at least links less, I am not very likely to vote affirmative absent strong affirmative framing on this question (often the judge is left to their own devices on this question, or only given instruction in the 2AR, which is admittedly better than never but still often too late). At the end of the day I must reconcile these opposing claims, and if it's closely contested and at least somewhat logical, it's very difficult to win 100% of an argument. Even if I think the aff is generally correct, in a world where I have literally any iota of doubt surrounding the aff position or am even remotely persuaded by the the negative's position, why would I remotely risk triggering the net benefit for the aff instead of just opting for the guaranteed safe choice of the counterplan?

Offense, in this context, can come in multiple flavors: you can argue that the affirmative or perm is less likely to link to the net benefit than the counterplan, for example. You can also argue that the risk of a net benefit below a certain threshold is indistinguishable from statistical noise, and that the judge should reject to affirm a difference between the two options because it would encourage undesirable research practices and general decision-making. Perhaps you can advance an analytic solvency deficit somewhat supported by one logical conjecture, and if you are generally winning the argument, have the risk of the impact to that outweigh the unique risk of aff triggering the DA relative to the counterplan. But absent any offensive argument of any sort, the aff is facing an uphill battle. I have voted on "CP links to politics before" but generally that only happens if there is a severe flaw in negative execution (i.e. the neg drops it), a significant skill discrepancy between teams, or a truly ill-conceived counterplan.

I'm a somewhat easy sell on conditionality good (at least 1 CP / 1 K is defensible), but I've probably voted aff slightly more frequently than not in conditionality debates. That's partly because of selection bias (affs go for it when they're winning it), but mainly because neg teams have gotten very sloppy in their defenses of conditionality, particularly in the 2NR. That being said, I've been growing more and more amenable to "conditionality bad" arguments over time.

However, large advantage counterplans with multiple planks, all of which can be kicked, are fairly difficult to defend. Negative teams can fiat as many policies as it takes to solve whatever problems the aff has sought to tackle. It is unreasonable to the point of stupidity to expect the aff to contrive solvency deficits: the plan would literally have to be the only idea in the history of thought capable of solving a given problem. Every additional proposal introduced in the 1nc (in order to increase the chance of solving) can only be discouraged through the potential cost of a disad being read against it. In the old days, this is why counterplan files were hundreds of pages long and had answers to a wide variety of disads. But if you can kick the plank, what incentive does the aff have to even bother researching if the CP is a good idea? If they read a 2AC add-on, the neg gets as many no-risk 2NC counterplans to add to the fray as well (of course, they can also add unrelated 2nc counterplans for fun and profit). If you think you can defend the merit of that strategy vs. a "1 condo cp / 1 condo k" interp, your creative acumen may be too advanced for interscholastic debate; consider more challenging puzzles in emerging fields, as they urgently need your input.

I don't think I'm "biased" against infinite conditionality; if you think you have the answers and technical acuity to defend infinite conditionality against the above argumentation, I'd happily vote for you. I generally coach my teams to 2NC CP out of straight turned DAs, read 5+ conditional advocacies in the 1NC, etc.

I don't default to the status quo ("judge kick") if there's zero judge instruction to that effect, but I default to the least interventionist approach possible. If the neg says the CP is conditional, never qualifies that "2nr checks: we'll only go for one world," and aff accedes, I will default to judge kick. One side dropping "yes/no judge kick" at some point in the debate obviously wins the issue for their opponent.

I've led a strong group of debaters in a summer institute lab every year for over a decade, and I think some of the lectures or discussions I've led on various theoretical subjects (in which I often express very strong or exaggerated defenses of one or more of the above arguments, for educational purposes), have influenced some to interpret my views on some aspect of competition as extremely strongly-held. In truth, I don't have terribly strong convictions about any of these issues, and any theoretical predisposition is easily overcame by outdebating another team on the subject at hand.

6) Politics

Most theoretical objections to (and much sanctimonious indignation toward) the politics disadvantage have never made sense to me. Fiat is a convention about what it should be appropriate to assume for the sake of discussion, but there's no "logical" or "true" interpretation of what fiat descriptively means. It would be ludicrously unrealistic for basically any 1ac plan to pass immediately, with no prior discussion, in the contemporary political world. Any form of argument in which we imagine the consequences of passage is a fictive constraint on process argumentation. As a result, any normative justification for including the political process within the contours of permissible argument is a rational justification for a model of fiat that involves the politics DA (and a DA to a model of fiat that doesn't). Political salience is the reason most good ideas don't become policy, and it seems illogical for the negative to be robbed of this ground. The politics DA, then, represents the most pressing political cost caused by doing the plan in the contemporary political environment, which seems like a very reasonable for affs to have to defend against.

Obviously many politics DAs are contrived nonsense (especially during political periods during which there is no clear, top-level presidential priority). However, the reason that these DAs are bad isn't because they're theoretically illegitimate, and politics theory's blippiness and general underdevelopment further aggravate me (see the tech vs truth section).

Finally, re: intrinsicness, I don't understand why the judge should be the USFG. I typically assume the judge is just me, deciding which policy/proposal is the most desirable. I don't have control over the federal government, and no single entity does or ever will (barring that rights malthus transition). Maybe I'm missing something. If you think I am, feel free to try and be the first to show me the light...

7) Framework/Non-Traditional Affs

Despite some of the arguments I've read and coached, I'm sympathetic to the framework argument and fairness concerns. I don't think that topicality arguments are presumptively violent, and I think it's generally rather reasonable (and often strategic) to question the aff's relationship to the resolution. Although framework is probably always the best option, I would generally also enjoy seeing a well-executed substantive strategy if one's available. This is simply because I have literally judged hundreds of framework debates and it has gotten mildly repetitive, to say the least (just scroll down if you think that I'm being remotely hyperbolic). But please don't sacrifice your likelihood of winning the debate.

My voting record on framework is relatively even. In nearly every debate, I voted for the team I assessed as demonstrating superior technical debating in the final rebuttals.

I typically think winning unique offense, in the rare scenario where a team invests substantial time in poking defensive holes in the other team's standards, is difficult for both sides in a framework debate. I think affs should think more about their answers to "switch side solves your offense" and "sufficient neg engagement key to meaningfully test the aff", while neg's should generally work harder to prepare persuasive and consistent impact explanations. The argument that "debate doesn't shape subjectivity" takes out clash/education offense, for example, is a reasonable and even threatening one.

I'm typically more persuaded by affirmative teams that answer framework by saying that the skills/methods inculcated by the 1ac produce more effective/ethical interactions with institutions than by teams that argue "all institutions are bad."

Fairness is an impact, though like any impact its magnitude and meaning is subject to debate. Like any abstract value, it can be difficult explain beyond a certain point, and it can't be proven or disproven via observation or testing. In other words, it's sometimes hard to answer the question "why is fairness good?" for the same reason it's hard to answer the question "why is justice good?" Nonetheless, it's pretty easy to persuade me that I should care about fairness in a debate context, given that everyone relies on essential fairness expectations in order to participate in the activity, such as expecting that I flow and give their arguments a fair hearing rather than voting against them because I don't like their choice in clothing.

But as soon as neg teams start introducing additional standards to their framework argument that raise education concerns, they have said that the choice of framework has both fairness and education implications, and if it could change our educational experience, could the choice of framework change our social or intellectual experience in debate in other ways as well? Maybe not (I certainly think it's easy to win that an individual round's decision certainly couldn't be expected to) but if you said your FW is key to education it's easy to see how those kinds of questions come into play and now can potentially militate against fairness concerns.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the desirability of the activity: we should all ideally be self-reflexive and be able to articulate why it is we participate in the activities on which we choose to dedicate our time. Nearly everybody in the world does utterly indefensible things from time to time, and many people (billions of them, probably) make completely indefensible decisions all the time. The reason why these arguments can be unpersuasive is typically because saying that debate is bad may just link to the team saying "debate bad" because they're, you know... debating, and no credible solvency mechanism for altering the activity has been presented.

So, I am a good judge for the fairness approach. It's not without its risk: a small risk of a large-magnitude impact to the ballot (e.g. solving an instance of racism in this round) could easily outweigh. But strong defense to the ballot can make it difficult for affs to overcome.

Still, it's nice to hear a defense of debate if you choose to go that route as well. I do like FWs that emphasize the benefits of the particular fairness norms established by a topicality interpretation ("models" debates). These can be enjoyable to watch, and some debaters are very good at this approach. In the aggregate, however, this route tends to be more difficult than the 'fairness' strategy.

If you're looking for an external impact, there are two impacts to framework that I have consistently found more persuasive than others, and they're related to why I value the debate activity. First, "switch-side debate good" (forcing people to defend things they don't believe is the only vehicle for truly shattering dogmatic ideological predispositions and fostering a skeptical worldview capable of ensuring that its participants, over time, develop more ethical and effective ideas than they otherwise would). Second, "agonism" (making debaters defend stuff that the other side is prepared to attack rewards debaters for pursuing clash; running from engagement by lecturing the neg and judge on a random topic of your choosing is a cowardly flight from battle; instead, the affirmative team with a strong will to power should actively strive to beat the best, most well-prepared negative teams from the biggest schools on their terms, which in turn provides the ultimate triumph; the life-affirming worldview facilitated by this disposition is ultimately necessary for personal fulfillment, and also provides a more effective strategy with which to confront the inevitable hardships of life).

Many aff "impact turns" to topicality are often rendered incoherent when met with gentle pushback. It's difficult to say "predictability bad" if you have a model of debate that makes debate more predictable from the perspective of the affirmative team. Exclusion and judgment are inevitable structural components of any debate activity that I can conceive of: any DA excludes affs that link to it and don't have an advantage that outweighs it. The act of reading that DA can be understood as judging the debaters who proposed that aff as too dull to think of a better idea. Both teams are bound to say the other is wrong and only one can win. Many aff teams may protest that their impact turns are much more sophisticated than this, and are more specific to some element of the topicality/FW structure that wouldn't apply to other types of debate arguments. Whatever explanation you have for why that above sentence true should be emphasized throughout the debate if you want your impact turns or DA's to T to be persuasive. In other words, set up your explanation of impact turns/disads to T in a way that makes clear why they are specific to something about T and wouldn't apply to basic structural requirements of debate from the outset of the debate.

I'm a fairly good judge for the capitalism kritik against K affs. Among my most prized possessions are signed copies of Jodi Dean books that I received as a gift from my debaters. Capitalism is persuasive for two reasons, both of which can be defeated, and both of which can be applied to other kritiks. First, having solutions (even ones that seem impractical or radical) entails position-taking, with clear political objectives and blueprints, and I often find myself more persuaded by a presentation of macro-political problems when coupled with corresponding presentation of macro-political solutions. Communism, or another alternative to capitalism, frequently ends up being the only solution of that type in the room. Second, analytic salience: The materialist and class interest theories often relatively more explanatory power for oppression than any other individual factor because they entail a robust and logically consistent analysis of the incentives behind various actors committing various actions over time. I'm certainly not unwinnable for the aff in these debates, particularly if they strongly press the alt's feasibility and explain what they are able to solve in the context of the neg's turns case arguments, and I obviously will try my hardest to avoid letting any predisposition overwhelm my assessment of the debating.

8) Kritiks (vs policy affs)

I'm okay for 'old-school' kritik's (security/cap/etc), but I'm also okay for the aff. When I vote for kritiks, most of my RFD's look like one of the following:

1) The neg has won that the implementation of the plan is undesirable relative to the status quo;

2) The neg has explicitly argued (and won) that the framework of the debate should be something other than "weigh the plan vs squo/alt" and won within that framework.

If you don't do either of those things while going for a kritik, I am likely to be persuaded by traditional aff presses (case outweighs, try-or-die, perm double-bind, alt fails etc). Further, despite sympathies for and familiarity with much poststructural thought, I'm nevertheless quite easily persuaded to use utilitarian cost-benefit analysis to make difficult decisions, and I have usually found alternative methods of making decisions lacking and counter-intuitive by comparison.

Kritik alternatives typically make no sense. They often have no way to meaningfully compete with the plan, frequently because of a scale problem. Either they are comparing what one person/a small group should do to what the government should do, or what massive and sweeping international movements should do vs what a government should do. Both comparisons seem like futile exercises for reasons I hope are glaringly obvious.

There are theory arguments that affs could introduce against alternatives that exploit common design flaws in critical arguments. "Vague alts" is not really one of them (ironically because the argument itself is too vague). Some examples: "Alternatives should have texts; otherwise the alternative could shift into an unpredictable series of actions throughout the debate we can't develop reasonable responses against." "Alternatives should have actors; otherwise there is no difference between this and fiating 'everyone should be really nice to each other'." Permutations are easy to justify: the plan would have to be the best idea in the history of thought if all the neg had to do was think of something better.

Most kritik frameworks presented to respond to plan focus are not really even frameworks, but a series of vague assertions that the 2N is hoping that the judge will interpret in a way that's favorable for them (because they certainly don't know exactly what they're arguing for). Many judges continually interpret these confusing framework debates by settling on some middle-ground compromise that neither team actually presented. I prefer to choose between options that debaters actually present.

My ideal critical arguments would negate the aff. For example, against a heg aff, I could be persuaded by security K alts that advocate for a strategy of unilateral miltary withdrawal. Perhaps the permutation severs rhetoric and argumentation in the 1ac that, while not in the plan text, is both central enough to their advocacy and important enough (from a pedagogical perspective) that we should have the opportunity to focus the debate around the geopolitical position taken by the 1ac. The only implication to to a "framework" argument like this would be that, assuming the neg wins a link to something beyond the plan text, the judge should reject, on severence grounds, permutations against alts that actually make radical proposals. In the old days, this was called philosophical competition. How else could we have genuine debates about how to change society or grand strategy? There are good aff defenses of the plan focus model from a fairness and education perspective with which to respond to this, but this very much seems like a debate worth having.

All this might sound pretty harsh for neg's, but affs should be warned that I think I'm more willing than most judges to abandon policymaking paradigms based on technical debating. If the negative successfully presents and defends an alternative model of decisionmaking, I will decide the debate from within it. The ballot is clay; mold it for me and I'll do whatever you win I should.

9) Kritiks (vs K affs)

Anything goes!

Seriously, I don't have strong presuppositions about what "new debate" is supposed to look like. For the most part, I'm happy to see any strategy that's well researched or well thought-out. Try something new! Even if it doesn't work out, it may lead to something that can radically innovate debate.

Most permutation/framework debates are really asking the question: "Is the part of the aff that the neg disagreed with important enough to decide an entire debate about?" (this is true in CP competition debates too, for what it's worth). Much of the substantive debating elsewhere subsequently determines the outcome of these sub-debates far more than debaters seem to assume.

Role of the ballot/judge claims are obviously somewhat self-serving, but in debates in which they're well-explained (or repeatedly dropped), they can be useful guidelines for crafting a reasonable decision (especially when the ballot theorizes a reasonable way for both teams to win if they successfully defend core thesis positions).

Yes, I am one of those people who reads critical theory for fun, although I also read about domestic politics, theoretical and applied IR, and economics for fun. Yes, I am a huge nerd, but who's the nerd that that just read the end of a far-too-long judge philosophy in preparation for a debate tournament? Thought so.

10) Procedural Norms

Evidence ethics, card clipping, and other cheating accusations supercede the debate at hand and ask for judge intervention to protect debaters from egregious violations of shared norms. Those challenges are win/loss, yes/no referendums that end the debate. If you levy an accusation, the round will be determined based on whether or not I find in your favor. If I can't establish a violation of sufficient magnitude was more likely than not, I will immediately vote against the accusing team. If left to my own discretion, I would tend not to find the following acts egregious enough to merit a loss on cheating grounds: mis-typing the date for a card, omitting a sentence that doesn't drastically undermine the card accidentally. The following acts clearly meet the bar for cheating: clipping/cross-reading multiple cards, fabricating evidence. Everything in between is hard to predict out of context. I would err on the side of caution, and not ending the round.

'Ad hominem' attacks, ethical appeals to out-of-round behavior, and the like: I differ from some judges in that, being committed to minimal intervention, I will technically assess these. I find it almost trivially obvious that introducing these creates a perverse incentive to stockpile bad-faith accusations and turns debate into a toxic sludgefest, and would caution that these are likely not a particularly strategic approach in front of me.

11) Addendum: Random Thoughts from Random Topics

In the spirit of Bill Batterman, I thought to myself: How could I make this philosophy even longer and less useable than it already was? So instead of deleting topic-relevent material from previous years that no longer really fit into the above sections, I decided to archive all of that at the bottom of the paradigm if I still agreed with what I said. Bad takes were thrown into the memory hole.

Topicality for Fiscal Redistribution:

I'm probably more open to subsets than most judges if the weight of predictable evidence supports it. The neg is maybe slightly favored in a perfect debate, but I think there is better aff evidence to be read. I generally think the topic is extremely overlimited. Both the JG and BI are poorly supported by the literature, and there are not a panoply of viable SS affs.

Social Security and programs created by the Social Security Act are not same thing. The best evidence I've seen clearly excludes welfare and health programs, although expanding SS enables affs to morph the program into almost anything topically (good luck with a "SS-key" warrant vs the PIC, though). SSI is debateable, though admittedly not an extreme limits explosion.

Topicality arguments excluding plans with court actors are weaker than each of the above arguments. Still tenable.

Topicality arguments excluding cutting programs to fund plans are reasonable edge cases. I can see the evidence or balance of debating going either way on this question.

Evenly debated, "T-Must Include Taxes" is unwinnable for the negative. Perhaps you will convince me otherwise, but keep in mind I did quite a bit of research on this subject before camps even started,so if you think you have a credible case then you're likely in need of new evidence. I really dislike being dogmatic on something like this. I began the summer trying todevelop a case for why affs must tax, but I ran into a basic logical problem and have not seen evidence that establishes the bare minimum of a topicality interpretation. Consider the definition of "net worth." Let's assume that all the definitions of net worth state it means "(financial assets like savings, real estate, and investments) - (debts and liabilities)." "T-FR must include tax" is the logical equivalent of "well, because net worth means assets AND liabilities, cashing a giant check doesn't increase your net worth because you don't ALSO decrease your debts owed elsewhere." For this to be a topicality argument, you'd need to find a card that says "Individual policy interventions aren't fiscal redistribution if they merely adjust spending without tax policy." Such a card likely doesn't exist, because it's self-evidently nonsense.

Of course, I'll certainly evaluate arguments on this subject as fairly as possible, and if you technically out-execute the opposing team, I'll vote against them remorselessly. But you should know my opinion regardless.

Topicality on NATO emerging tech: Security cooperation almost certainly involves the DOD. Even if new forms of security cooperation could theoretically exclude the DOD, there's not a lot of definitional support and minimal normative justification for that interpretation. Most of the important definition debates resolve substantive issues about what DA and impact turn links are granted and what counterplans are competitive rather than creating useful T definitions. Creative use of 'substantially = in the main' or 'increase = pre-existing' could elevate completely unworkable definitions into ones that are viable at the fringes.

Topicality on Legal Personhood: Conferring rights and/or duties doesn't presumptively confer legal personhood. Don't get me wrong: with evidence and normative definition debating, it very well may, but it doesn't seem like something to be taken for granted. There is a case for "US = federal only" but it's very weak. Overall this is a very weak topic for T args.

Topicality on water: There aren't very many good limiting devices on this topic. Obviously the states CP is an excellent functional limit; "protection requires regulation" is useful as well, at least insofar as it establishes competition for counterplans that avoid regulations (e.g. incentives). Beyond that, the neg is in a rough spot.

I am more open to "US water resources include oceans" than most judges; see the compiled evidence set I released in the Michigan camp file MPAs Aff 2 (should be available via openevidence). After you read that and the sum total of all neg cards released/read thus far, the reasoning for why I believe this should be self-evident. Ironically, I don't think there are very many good oceans affs (this isn't a development topic, it's a protection topic). This further hinders the neg from persuasively going for the this T argument, but if you want to really exploit this belief, you'll find writing a strategic aff is tougher than you may imagine.

Topicality on antitrust: Was adding 'core' to this topic a mistake? I can see either side of this playing out at Northwestern: while affs that haven't thought about the variants of the 'core' or 'antitrust' pics are setting themselves up for failure, I think the aff has such an expansive range of options that they should be fine. There aren't a ton of generic T threats on this topic. There are some iterations of subsets that seem viable, if not truly threatening, and there there is a meaningful debate on whether or not the aff can fiat court action. The latter is an important question that both evidence and normative desirability will play a role in determining. Beyond that, I don't think there's much of a limit on this topic.

ESR debates on the executive powers topic: I think the best theory arguments against ESR are probably just solvency advocate arguments. Seems like a tough sell to tell the neg there’s no executive CP at all. I've heard varied definitions of “object fiat” over the years: fiating an actor that's a direct object/recipient of the plan/resolution; fiating an enduring negative action (i.e. The President should not use designated trade authority, The US should not retaliate to terrorist attacks with nukes etc); fiating an actor whose behavior is affected by a 1ac internal link chain. But none of these definitions seem particularly clear nor any of these objections particularly persuasive.

States CP on the education and health insurance topics: States-and-politics debates are not the most meaningful reflection of the topic literature, especially given that the nature of 50 state fiat distorts the arguments of most state action advocates, and they can be stale (although honestly anything that isn't a K debate will not feel stale to me these days). But I'm sympathetic to the neg on these questions, especially if they have good solvency evidence. There are a slew of policy analysts that have recommended as-uniform-as-possible state action in the wake of federal dysfunction. With a Trump administration and a Republican Congress, is the prospect of uniform state action on an education or healthcare policy really that much more unrealistic than a massive liberal policy? There are literally dozens of uniform policies that have been independently adopted by all or nearly all states. I'm open to counter-arguments, but they should all be as contextualized to the specific evidence and counter-interpretation presented by the negative as they would be in a topicality debate (the same goes for the neg in terms of answering aff theory pushes). It's hard to defend a states CP without meaningful evidentiary support against general aff predictability pushes, but if the evidence is there, it doesn't seem to unreasonable to require affs to debate it. Additionally, there does seem to be a persuasive case for the limiting condition that a "federal-key warrant" places on affirmatives.

Topicality on executive power: This topic is so strangely worded and verbose that it is difficult to win almost any topicality argument against strong affirmative answers, as powerful as the limits case may be. ESR makes being aff hard enough that I’m not sure how necessary the negative needs assistance in limiting down the scope of viable affs, but I suppose we shall see as the year moves forward. I’m certainly open to voting on topicality violations that are supported by quality evidence. “Restrictions in the area of” = all of that area (despite the fact that two of the areas have “all or nearly all” in their wordings, which would seem to imply the other three are NOT “all or nearly all”) does not seem to meet that standard.

Topicality on immigration: This is one of the best topics for neg teams trying to go for topicality in a long time... maybe since alternative energy in 2008-9. “Legal immigration” clearly means LPR – affs will have a tough time winning otherwise against competent negative teams. I can’t get over my feeling that the “Passel and Fix” / “Murphy 91” “humanitarian” violations that exclude refugee, asylums, etc, are somewhat arbitrary, but the evidence is extremely good for the negative (probably slightly better than it is for the affirmative, but it’s close), and the limits case for excluding these affs is extremely persuasive. Affs debating this argument in front of me should make their case that legal immigration includes asylum, refugees, etc by reading similarly high-quality evidence that says as much.

Topicality on arms sales: T - subs is persuasive if your argument is that "substantially" has to mean something, and the most reasonable assessment of what it should mean is the lowest contextual bound that either team can discover and use as a bulwark for guiding their preparation. If the aff can't produce a reasonably well-sourced card that says substantially = X amount of arms sales that their plan can feasibly meet, I think neg teams can win that it's more arbitrary to assume that substantially is in the topic for literally no reason than it is to assume the lowest plausible reading of what substantially could mean (especially given that every definition of substantially as a higher quantity would lead one to agree that substantially is at least as large as that lowest reading). If the aff can, however, produce this card, it will take a 2N's most stalwart defense of any one particular interpretation to push back against the most basic and intuitive accusations of arbitrariness/goalpost-shifting.

T - reduce seems conceptually fraught in almost every iteration. Every Saudi aff conditions its cessation of arms sales on the continued existence of Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi military was so inept that the Houthis suddenly not only won the war against Saleh but actually captured Saudi Arabia and annexed it as part of a new Houthi Empire, the plan would not prevent the US from selling all sorts of exciting PGMs to Saudi Arabia's new Houthi overlords. Other than hard capping the overall quantity of arms sales and saying every aff that doesn't do that isn't topical, (which incidentally is not in any plausible reading a clearly forwarded interpretation of the topic in that poorly-written Pearson chapter), it's not clear to me what the distinction is between affs that condition and affs that don't are for the purposes of T - Reduce

Topicality on CJR: T - enact is persuasive. The ev is close, but in an evenly debated and closely contested round where both sides read all of the evidence I've seen this year, I'd be worried if I were aff. The debateability case is strong for the neg, given how unlimited the topic is, but there's a case to be made that courts affs aren't so bad and that ESR/politics is a strong enough generic to counter both agents.

Other T arguments are, generally speaking, uphill battles. Unless a plan text is extremely poorly written, most "T-Criminal" arguments are likely solvency takeouts, though depending on advantage construction they may be extremely strong and relevant solvency takeouts. Most (well, all) subsets arguments, regardless of which word they define, have no real answer to "we make some new rule apply throughout the entire area, e.g. all police are prohibitied from enforcing XYZ criminal law." Admittedly, there are better and worse variations for all of these violations. For example, Title 18 is a decent way to set up "T - criminal justice excludes civil / decrim" types of interpretations, despite the fact it's surprisingly easy for affs to win they meet it. And of course, aff teams often screw these up answering bad and mediocre T args in ways that make them completely viable. But none of these would be my preferred strategy, unless of course you're deploying new cards or improved arguments at the TOC. If that's the case, nicely done! If you think your evidence is objectively better than the aff cards, and that you can win the plan clearly violates a cogent interpretation, topicality is always a reasonable option in front of me.

Topicality on space cooperation: Topicality is making a big comeback in college policy debates this year. Kiinda overdue. But also kinda surprising because the T evidence isn't that high quality relative to its outsized presence in 2NRs, but hey, we all make choices.

STM T debates have been underwhelming in my assessment. T - No ADR... well at least is a valid argument consisting of a clear interp and a clear violation. It goes downhill from there. It's by no means unwinnable, but not a great bet in an evenly matched ebate. But you can't even say that for most of the other STM interps I've seen so far. Interps that are like "STM are these 9 things" are not only silly, they frequently have no clear way of clearly excluding their hypothesized limits explosion... or the plan. And I get it - STM affs are the worst (and we're only at the tip of the iceberg for zany STM aff prolif). Because STM proposals are confusing, different advocates use the terms in wildly different ways, the proposals are all in the direction of uniqueness and are difficult to distinguish from similar policy structures presently in place, and the area lacks comprehensive neg ground outside of "screw those satellites, let em crash," STM affs producing annoying debates (which is why so many teams read STM). But find better and clearer T interps if you want to turn those complaints about topical affs into topicality arguments that exclude those affs. And I encourage you to do so quickly, as I will be the first to shamelessly steal them for my teams.

Ironically, the area of the topic that produces what seem to me the best debates (in terms of varied, high-quality, and evenly-matched argumentation) probably has the single highest-quality T angle for the neg to deploy against it. And that T angle just so happens to exclude nearly every arms control aff actually being ran. In my assessment, both the interp that "arms control = quantitative limit" and the interp that "arms control = militaries just like chilling with each other, hanging out, doing some casual TCBMs" are plausible readings of the resolution. The best aff predictability argument is clearly that arms control definitions established before the space age have some obvious difficulties remaining relevant in space. But it seems plausible that that's a reason the resolution should have been written differently, not that it should be read in an alternate way. That being said, the limits case seems weaker than usual for the neg (though not terrible) and in terms of defending an interp likely to result in high-quality debates, the aff has a better set of ground arguments at their disposal than usual.

Trump-era politics DAs: Most political capital DAs are self-evidently nonsense in the Trump era. We no longer have a president that expends or exerts political capital as described by any of the canonical sources that theorized that term. Affs should be better at laundry listing thumpers and examples that empirically prove Trump's ability to shamelessly lie about whatever the aff does or why he supports the aff and have a conservative media environment that tirelessly promotes that lie as the new truth, but it's not hard to argue this point well. Sometimes, when there's an agenda (even if that agenda is just impeachment), focus links can be persuasive. I actually like the internal agency politics DA's more than others do, because they do seem to better analyze the present political situation. Our political agenda at the national level does seem driven at least as much by personality-driven palace intrigue as anything else; if we're going to assess the political consequences of our proposed policies, that seems as good a proxy for what's likely to happen as anything else.

they/them

please add me to chain - jamdebate@gmail.com

important stuff not directly related to my opinions about debate:

after over a year of the most public display of genocide in history i am no longer going to pretend that defending “the u.s. led liberal international order” is not morally equivalent to defending the holocaust

climate topic update - i have done no research for it

please be honest with yourself about how fast you are going. i need pen time! i don't need you to go dramatically slower than you normally would, but please do not drone monotonously through your blocks as if they are card text or i will likely miss some arguments.

if debating online: go slower than usual, especially on theory

how i decide stuff:

i try my best to decide debates strictly based on what is on my flow. i generally try to intervene as little as possible, but i am not a judge that thinks that any argument is true until disproven in the debate. as much as some consider themselves "flow purists," i think every judge agrees with this to a degree. for example, "genocide good" or "transphobia good" etc. are obviously reprehensible arguments that are harmful to include in debate and i won't entertain. that being the case, i have kind of a hard time distinguishing those "obvious" examples from more commonly accepted ones that are, to me, just as harmful and can even be outright genocidal, like first strike counterplans, interventions good, arms sales to israel are good, increasing police funding is good, etc.

despite how the above paragraph might be interpreted, i frequently vote for arguments i don't like, including arguments i think are harmful for debate. at the end of the day, unless something i think drastically requires my intervention, i will try to judge the debate as objectively as i can based on my flow

by default i will vote for the team with the most resolved offense. a complete argument is required to generate offense, so i won't vote for an incomplete argument (e.g. "they dropped x" still needs a proper extension of x with a warrant for why it's true). judge instruction is very important for me. if there is an issue in the debate with little guidance from the debaters on how to resolve it, don't be surprised if there is some degree of intervention so i can resolve it. i will also not vote for an argument that i cannot explain

opinions on specific things:

i am willing to vote on arguments about something that happened outside of the debate, but need those arguments to be backed up with evidence/receipts. this is not because i don't/won't believe you otherwise, but because i don't want to be in the position of having to resolve a debate over something impossible for me to substantiate. i know it’s somewhat arbitrary, but it seems like the least arbitrary way for me to approach these debates without writing them off entirely, which is an approach i strongly disagree with. however, if someone i trust tells me that you are a predator or that you knowingly associate with one, i will not vote for you under any circumstances.

plan texts: if yours is written poorly or intentionally vaguely, i will likely be sympathetic to neg arguments about how to interpret what it means/does. neg teams should press this issue more often

planless affs: i enjoy judging debates where the aff does not read a plan. idc if the aff does not "fiat" something as long as it is made clear to me how to resolve the aff's offense. i am very willing to vote on presumption in these debates and i yearn for more case debating

t-usfg/fw: not my favorite debates. voting record in these debates is starting to lean more and more aff, often because the neg does a poor job of convincing me that my ballot cannot resolve the aff's offense and aff teams are getting better at generating uniqueness. i am less interested in descriptive arguments about what debateis (for example, "debate is a game") and more interested in arguments about what debate ought to be. the answer to that can still be "a game" but can just as likely be something else.

k thoughts: not very good for euro pomo stuff (deleuze, bataille, etc) but good for anything else. big fan of the cap k when it's done well (extremely rare), even bigger hater of the cap k when it's done poorly (almost every time). if reading args about queerness or transness, avoid racism. i don't mind link ev being somewhat generic if it's applied well. obviously the more specific the better, but don't be that worried if you don't have something crazy specific. i think "links of omission" can be persuasive sources of offense. for the aff, saying the text of a perm without explaining how it ameliorates links does not an argument make

theory: please make sure you're giving me pen time here. i am probably more likely than most to vote on theory arguments, but they are almost always a reason to reject the arg and not the team (obvi does not apply to condo). that being said, you need a warrant for "reject the arg not the team" rather than just saying that statement. not weirdly ideological about condo (i will vote on it)

counterplans/competition: a perm text without an explanation of how it disproves the competitiveness of the counterplan is not a complete argument. by default, i will judge kick the cp if the neg loses it and evaluate the squo as well. aff, if you don't want me to do that, tell me not to

lastly, i try to watch for clipping. if you clip, it's an auto-loss. the other team does not have to call you out on it, but i am much more comfortable voting against a team for clipping if the issue is raised by the other team with evidence provided. if i clear you multiple times and the card text you're reading is still incomprehensible, that's clipping. ethics challenges should be avoided at all costs, but if genuine academic misconduct occurs in a debate i will approach the issue seriously and carefully

avoid saying slurs you shouldn't be saying or you'll automatically lose

Hi. I debated at Glenbrook North HS in Northbrook for 4 years, 1.5 in policy and 2.5 in LD. I was the LD coach at Loyola Blakefield HS in Baltimore for 3 years followed by being the debate coach for Chicagoland Jewish HS in Deerfield, IL, New Trier HS in Winnetka/Northfield, IL, Bronx Science, Beacon HS in Manhattan, the director of debate at Mamaroneck HS in Mamaroneck, NY and the director of debate at South Shore International College Prep in Chicago. I've also worked at multiple debate camps and have been a private coach for multiple debaters. Trust me, I've seen it all.

Last updated 4/9/24. Changed some words and added my judge kick stance.

I'm fine being on email chains but I'm not posting my email publicly. Just ask before the round.

General stuff:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. I do not discriminate, I'm find with speed (though sometimes my flowing can be bad), fine with theory, fine with kritiks, whatever you want to do. It's your round, not mine have fun with it.

-Extensions are key! Every extension needs to have the word extend/pull through the flow/or similar wording attached to it. Then it needs to have a warrant for what is being extended, finally the extension needs an impact back to the weighing calculus. If that is the value/value criterion mechanism then it needs to impact back to the VC that is being used for the round. If that is some other mechanism, it needs to be impacted to that weighing mechanism (theory means voters I guess). That weighing mechanism and the warrants for the mechanism should be extended (In a v/vc model the vc should be extended along with the argument). If these things are not done then the arguments will not be evaluated in the same depth and I might not give you credit, or as much credit, for an argument that you may have clearly won on the flow. I guess in simpler terms I have a high threshold for extensions. Also, when extending please extend along with the warrant please compare your arguments to other arguments. The best extensions are not just argument extensions but have comparative weighing along with the arguments.

-Evidence is not inherently preferable for analytics absent some argument for why I should prefer that specific piece of evidence over a generic analytic. Debaters are smart and well researched on the topic (usually) and so should be able to have a command of what is going on equal to/greater than a lot of experts. Trust yourself and talk about why you are correct instead of some rando newspaper writer who has probably done less research than what goes into the typical 1AC.

- WEIGH! One of the things I'm almost always unsure of after a round is which argument to evaluate first. Do I look to the Disad, the spike, the contention 1? Most debate rounds involve multiple arguments that could "come first" and people telling me the order in which to evaluate arguments and which arguments are more important makes my life easier. It also means you'll be more likely to win because the argument that you're saying is most important/comes first is probably also the one that you're winning the most. WEIGH! Seriously WEIGH!

On Non-T affs:

You ought pretend to be topical. Topicality means different things to different people and I think that the topic and what topicality means can change in debate and in different debates. However, the aff should claim that they are talking about the topic. What the topic means to you and how it functions might be different than the "traditional" method and that's fine! How you make that claim or whether that claim is true can be (and should be!) contested in the round.

- Feel free to come up to me at any tournament and ask me questions about anything, I can't guarantee you a great answer but I can guarantee that I will try to respond.

LD Paradigm:

Things I've noticed about my preferences for debate: (This is just a list of things I like, none of these are necessary to win a round but they do affect my judging)

- I tend to prefer debaters who debated similarly to how I debated. What does this mean? I debated in an old school national circuit LD style. On the aff that meant a very broad criterion with mutually exclusive contentions that I tried to kick out of as much as possible (usually at the end of the 2AR, I had one contention and maybe framework). On the neg, it meant a short NC, no more than 2 minutes, with extensive analytical responses to the aff. While it might not help you win the round, debate has changed a lot, it will help your speaker points.

- I like a 2AR that isn't on the flow. What does this mean? The 2AR should be more of a story speech that merely references the flow. A lot of weighing/crystallizing or time on voting issues.

-I like even/if stories. They tend to make the round clearer and make my life easier.

-LD debaters need to stop saying "we" when referring to themselves. You are a singular human being and not one half of a partnership. If you say "we" while referring to yourself you will lose 0.1 speaker points. I will also interrupt your speeches to ask "who is we?" Be prepared.

-I'm a leftist politically. Property rights arguments and other capitalist arguments are not particularly persuasive to me and I don't like hearing them. That doesn't mean I won't vote on them, it just means if you have something else it's probably a good idea to run it.

-I presume coinflip. That means if I can't find any offense or way to vote I will flip a coin to decide the round. I have done this quite a few times and never want to do it again but I'm not afraid to do it and if I think your round warrants it, a coinflip will happen. (That said the only times I've done it has been in rounds where there have been on offense by either side so as long as offense exists I will not flip a coin).

-I like philosophy, I am a philosophy major. That said I'm not good at flowing it, especially when spread at the beginning of the speech. So if you do read philosophy slow down a little bit so that I can catch your arguments.

-Going off that last point, my major is in continental philosophy; which means I take classes on all those critical authors you've wanted to use in rounds. Kritiks are wonderful! If you know what are you talking about, please run them in front of me. Ks do not need an alt, though it is preferable. Make sure to understand the interactions between your position and the position of what your opponent is running.

- Please start the AC/NC with I affirm/I negate. It doesn't take away from your word economy and it gives me a second to "catch up" and get used to your spreading/debating voice so that I don't miss your first argument. You don't need to re-state the resolution though, that's unnecessary.

-Something most debaters forget is that as a judge I do not look to see what you are reading while you are reading it. I don't read the cards on the email chain until after the round. Therefore, be more specific in signposting then off the Martin card 1..2..3 etc. Don't just say Martin, say what Martin said as well, because I might not have gotten the author name Martin but I got the argument they made. Also, be clear about where Martin is on the flow. If Martin is a contention 1 card, say that she is in contention 1. Virtual/Computer debate note: I do ask to be on the email chain but I don't read the cards on the chain until after the round so this still applies.

- Policy style arguments have started to come more and more into LD and people like running them in front of me. That's fine, I really like them. However, if you are running them you also take on policy-style burdens. For example, if you read a plan then you have to fulfill the 4 criteria of the HITS (if you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be running a plan. Also, considering the last person to lose on significance was Tom Durkin in the 1978 NDT, significance doesn't matter anymore). Most importantly, is that policy has a status quo whereas LD does not. That means that you need to orally give me the dates of evidence! If you're running a DA I need to know that the uniqueness is actually unique, if it's a plan that the inherency is actually inherent etc. Evidence without dates on it means that I won't give you credit for uniqueness or inherency claims that you need in the debate round. If your opponent points out that you didn't read those dates then I will give zero credit for any uniqueness/inherency claim and assume that your evidence is from 1784 and take away any offense that is based off of that plan/DA (I will also give said opponent at least a 29). So make sure to tell me those dates!

- I've recently read A LOT of social movement theory and have also been actively been involved in crafting strategy for a social movement. This has made me significantly more wary of most kritik alternatives. Kritik alts either make no sense, are not realistic, would never be adopted by wide ranging social movements, or are actively harmful to spreading social movements. It won't change how I vote, if the alt is won, but it does mean that common sense arguments against K alts will be considered more important. But if you look at my earlier stuff from Ks you'll see that I don't even think an alt needs to be read, so, you know, think about that risk.

- A priori/pre-standards arguments/other tricky-esque nibs. If you are losing everything else on the flow I need a reason to uniquely prefer your 3 sentences over the rest of the flow. If that does not happen I will find it very hard to vote for you over somebody else who is winning the rest of the round. Not that I won't evaluate the argument at all it will just be weighed against the rest of the round and if someone else is winning the rest of the round I will vote for the person winning the majority of the round. In simpler words if you go for an a priori, go for it hard. I'm not going to buy it simply because it is dropped.

- Metaethics. Basically, meta-ethics cannot be used as a "magic wand" to get out of framework debate. You still need to provide an ethic to meet your meta-ethic. Just saying my meta-ethical util comes before your ethical deont haha! is not enough. Language might be indeterminate but that doesn't mean we default to util (or deont) unless it's justified.

Since everybody asks me about how I evaluate theory here it is:

I don't mind theory, I will vote on it and I will vote on it in cases where I think no actual abuse has occurred or even times where the argument itself is patently non-abusive. But before you rush to pull out your three theory shells, I really don't like voting on it. Moreover, of all the decisions where people have argued with me after the round, 2/3 of them are because of theory. My paradigm seems to be different than other judges so I would say run theory at your risk. Now of course you're asking why is my paradigm different? Simple because I don't default to a monolithic competing interpretations framework, you don't need a counter-interp/RVI/etc. to win theory (though it is helpful and in a case of offense vs. no offense I'm going to default to offense). I'm not as technical on theory as other judges, simply saying my argument is not abusive, drop the argument not the debater, or even talking about reasonability will probably be enough to convince me to not vote on theory. In other words, I default to reasonability, though will be persuaded otherwise. Also, in a round between two equal theory debaters or even a round where both debaters have competent theory blocks, theory turns into a crapshoot (which, by the way, is most theory rounds) so while I will do my best to sort through it that doesn't mean my decision won't be somewhat random.

Also, I guess most LD judges don't evaluate theory this way so I should point this out. If you only go for theory in the NR/2NR or 2AR then the affirmative/negative does not need a RVI to win the theory debate because the only offense at the end of the round is on theory which means that I am merely evaluating who did the better theory debating and not worrying about substance at all. The RVI only comes into play if there is a contestation of substance AND theory at the end of the debate.

Policy Paradigm:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. My main philosophy is it's your round not mine so do what you want. I think a lot of how I judge policy is probably transferred from LD so look there for good stuff. One caveat to that, if there is something that seems very specific to LD (like saying "we" for example) do not bring that into a policy context.

Obviously I have some caveats for that:

First and foremost is that LD is most of what I've debated and coached. Though policy kids have this outdated version of what LD is, there is now every argument in policy in LD also with extra stuff too! I am fine with speed etc. Don't worry about that but I'm still a LDer at heart so be prepared. I've been mostly coaching policy since 2018 or so meaning that I've caught on to a lot more of the nuances of policy debate. At this point I coach more policy than LD so this is changing.

The other important take away is that social conventions of what you can and cannot do in LD and policy are slightly different. For example, RVIs in LD are not joke arguments but made in almost any theory round (though I don't like RVIs in policy). LD does not have the concept of overviews in the same way as policy and what is considered "line by line" is very different. I've been able to figure out most of these biases but occasionally I'll mess up. Just be aware.

I default to reasonability on T and theory issues.

I don't know why this has become a thing but apparently people don't say AND or NEXT after finishing cards in the 1AC or 1NC. You still need to do that so that I know when to flow.

I just learned what this term means but apparently I judge kick if that matters to you (and I think I'm understanding the term correctly)

Utilitarianism is moral philosophy that evaluates the morality of actions based on the consequences. This means that small scale/structural violence impacts are utilitarian because we care about the consequence of structural violence. Stop saying these arguments are not utilitarian or answering them as if they are not utilitarian. They are.

Email: shoxha2020@gmail.com

Give me music recommendations and I'll give you +.1 speaker points.

Intro / About Me:

Shout out to Westside High and UH - I wouldn't be anywhere without you. <3

Don't be discriminatory. I'm warning you now if you have to ask, "Is this problematic? Don't read it - there are better strategies out there.

Also Important: If you read spreading bad in front of me, I will not hack for you. I can spread and I can flow, but I am disabled and these skills were harder for me to develop than most. Many debaters see this as an opportunity for a persuasive 2ar and 2nr push, don't let this be you. I consider this motivated and ableist.

You're either winning an argument on the flow or you're not. Trivializing my struggles or the struggles of any judge for the ballot is an easy way to get me to despise you.

Debate is a game, but it is an academic game. Tech over truth, but truth constrains tech. You'll have a harder time convincing me global warming is fake than convincing me warming will destroy the planet. If two debaters are equal on a particular flow, truth is the obvious tie breaker.

I will try to intervene as little as possible - I'm old school in that you need to explain things to me like I'm 5 for me to grant you the arguments you want to go for.

I have been in this space for too long. I have zero clue how some old heads have been here for 20+ years. As such, it's becoming much harder to tolerate cringe, posturing, flexing, and generally being an obnoxious debater stereotype. While I will not punish you for it, it will still make me cringe. Be nice to people, there's a difference between being confident and being mean.

I vibe check speaks, I don't know what a 30 looks like, but I can feel it. But that doesn't mean that speaks are arbitrary because my flow checks my vibes. I default to a 28.5 and go higher or lower based on your strategic decisions.

Online debate and its consequences have been a disaster for the debate community. Disclose quickly, don't steal prep. I am growing tired of people that can't manage their files and make a 45-minute round an hour long.

Post UT update: Post rounding is cool and checks against dumb decisions, I frequently make bad decisions and I encourage you ask questions, but do it nicely.

Now for the gross stuff

K

I love the K. I've read many lit bases.

Know your lit, theorize, and don't neglect the material implications of your literature.

I think generic links are fine, but specific links are always better. Saying that a K link is generic and so I should gut check it is never sufficient - you need to explain why a generic link doesn't apply to your aff.

Don't drop your alt unless you're winning a framework push because dropping the alt means that I have to weigh the aff versus the status quo, and 9 out of 10, you will lose that debate.

I default to weighing the aff against the K or something to that effect. If you wan't me to exclude aff offense, you need to do some heavy work.

Fairness is not a good argument if a K team is winning that your model is problematic, justify policy making and then cry about fairness.

Substantive reasons for why they don't get the perm > Theoretical reasons for why they don't get the perm.

You must explain how the perm works for me and the net benefit. Saying "perm do both" - is okay but super weak and usually will not be enough to overcome disads to the perm.

K Affs

Love kritikal affs, but TVAs usually pick up my ballot here. You need to explain your model of debate / method. You should have a strong relationship to the topic or at least explain why a relationship to the topic is bad or doesn't matter.

Framework:

Define how your method of debate works, the benefits only your method can access, and why you can include their model / arguments, even if they can't argue for their perfect advocacy.

Generally speaking, it's okay if the topic excludes your specific author - you don't get the perfect aff sometimes, it is what it is. Debate is about controversies and every advocacy (mostly) will have side-constraints, disadvantages, or criticism from different schools of thought. You should embrace this.

Don't neglect case - if they're winning that their scholarship is good and key, it'll be much harder for you to win this flow.

T

Debatability is not the sole metric that I use to decide T debates. Real world application of literature is another side-constraint of an interpretation.

Sure, your interpretation might produce the most clash, but if there's no exportable topic education, what's the point of clash?

I'm very happy to vote on "Nobody in X field or expertise defines the words in the resolution in a specific way." I hate fake debate T interpretations with 0 real world application.

You need to weigh between standards and different implications of interpretations.

Also weigh definitions - but saying, "Our definition is from a reliable source, and yours isn't." is not an argument.

Competing Interps > Reasonability.

Policy

Deploy whatever arguments you need to win the round.

I love a good counterplan gimmick.

Pics are good. But my default can change.

Delay counterplans are not legit. Unless, the net benefit is fire and super specific.

Process counterplans are suspect, but I'm willing to vote on them.

Actor counterplans are fine.

You must justify judge kick - and say you're kicking something.

Use differential degrees or lense of sufficiency framing to explain how I should evaluate solvency deficits vs. the net benefit of the counterplan.

Weigh between different scenarios please.

Compare warrants and explain why yours are better, this is super neglected in policy and LD especially.

Explain how the PIC solves the aff. I will not give this to you just because you label something a pic.

No opinions on condo, dispo, or how many offs are too much. I will police this more in LD. I think 2 to 3 condo positions + squo is enough neg flex, but you're more than welcome to convince me otherwise. I really don't care.

There can be 0 risk of a DA - but it's very rare. You need to do stellar work here for me to say there's no risk to the DA.

Theory: 3

I don't like these debates in LD - they're way overused.

In policy, theory debates are fine.

Defaults:

Reasonabilty > Competing Interps

No RVIs.

Yes, 1AR theory.

DTA > DTD, unless DTA is impossible.

Tricks:

I used to discriminate against these arguments, but there's no reason why these arguments are any less legit than the K, a DA, or T. I'm just not qualified to be your judge - read at your own risk.

Director of Debate at Alpharetta High School where I also teach AP US Government & Politics (2013- present)

Former grad assistant at Vanderbilt (2012-2013)

Debated (badly) at Emory (2007-2011).

Please add me to the email chain: laurenivey318@gmail.com

I really love debate and am honored to be judging your debate.

Counterplans- I like a good counterplan debate. I generally think conditionality is good, and is more justified against new affirmatives. PICs, Process CPs, Uniqueness CPs, Multiplank CPs, Advantage CPs etc. are all fine. On consult counterplans, and other counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive, I tend to lean aff on CP theory. All CPs are better with a solvency advocate. If the negative reads a CP, presumption shifts affirmative, and the negative needs to be winning a decent risk of the net benefit for me to vote negative. I am probably not the greatest person for counterplan competition debates.

Disads- The more specific, the better. Yes, you can read your generic DAs but I love when teams have specific politix scenarios or other specific DAs that show careful research and tournament prep. If there are a lot of links being read on a DA, I tend to default to the team that is controlling uniqueness.

Topicality- I find T debates sometimes difficult to evaluate because they sometimes seem to require a substantial amount of judge intervention. A tool that I think is really under utilized in T debates is the caselist/ discussion of what affs are/ are not allowed under your interpretation. Try hard to close the loop for me at the end of the 2nr/ 2ar about why your vision of the topic is preferable. Be sure to really discuss the impacts of your standards in a T debate.

Framework- Framework is a complicated question for me. On a truth level, I think people should read a plan text, and I exclusively read plan texts when I was a debater. However, I'll vote for whoever wins the debate, whether you read a topical plan text or not, and frequently vote for teams that don't read a plan text; in fact, my voting record is better for teams reading planless affirmatives than it is for teams going for FW. However, I also think this is because teams that don't defend a plan are typically much better at defending their advocacy than neg teams are at going for FW. I tend to think affs should at least be in the direction of the topic; I'm fairly sympathetic to the "you explode limits 2nr" if your aff is about something else. Put another way, if your aff is not at least somewhat related to the topic area it's going to be harder to get my ballot. I do think fairness is a terminal impact because I don't know what an alternative way to evaluate the debate would be but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Kritiks- I am more familiar with more common Ks such as security or cap than I am with high theory arguments like Baudrillard. You can still read less common or high theory Ks in front of me, but you should probably explain them more. I tend to think the alternative is one of the weakest parts of the Kritik and that most negative teams do not do enough work explaining how the Kritik functions.

Misc-If both teams agree that topicality will not be read in the debate, and that is communicated to me prior to the start of the round, any mutually agreed previous year's topic is on the table. I will also bump speaks +0.5 for choosing this option as long as an effort is made by both teams. I am strongly in the camp of tech over truth. I flow on paper and definitely need pen time; I've tried to flow on the computer and it just doesn't work for me.

I am unlikely to vote on disclose your prefs, wipeout, spark, or anything else I would consider morally repugnant. I also don't think debate should be a question of who is a good person. While I think you should make good decisions out of round, I am not in the camp of "I will vote against you for bad decisions you made out of round" or allegations made in round about out of round behavior. But, I have voted against teams or substantially lowered speaks for making the round a hostile learning environment and think it is my job as a judge and educator to make the round a safe space.

I am increasingly frustrated by teams just dropping random buzzwords and asserting these are arguments. The word "semiotics" and then moving on is not an argument. Asserting something is a "sequencing DA" and moving on without an explanation of the argument is not an argument. I am not going to vote for you unless I can explain the argument back to you, so you need to make sure claims (or words) have warrants and explanations.

Good luck! Feel free to email me with any questions.

1. Conflicts [as of 10/04/2020]

• No Univ of Chicago Lab
• No Iowa City

2. Short Version

• tech over truth
• strong analytics/analysis can beat carded evidence
• prioritize your impacts
• have fun!

3. Pandemic Social Distancing Related Technology Notes

• Please slow down 5-10%. Emphasize your warrants. Without a microphone stem, your quality fluctuates. Keep in mind that I still flow on paper.
• Please get explicit visual or audio confirmation from everyone in the debate before beginning your speech. I may use a thumbs up to indicate I am ready.
• If my camera is off, unless I explicitly have told you otherwise, assume I'm not at the computer.
• If the current speaker has significant tech problems, I'll try to interrupt your speech and mark the last argument and timestamp.

4. Some Detail

I've been meaning to do this for a while, but have not really had the time. My hope is that I end up judging better debates as a result of this updated philosophy. I am now changing to a more linear philosophy, it is my hope that you read this in its entirety before choosing where to place me on the pref sheet. I debated for four years at Homewood-Flossmoor High School in the south Chicago suburbs from 2007-2011. During that time I debated, Sub-Saharan Africa, Alternative Energy, Social services and substantial reductions in Military presence.

Nearing a decade ago, during would would have been the h.s. space topic. I started at the University of Northern Iowa, Where I debated NDT/CEDA Middle East/North Africa while judging a few debate rounds across the midwest. After my freshman year I transferred to the University of Iowa, where I started coaching at Iowa City High School. This year, I will continue to coach the City High Debate team.

Framing, Issue choice and impact calculus are in my opinion the most important aspects of argumentation, and you should make sure they are components in your speeches. Late rebuttals that lack this analysis are severely.

I preference tech over truth. Your in round performance is far more important to me, as it is what I hear. I greatly attempt to preference the speaking portion of the debate. Increasingly, I've found that my reading evidence is not necessarily an aspect of close debates, but rather results from poor argument explanation and clarification. The majority of 'close rounds' that I've judged fall into the category of closeness by lack of explanation. In some limited instances, I may call for evidence in order to satisfy my intellectual fascination with the activity. Anything other than that--which I will usually express during the RFD--probably falls upon inadequate explanation and should be treated as such.

I feel my role as a judge is split evenly between policymaker and 'referee' in that when called to resolve an issue of fairness. I will prioritize that first. Addressing inequities in side balance, ability to prepare and generate offense is something may at times find slightly more important than substance. In short, I consider myself a good judge for theory, THAT BEING SAID, rarely do I find theory debates resolved in a manner that satisfies my liking - I feel theoretical arguments should be challenged tantamount to their substance based counterparts. Simply reading the block isn't enough. Though I was a 2A[≈ High power LED current, peak 2.7 A] in high school I have since found myself sliding towards the negative on theoretical questions. I can be convinced, however, to limit the scope of negative offense quite easily, so long as the arguments are well explained and adjudicated.

I consider reasonability better than competing interpretations, with the caveat that I will vote on the best interpretation presented. But topicality questions shouldn't be a major concern if the team has answered.

I have a long and complicated relationship with the K. I have a level of familiarity with the mainstream literature, so go ahead and read Capitalism or Neolib. Less familiar arguments will require more depth/better explanation.

I am the Director of Debate at Georgetown University ('21-present), before which I was the Assistant DOD (2017-21). I am also an Assistant Coach for Westminster. Before that, I debated for 4 years at Georgetown. In high school, I debated only regionally, for a tiny high school in West Texas.

Please include me on the email chain: bwk9@georgetown.edu

***Update: November 2022***

My prior paradigm was 5+ years out of date. The following are patterns in my judging that you should be aware of when debating in front of me.

All of the items below, EXCEPT for the "D-Rules (not subject to debate)" section, are simply DEFAULTS in the absence of debaters making an argument that I should evaluate these things differently. I would prefer that the DEBATERS tell me how to evaluate things and why, in which case these priors should rarely , if ever, come into play.

D-Rules (NOT subject to debate)

1. Please include me on the email chain.

2. In high school debates, all of the participants are minors, and I will not hesitate to intervene in a debate if anything legally or ethically dubious is occurring. This includes any bullying, displays of sexism or racism, etc. Relatedly, there are arguments which are appropriate for the college context but that I will not--and, legally, cannot!--countenance in a HS debate (one example: the reading of uncensored explicit evidence a la Preciado).

3. Consider me dead inside with respect to any preferences regarding argumentative substance. However, I have very little tolerance for either arguments or ways of engaging that make any participant feel unsafe, and will intervene if necessary.

4. Allegations of an ethics violation will immediately end the debate. No take-backs. I will then inform the tabroom and follow the tournament's prescribed procedures, or in the lack of such procedures will unilaterally determine whether it rises to the threshold of an ethics VI. If so, the accuser will win; if not, the accuser will lose. If allowed for by the tournament rules, I will make a subjective determination regarding whether the violation (or accusation, if the accuser loses) was engaged in knowingly and/or in competitive bad faith, and if so will assign the lowest allowable speaker points. To help guide this determination: egregious or persistent clipping is a D-Rule. So is evidence falsification. Poor evidence "hygiene," e.g. ending in the middle of a paragraph, is a D-rule, but is unlikely to warrant the additional "poor speaks" sanction if it does not change the meaning of the card, whereas if it cuts out a strawperson it is likely to warrant the "poor speaks" sanction. Minor good-faith mistakes in evidence citation are very unlikely to rise to the threshold of a D-rule if it is left up to my discretion by tab and/or the tournament rules.

Things to Know About Debating In Front of Me

1. Instead of focusing only on extending and answering arguments, it would behoove debaters to begin their final rebuttals by clarifying what the comparative RFD for the Aff/Neg should be, identifying the key questions to be resolved in the debate, and then going through the process of resolving them. You can think of this as providing me a roadmap for how I should approach adjudicating the debate once it ends. Absent this, I will come up with my own roadmap, but it is substantially less likely to work out in your favor and also I will be grumpy about it.

2. I have found that the way that arguments are characterized early in the debate often bears heavily on how I interpret and resolve disputes over them in the final rebuttals. This has accounted for numerous panel splits in debates I've judged the past couple years. If, for example, an argument is articulated in one way in the CXes (all of which I flow), I will tend to treat that articulation as binding; or, if a plan or counterplan is characterized in a given way in the 2NC and the 1AR does not push back on that characterization, I will adopt that understanding of the plan or counterplan and hold the line against 2ARattempts to rearticulate it.

3. Evidence: I value quality of argument and evidence. A smart, well-warranted analytic is far more valuable than a bad card. Research is at the core of what makes policy debate unique and valuable relative to e.g. Public Forum, Parli, etc. However, evidence matters only insofar as it provides reasons to believe you about your arguments (e.g. qualifications, warrants, etc.); it never constitutes an argument itself.

4. I will not read your speech doc, a practice which I've observed account for other panel splits in recent years. I will spot check specific pieces of evidence if they are contested in CX or in speeches. I will read cards I am directed to after the debate, but it is up to you to have leveraged them effectively in your speech--and, how good a card needs to be to get the job done on a given issue is inversely proportional to how well you debate it. If debaters want their evidentiary advantage to matter--as it should--they should do more evidence comparison, including as it relates to source quality, etc. The sole exception to this: if evidence is selectively underlined to an argument not even contemplated by the original, I reserve the right to unilaterally discount it (think here of the difference between underlining a movie script or selectively underlining words in unrelated sentences to concoct an argument never made in the source, vs. cutting a cards as a strawperson - the latter I will very unhappily accept if the other team does not contest it, albeit at the cost of speaker points, whereas the former I will probably not accept, if I notice it, even if the other team does NOT call it out).

5. Conceded arguments are true arguments. However, 1.) A complete "argument" consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact--assertions are not arguments, and thus are not "true" even if dropped. 2.) Receiving the full weight of an argument does not matter in-and-of itself--you must still unpack why that dropped argument impacts the rest of the debate, and if that explanation was not there initially then the implication component of that can still constitute a new argument to which responses are allowed.

6. CX filibustering: Some amount of it is part of the game, but if this is taken to a silly extreme, then I will not hesitate to pull a Dallas Perkins and tell you to "ANSWER the QUESTION" so as to enable a meaningful debate to occur

Argument Defaults

1. Absent arguments to the contrary, CX and 2AC clarifications of plan mandates constitute binding amendments to the plan text, making them presumptively legitimate sources of counterplan competition. (Merely saying that something is "normal means," however, does not make it a mandate, and thus is presumptively not a legitimate source of CP competition.)

2. My defaults are that conditionality is a.) an all-or-nothing thing and b.) is good. However, I have become increasingly open to contestation of either premise.

3. Plan vagueness is out of control, especially in high school, and I will gladly vote Neg on that, either as a voting issue in-itself or smart circumvention arguments or DA links about the way in which the vague plan would be most likely interpreted and applied.

4. Counterplan vagueness is also out of control. If your CP text boils down to, e.g., "do innovation" rather than outlining a mechanism for how to bolster innovation, and the Affirmative points out that that is meaningless, I will agree with the Aff.

5. Kritiks: By default I assume that the K is not a DA plus a CP and that therefore the debate is a referendum on whatever the Link/Alt is critiquing, e.g. the Aff's reps, epistemology, political paradigm, etc. I can be convinced of plan focus/FW-no Ks, particularly if it is grounded in arguments about the resolutional burden of proof and the Negative's reciprocal burden of rejoinder, though meeting in the middle is often the path of less resistance. I am also willing to adopt very Neg-friendly frameworks, e.g. 'you link you lose,' but with the proper Aff responses I will find them ultimately unpersuasive. Absent Aff FW arguments that render them applicable ('pragmatism good,' for instance, or arguments about reciprocity of burdens), I do not intuitively understand why arguments like 'movements fail,' 'transition wars,' 'alt not feasible / no one is persuaded,' etc. would be relevant considerations--but with them, I do.

Argument Defaults - K Affs

5. K Affs: I prefer that the Affirmative be "topical" slash affirm the resolution. I am pretty good for topical K Affs, insofar as I think that there is substantial room for play regarding what topical AFFIRMATION means/entails, and that the wording of the resolution does not necessarily prescribe that topical "affirmation" take the form of defending the narrow causal desirability of implementing a specific topical policy proposal.

However, if your approach when reading a K Aff is to impact turn topicality, the part I struggle with is how debate can be workable once we have left the resolution behind. To deal with this, please speak DIRECTLY to that question in some manner in the 2AR -- whether by explicitly saying that it's better for debate not to be workable, explaining why it will not become unworkable, clearly defending some alternative limiting principle for what the Affirmative win condition is in place of the resolution, or something else -- AND have that be clearly traceable to arguments you set up in the 2AC and 1AR.

6. Framework v. K Affs: I do find there to be a meaningful difference between "topicality," i.e. the Affirmative must affirm the resolution and did not, and "framework," i.e. the Affirmative did not debate or affirm in the specific manner the Neg would have liked for them to. It would behoove the Neg to leverage those differences in response to Aff offense that presumes the latter or blurs the line.

I find "fairness" unpersuasive as a terminal impact. However, this is primarily a function of Negatives explaining it poorly, because I am extremely compelled by the argument that an axiomatic precondition for debate to operate is that the Affirmative must meet their burden of proof arising from the resolution, and that until they do so there is no logical basis for the Negative having any burden of rejoinder. All of which is to say: definitely feel free to go for fairness, BUT please take care to explain why it logically precedes everything else, AND to explicitly no-link the Aff's various lines of offense, rather than just making assertions about "procedural fairness."

Alternatively: feel free to say whatever "substantive" FW offense you'd like--I do find link turns to K Affs to often be truer than the K Affs themselves--BUT please do not just assert words like "clash" or "second and third level testing" without explication of what exactly you mean, why it is unique to your model of debate/foreclosed by the Aff's, and what the impact is; AND be aware that in so doing, you run the risk of making Aff impact turns LINK which otherwise would not.

I generally do not care about "T version," except insofar as it is explained in terms of what SPECIFIC lines of Affirmative offense are solved by the being able to read the Aff topically. (For example: "we need to go to X section of the library" is probably solved by T version, and arguably solved BETTER insofar as that model preserves a stronger ability and competitive incentive to dig into that issue than does the Aff's model). I DO think that that if a given Aff is COMPATIBLE with topical affirmation, that makes it easy to moot all of their offense while retaining a clear net benefit by saying that they should've have simply read the same Aff TOPICALLY (in essence, the same function that "T version" plays in a T debate vs. a policy Aff). In contrast, K Affs which are INcompatible with topical affirmation is generally better dealt with in front of me by "do it on the Neg" rather than a TVA.

Correspondingly: I tend to think that the best K Affs are centered not on K's of the resolution or topical Affs, but of BEING TOPICAL slash a model of topical debate--in which case the Neg will need to win that their model of debate is better, and a T version will only be useful in very specific, isolated instances for specific reasons.

UIUC '26 - industrial engineering

GBS '22

Topics: Immigration, arms sales (my beloved), CJR, and Water

2N for all

T/L

anything goes (yes you can run that impact turn)

- i gripe a lot about stuff later on but i legitimately do mean the above

a dropped argument is a true argument

yes even aspec/no neg fiat but...

...an argument is a claim, warrant, and implication

the troll theory's gotta have all three to count

hkdebait@gmail.com

I do not do college debate but am active in electoral politics and policy stuff so you don't need to explain anything beyond the most crucial/niche acronyms and T definitions

- i have done almost nothing debate related since april 22 so 75% of this is me having hot takes about the activity

send a card doc after the final speech

What you care about (policy v k)

Policy

The last time I went for t-usfg was as a sophomore (every 2nr was an impact turn v k affs)

single digit amount of K 2nrs throughout my career

if i somehow end up judging a clash debate i wouldmuch rather see an impact turn debate

More stuff since people lie in paradigms all the time

I am most familiar with standard DA, case, and CP debates (obviously)

I am relatively familiar with T and standard Ks (you know what I mean)

Least familiar with non-standard Ks and K-affs

senior wiki for reference > https://opencaselist.com/hspolicy21/GlenbrookSouth/KhKi

case debate is underrated (everyone says this but i actually mean it) (seriously)

Mechanics

call me whatever the hell you want

- yes inserting re-highlightings unless it's from a different part of the article

- yes open cx

- average speaks are 28.5

- asking for a doc with the cards removed is prep time - a marked doc is a doc with marks on the cards that were marked

- I will not vote on things that happened out of round

- i try to decide in a reasonable amount of time (>30 min decisions are a crime)

- ptiv is stupid (just win the c-i???)

#teaminfinitecondo

Random thoughts you can read while your partner does pre-round

You don't need to crack jokes or whatever for speaks, but if you do want to min-max speaks here's some thoughts

- i like creative strategies (cliche i know) - if your strategy has me thinking you put hours of research into this one subject (my favorite 2nr senior year was nuclear energy bad and junior year it was adv cp+crypto regs good or transhumanism)

- no such thing as too many adv cp planks

i never paid attention to this when i debated but making it easy to flow is really helpful especially considering I have terrible engineer handwriting

saying 'this is {ideology} propaganda' etc. is not a warrant or an implication

indicts are usually stupid unless its refuting something methodological/scientific

Stuff you can read while waiting for a decision

it seems like people aren't going for NATO bad which is understandable but i feel like the block could go ham but idk its not a great argument

Caddo Magnet ‘21

Kentucky '25

I want to be on the email chain, austinkiihnl@gmail.com.

Conflicts

Caddo Magnet

Niles North

Top Level

The most important thing I have to say is that I will do my absolute best to judge every debate in the least interventionist way possible, besides a few non-negotiables I'll list below. I will vote on an argument that I profoundly disagree with if I think that it was won. However, evidence quality influences technical debating and I value good evidence highly, even though I don't usually read a ton of cards in high school debates because I don't feel like I need to.

I've found that even though I have a ton of opinions about what I think debate should look like, those preferences pretty much entirely go away when judging. I don't care much at all about what arguments debaters are making and really only care about how it's debated. I've been in a lot of debates and have seen many people go for many different arguments, so I should be able to understand yours. However, I will say that I have a fairly strong preference for organized, and technical debating, and not debating in this way will probably make it harder than you'd like for me to give a satisfying decision.

I'll do my best to default to as few things as possible and adapt to the debate at hand. If you want me to view the debate a certain way, tell me how I should so I don't have to substitute my preferences for your debating.

Inequality Topic

I judged a lot of debates on the topic as a lab leader in a Michigan Classic lab this summer, so I have a basic understanding of what the topic looks like, but I'm not super involved in researching the high school topic, so you may want to unpack some particularly technical topic concepts/acronyms.

General Thoughts

I think of debate as a game, which filters a lot of these thoughts, but you can easily win that debate is not a game or is more than just a game. (Almost) everything is debatable.

It's generally better to make bold choices and only go for a few pieces of offense in the final rebuttals to explain them well than to go for a lot of things and not explain them as thoroughly.

I default to evaluating arguments probabilistically. That goes away if questioned.

Line by line is good.

Judge instruction is good.

Justify new arguments. Just because another team says you don't get new arguments doesn't mean it's true, especially if they're reading cards on an argument you dropped.

If you're going for a K of reps, you probably need case defense unless it was grossly mishandled. I see going for reps links while not answering the case as a bit like a link turn with no UQ. If you disagree, explain why and you'll be all good.

It'll help you to start the debate on judge kick early.

Good for T arguments with good evidence. I generally prefer predictability over debatability, but that's not absolute and shouldn't affect how I evaluate debates.

Good for competition debates. Send perm texts if it's anything besides do both, do the CP, or some variation of the plan and certain planks.

Good for politics. Read a lot of cards.

Good for impact turns and theory. Not because I think the arguments are true, I just think of them like any other argument and a lot of teams are bad at answering them. I don't really see why going for theory if you're winning is more "cowardly" than going for other arguments that you're winning that are technical TKOs, but that doesn't mean it's always or even often the best strategy.

Good for Ks that are impact turns/solvency takeouts to the case. Good for Ks that have alts that solve the case and links that are DAs to the plan. Probably best for Ks that are just Framework and say the aff shouldn't get to weigh the plan.

Good for extinction outweighs vs. the K. Also fine for the perm and link turns.

Good for clash and fairness. Fine for other impacts to FW. Good for a counter-interp or impact turn strategy against FW, just make sure you pick one.

Generally don't love K affs that identify truisms and say that's a reason to vote for them. Pointing out bad things does nothing for you if you don't have a means of solving them. Of course, you can also get unique offense based on what the neg says, but you need to explain what voting aff does, whether it changes debate practices, rejects unethical ones in just this debate, forwards a desirable political strategy, etc.

Fairly bad for frivolous theory arguments when they aren't based on resolutional language. For example, if the 2AC drops ASPEC, the neg often didn't have enough of an argument to extend it in the 2NC without making new arguments, so the 1AR gets to justify new arguments too. That doesn't mean I won't vote on bad theory arguments (I have), or that new 1AR arguments are automatically justified, but it does mean that I have a pretty high bar for winning them.

Bad for analogizing T to actual violence (genocide, drone strikes, etc.). That's not to say that you can't problematize reading T, but arguments comparing it to literal violence are wildly unpersuasive.

I think role of the ballot arguments are usually pretty silly.

Not the biggest fan of many soft left affs. I think lots of aff framing arguments are kinda silly but so are lots of other arguments, so I don’t actually care too much. I obviously prefer aff-specific framing arguments but if generic, I prefer risk assessment (existential risks overestimated, probability outweighs, conjunctive fallacy, butterfly effect, etc.) type aff framing arguments instead of "X comes first," "extinction is non-unique," and asserting that a DA is low risk without actual defense, but that seems to be out of vogue.

If you're going to say that plan text in a vacuum, functional and/or textual competition, utilitarianism, probability first, etc. are bad, you need to provide an alternative to those things. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of reading offense against a T interp when you don't have a counter-interp to solve any offense. The fact that those things have problems doesn't necessarily mean that alternatives are better.

LD

I judge this a little bit and there's not much that I have to say about it specifically. All of the stuff above applies equally to LD. I've only ever debated in policy and usually only judge policy so I'm probably best for you if you just act like this is a one-person policy debate.

Never really had a debate where "value criterions" became important, but if you're gonna do that, just explain why offense in favor of yours outweighs offense in favor of theirs and you'll be fine.

Not a fan of frivolous theory arguments.

PF

I've only judged this a few times. It would probably also help you to act like this was a policy debate because of my lack of familiarity with PF specifically. Really, you just need to win that your offense outweighs your opponent's.

Please don't paraphrase articles when first reading them. That's bordering on an academic integrity violation. Just read what your cards actually say, then you can obviously explain and paraphrase them in later speeches.

Non-negotiables

Both teams get 8 minutes for constructives, 5 minutes for rebuttals, and however many minutes of prep time the tournament invitation says/everyone in the round agrees to. I won't flow anything you say after the timer goes off.

CX is binding.

There is one winner and one loser.

I will flow both teams unless requested not to. If you request me not to flow and the other team would like me to, then I just won't flow you, which will almost certainly end up worse for you and make the debate harder for me to decide.

I won't vote on anything that did not occur in the round/I didn't see (personal attacks, prefs, disclosure, etc.). I think a judge's role is to determine who won the debate at hand, not who is a better person outside of it, and there's often no way to verify out-of-round claims. If someone makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, I will assist you in going to tab/whoever you'd feel most comfortable with so they can create a solution, but I don't view that as something that the judge should decide a debate upon, especially for high schoolers.

If a team initiates an ethics challenge, the debate stops and if it's found to be legitimate, the offending team will lose and will get the lowest speaks I can give. If it's not found to be legitimate, the team that initiated the challenge will lose.

It'll be hard to offend me but don't say any slurs or engage in harmful behavior against anyone else in the debate including racism, sexism, homophobia, intentionally misgendering someone, etc. I see pretty much all arguments as fair game but when that becomes personally harmful for other people in the debate, or is something indefensible like racism good, then it's crossed a line. I've thankfully never seen something like this happen in a debate that I've been in but it'd be naive to act like it's never happened. The line for what is and is not personally harmful to someone is obviously arbitrary but that applies to almost all things in debate, so I think it's fair to say that it's also up to the judge's discretion to determine when the line has been crossed.

Misc

I'm pretty expressive but I try not to be. I don't want to influence how the debate plays out but if I'm confused, think an argument is funny, or think an argument is bad, I might unintentionally show it.

I'll boost your speaks if you're reading a substantial number of cards that you cut if they're good. I've been seeing a lot of old, bad cards in docs that could very easily be replaced in an afternoon, so I'll reward people that I see putting in the work. I'll be ecstatic if most of your cards, especially in the 1AC and 1NC, are from 2021 or newer.

I've noticed lots of debaters being pretty quiet when they're speaking which has made it hard to understand and flow. It seems like a result of online debate, so I'll cut some slack, but it's generally better to be too loud than too quiet.

Call me Austin, not "judge."

I like when people are funny. Lighten up the debate and make some (good) jokes if that's your thing.

Feel free to post-round. You won't offend me.

The only things you really need to know:
1. If you berate, threaten, verbally or physically attack your opponents, I will end the debate and you'll receive a loss along with the lowest points Tabroom will allow me to assign.
2. Don't endorse self-harm.
3. Arguments admissible for adjudication include everything said from when the 1AC timer starts until the 2AR timer ends. Anything else is irrelevant.

4. I'm unlikely to vote for hidden dropped one line theory arguments. Hidden ASPEC, new affs bad, severance in a voting issue, X random CP type is bad etc. I accept that my commitment to the idea judges should assess debates as technically as possible and this notion might seem contradictory but debates coming down to these types of arguments winning makes the activity worse and detract from hard work.

Other than that, do what you do best. Technical debating is more likely to result in you winning than anything else.

I am a coach at The Harker School. Other conflicts: Texas, Emory, Liberal Arts and Science Academy, St Vincent de Paul, Bakersfield High School.

Email Chain: yes, cardstealing@gmail.com

You will receive a speaker point bump if you give your final rebuttal without the use of a laptop. If you flow off your laptop I will use my best judgement to assess the extent to which you're delivering arguments in such a way that demonstrates you have flowed the debate.

Ultimately, do what you do best. Giving speeches you're comfortable with is almost certainly a better path to victory than attempting to adapt to any of this stuff below. Debate is extremely hard and requires immense amounts of works. I will try to give you the same level of effort that I know you've put in.

Debate is an activity about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand your argument because what you are saying because you are unclear, haven't explained it, or developed it into a full argument-claim, warrant, impact, it likely won't factor in my decision.

Virtually nothing you can possibly say or do will offend me [with the new above caveat] if you can't beat a terrible argument you probably deserve to lose.

Framework- Fairness is both an internal link and an impact. Debate is a game but its also so much more. Go for T/answer T the way that makes most sense to you, I'll do my best to evaluate the debate technically.

Counter-plans-

-spamming permutations, particular ones that are intrinsic, without a text and with no explanation isn't a complete argument. [insert perm text fine, insert counter plan text is not fine].

-pretty neg on "if it competes, its legitimate." Aff can win these debates by explaining why theory and competition should be separated and then going for just one in the 2ar. the more muddled you make this, the better it usually is for the neg.

-non-resolutional theory is rarely if ever a reason to reject the team. Generally don't think its a reason to reject the argument either.

-I'm becoming increasingly poor for conditionality bad as a reason to reject the team. This doesn't mean you shouldn't say in the 2ac why its bad but I've yet to see a speech where the 2AR convinced me the debate has been made irredeemably unfair or un-educational due to the status of counter plans. I think its possible I'd be more convinced by the argument that winning condo is bad means that the neg is stuck with all their counter plans and therefore responsible for answering any aff offense to those positions. This can be difficult to execute/annoying to do, but do with that what you will.

Kritiks

-affs usually lose these by forgetting about the case, negs usually lose these when they don't contextualize links to the 1ac. If you're reading a policy aff that clearly links, I'll be pretty confused if you don't go impact turns/case outweighs.

-link specificity is important - I don't think this is necessarily an evidence thing, but an explanation thing - lines from 1AC, examples, specific scenarios are all things that will go a long way

-these are almost always just framework debates these days but debaters often forget to explain the implications winning their interpretation has on the scope of competition. framework is an attempt to assign roles for proof/rejoinder and while many of you implicitly make arguments about this, the more clear you can be about those roles, the better.

-i'm less likely to think "extinction outweighs, 1% risk" is as good as you think it is, most of the time the team reading the K gives up on this because they for some reason think this argument is unbeatable, so it ends up mattering in more rfds than it should

LD -

I have been judging LD for a year now. The policy section all applies here.

Tech over truth but, there's a limit - likely quite bad for tricks - arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete. Dropped arguments are important if you explain how they implicate my decision. Dropped arguments are much less important when you fail to explain the impact/relevance of said argument.

RVIs - no, never, literally don't. 27 ceiling. Scenario: 1ar is 4 minutes of an RVI, nr drops the rvi, I will vote negative within seconds of the timer ending.

Policy/K - both great - see above for details.

Phil - haven't judged much of this yet, this seems interesting and fine, but again, arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete arguments.

Arguments communicated and understood by the judge per minute>>>>words mumbled nearly incomprehensibly per minute.

Unlikely you'll convince me the aff doesn't get to read a plan for topicality reasons. K framework is a separate from this and open to debate, see policy section for details.

PF -

If you read cards they must be sent out via email chain with me attached or through file share prior to the speech. If you reference a piece of evidence that you haven't sent out prior to your speech, fine, but I won't count it as being evidence. You should never take time outside of your prep time to exchange evidence - it should already have been done.

"Paraphrasing" as a substitute for quotation or reading evidence is a bad norm. I won't vote on it as an ethics violation, but I will cap your speaker points at a 27.5.

I realize some of you have started going fast now, if everyone is doing that, fine. However, adapting to the norms of your opponents circuit - i.e. if they're debating slowly and traditionally and you do so as well, will be rewarded with much higher points then if you spread somebody out of the room, which will be awarded with very low points even if you win.

Background:

Director of Debate at Georgetown Day School.

Please add me to the email chain - georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com.

For questions or other emails - gkoo@gds.org.

I do not share speech documents from rounds I have judged. Please reach out to the teams who debated.

Big Picture:

Read what you want. Have fun. I know you all put a lot time into this activity, so I am excited to hear what you all bring!

Policy Debate

Things I like:

• 2AR and 2NRs that tell me a story. I want to know why I am voting the way I am. I think debaters who take a step back, paint me the key points of clash, and explain why those points resolve for their win fare better than debaters who think every line by line argument is supposed to be stitched together to make the ballot.
• Warrants. A debater who can explain and impact a mediocre piece of evidence will fare much better than a fantastic card with no in-round explanation. What I want to avoid is reconstructing your argument based off my interpretation of a piece of evidence. I don't open speech docs to follow along, and I don't read evidence unless its contested in the round or pivotal to a point of clash.
• Simplicity. I am more impressed with a debater that can simplify a complex concept. Not overcomplicating your jargon (especially K's) is better for your speaker points.
• Topicality (against policy Aff's). This fiscal redistribution topic seems quite large so the better you represent your vision of the topic the better this will go for you. Please don't list out random Aff's without explaining them as a case list because I am not very knowledgeable on what they are.
• Case debates. I think a lot of cases have very incredulous internal links to their impacts. I think terminal defense can exist and then presumption stays with the Neg. I'm waiting for the day someone goes 8 minutes of case in the 1NC. That'd be fantastic, and if done well would be the first 30 I'd give. Just please do case debates.
• Advantage CP's and case turns. Process CP's are fine as well, but I much prefer a well researched debate on internal links than a debate about what the definition of "resolved" "the" and "should"" are. Don't get me wrong though, I am still impressed by well thought out CP competition.
• Debates, if both teams are ready to go, that start early. I also don't think speeches have to be full length, if you accomplished what you had to in your speech then you can end early. Novice debaters, this does not apply to you. Novices should try to fill up their speech time for the practice.
• Varsity debaters being nice to novices and not purposefully outspreading them or going for dropped arguments.
• Final rebuttals being given from the flow without a computer.

Things:

• K Affirmatives and Framework/T. I'm familiar and coached teams in a wide variety of strategies. Make your neg strategy whatever you're good at. Advice for the Aff: Answer all FW tricks so you have access to your case. Use your case as offense against the Neg's interpretation. You're probably not going to win that you do not link to the limits DA at least a little, so you should spend more time turning the Neg's version of limits in the context of your vision of debate and how the community has evolved. I believe well developed counter-interpretations and explanations how they resolve for the Neg's standards is the best defense you can play. Advice for the Neg: Read all the turns and solves case arguments. Soft left framework arguments never really work out in my opinion because it mitigates your own offense. Just go for limits and impact that out. Generally the winning 2NR is able to compartmentalize the case from the rest of the debate with some FW trick (TVA, SSD, presumption, etc.) and then outweigh on a standard. If you aren't using your standards to turn the case, or playing defense on the case flow, then you are probably not going to win.
• Role of the Ballot. I don't know why role of the ballot/judge arguments are distinct arguments from impact calculus or framework. It seems to me the reason the judge's role should change is always justified by the impacts in the round or the framework of the round. I'm pretty convinced by "who did the better debating." But that better debating may convince me that I should judge in a certain way. Hence why I think impact calculus or framework arguments are implicit ROB/ROJ arguments.
• Tech vs. truth. I'd probably say I am tech over truth. But truth makes it much easier for an argument to be technically won. For example, a dropped permutation is a dropped permutation. I will vote on that in an instant. But an illogical permutation can be answered very quickly and called out that there was no explanation for how the permutation works. Also the weaker the argument, the more likely it can be answered by cross applications and extrapolations from established arguments.
• Kritiks. I find that K turns case, specific case links, or generic case defense arguments are very important. Without them I feel it is easy for the Aff to win case outweighs and/or FW that debates become "you link, you lose." I think the best K debaters also have the best case negs or case links. In my opinion, I think K debaters get fixated on trying to get to extinction that they forget that real policies are rejected for moral objections that are much more grounded. For example, I don't need the security kritik to lead to endless war when you can provide evidence about how the security politics in Eastern Europe has eroded the rights and quality of life of people living there. This coupled with good case defense about the Aff's sensational plan is in my opinion more convincing.

Things I like less:

• Stealing prep. Prep time ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed. If you read extra cards during your speech, sending that over before cross-ex is also prep time. I'm a stickler for efficient rounds, dead time between speeches is my biggest pet peeve. When prep time is over, you should not be typing/writing or talking to your partner. If you want to talk to your partner about non-debate related topics, you should do so loud enough so that the other team can also tell you are not stealing prep. You cannot use remaining cross-ex time as prep.
• Debaters saying "skip that next card" or announcing to the other team that you did not read xyz cards. It is the other team's job to flow.
• Open cross. In my opinion it just hurts your prep time. There are obvious exceptions when partners beneficially tag team. But generally if you interrupt your partner in cross-ex or answer a question for them and especially ask a question for them, there better be a good reason for it because you should be prepping for your next speech
• 2NC K coverage that has a 6 min overview and reads paragraphs on the links, impacts, and alt that could have been extended on the line by line.
• 2NC T/FW coverage that has a 6 min overview and reads extensions on your standards when that could have been extended on the line by line.
• 10 off. That should be punished with conditionality or straight turning an argument. I think going for conditionality is not done enough by Affirmative teams.
• Debaters whispering to their partner after their 2A/NR "that was terrible". Be confident or at least pretend. If you don't think you won the debate, why should I try convincing myself that you did?
• Card clipping is any misrepresentation of what was read in a speech including not marking properly, skipping lines, or not marking at all. Intent does not matter. A team may call a violation only with audio or video proof, and I will stop the round there to evaluate if an ethics violation has happened. If a team does not have audio or video proof they should not call an ethics violation. However, I listen to the text of the cards. If I suspect a debater is clipping cards, I will start following along in the document to confirm. If a tournament has specific rules or procedures regarding ethics violations, you may assume that their interpretations override mine.

PF Debate:

• Second rebuttal must frontline, you can't wait till the second summary.
• If it takes you more than 1 minute to send a card, I will automatically strike it from my flow. This includes when I call for a card. I will also disregard evidence if all there is a website link. Cards must be properly cut and cited with the relevant continuous paragraphs. Cards without full paragraph text, a link, a title, author name, and date are not cards.
• You are only obligated to send over evidence. Analytics do not need to be sent, the other team should be flowing.
• Asking questions about cards or arguments made on the flow is prep time or crossfire time.
• If it isn't in the summary, it's new in the final focus.
• Kritiks in PF, go for it! Beware though that I'm used to CX and may not be hip on how PF debaters may run Kritiks.

• Glenbrook South 2018-2022 (Immigration, Arms Sales, Criminal Justice, Water Policy); George Washington University 2022-Present (Civic Debate Society: Worker Cooperatives)
• Yes Email Chain - debate.squid@gmail.com
• Call me Sid. Don't call me "judge". I'm not that much older than y'all.

Pre-Whatever Tournament Note:

I have judged approximately 0 rounds on this topic. I don't really know the main T, DAs, Affs, CPs, or topic-specific Ks. I have not flowed in more than 6 months. I will need more detail than other judges will. My debate background and a general understanding of International Affairs is all that I bring to the debate round. Don't assume I know acronyms, don't assume I know debate arguments, don't assume I know what your blocks are saying. Going slower is more likely to help you than going hyper-speed.

Actual Stuff:

Paradigms are stupid. If you're looking at this in the 15 minutes before the round, you do you and I'll try to keep up. If you are looking at this while doing prefs, here's what you should know. I did debate for four years. I had relative success in the back halves of my Junior and Senior seasons, including a TOC trip as a senior.

Things to know about me as a person:

• I'm an International Affairs and Economics major, with a general interest in a variety of topics ranging from Philosophy to Geographical Studies
• I love reading about politics and international issues
• My favorite serious argument is either the Militarism K/DA or the ICJ Counterplan, both from the Arms Topic
• My favorite not-as-serious argument was Wipeout

Things to know about me from a debate standpoint:

• I flow on paper - which is another way of saying "GO SLOW THROUGH YOUR TAGS"
• I mostly did policy impacts
• Fine with funny arguments (Spark, Wipeout) and abusive arguments (certain PICs, CPs, etc.)
• Love process CPs on bad topics
• T is also fun when it's clean
• I think people underestimate the power of a smart analytic
• Just do what you do best and we'll all have an ok time

Also just don't be a jerk. That's about it.

Good luck!

julian kuffour (any)

julianjudging@gmail.com

Lane Tech - 2012 - 2013

Iowa City High - 2013 - 2016

University of Northern Iowa - 2016 - 2017

Emporia State 2018 - 2021

Berkeley Prep - 2021 -

-----

2022 Update

TLDR:

-email chain -

BerkeleyPrepDocs@gmail.com

natodocs@googlegroups.com

-Recently retired k-leaning flex debater/resident performative stunt queen for Berkeley Prep Debate

-would much rather judge a really good policy v policy round than a poorly executed k round - BUT - would ultimately prefer to judge a k v k round where both sides have competing and creative strategies that they are both a) deeply invested in and b) have interesting interpretations of. Those are the rounds I always had the most fun in, but to be clear, I have also realized over the years that a policy v policy round has the potential for just as much, if not more and have no problem judging these debates.

-the team executing whatever argument they are most comfortable with at the highest level they can, will always in my eyes have an easier time getting my ballot/receiving higher speaks which means that the the speeches I want to see are those that you are enthused about giving and ultimately, I want you to be excited to be able to do whatever it is that you are best at.

-went for everything from big stick warming affs to f*** debate performance 1AC's, to Black/Native Studies like Warren, Wilderson, Moten, King, Gumbs and Hartman to Queer theory like Butler, Edelman and Trans-Rage to High theory like Nietzsche, Baudy and OOO as well as Procedurals like T/FW/A- and I-Spec, Disads/Case turns like to deterrence, politics and SPARK and of course, multiple different flavors of counterplans. so regardless of what it is you go for I'm down - just don't take this as an excuse to not use judge instruction/concise explanations that makes sense - even if I was a Nietzsche one - trick in high school that doesn't mean I'm going to do the nihilism work for you. All this is to say is that whoever you may be, you should feel comfortable that I have in some way or another had a certain level of experience with your literature base.

Important Note:

Due to recent events its been suggested to me that I add a layer to my philosophy I wasn't sure was necessary, but in an effort to help protect future debaters/debate rounds, as well as myself/fellow judges, here is what I will say -

While I do empathize with the competitive nature of this activity, it should go without saying that if there is violence of any kind, whether that be intentional or not, my role as an educator in this community is to intervene if that situation deems my involvement to be necessary and I want to make it very clear that I have no qualms in doing so. Its important to recognize when we have to put the game aside and understand as a community that we have a responsibility to learn from situations like those and to be better as we move forward. SO just for the sake of clarity, I do not have a desire to stop rounds, in fact - quite the opposite. However, my role as a judge (one that I would hope others embody when judging my own students) is one that adjudicates the round in the most equitable means possible AS WELL AS one that ensures the safety of, to the best of my capacity, each debate round and all of its participants/observers.

Also - Sometimes, and not always, but in the same fashion as countless other judges, I can, at times, be a very reactive/nonverbal judge. Understanding that those kinds of things are a) an inevitable part of this activity b) not always caused by something you did and c) can be incredibly critical in your in round-decision making is crucial and is a fundamental skill that I believe to be vastly important in succeeding within this activity. HOWEVER, that means that whether or not you choose to modify what you are doing based off how I am reacting is, at the end of the day, your decision and your decision alone - recognizing when to do so/when not to is a core facet of competing.

Strike me if you don't like it.

specific feels about certain things:

- have aff specific link explanations regardless of offcase position - that doesnt mean that every card has to be specific to the aff but your explanation of the link should be as specific to the 1AC as you can make possible - extra speaker points to those who can successfully pull lines

- hot take: after all this time in online debate, I will in fact "verbally interject if unable to hear" regardless of whether you make that clear to me before you begin your speech - so as a personal preference don't feel obligated to say that anymore. Id rather you just give me an order and start after getting some signal (verbal or visual) that we're all ready. as an incentive to help try and stop this practice, expect a lil boost in points.

- that being said, "as specific to the 1AC" means you could have a really good link to aff's mechanism. or you could have a great state link. or a link to their impacts. etc. it doesnt matter to me what the link is as long as it is well developed and made specific to what the 1AC is. I dont want to hear the same generic state link as much as the next person but if you make it creative and you use the aff than I dont see a problem.

- affirmatives could be about the topic, or they could not be, its up to you as long as whatever you choose to do you can defend and explain. If you're not about the topic and its a framework debate, I need to know what your model of debate is or why you shouldnt need to defend one etc. if youre reading a performance aff, the performance is just as important if not more than the evidence you are reading - so dont forget to extend the performance throughout the debate and use it to answer the other teams arguments.

- whether its one off or 8 please be aware of the contradictions you will be making in the 1NC and be prepared to defend them or have some sort of plan if called out.

- on that note theory debates are fine and could be fun. im not that opposed to voting on theory arguments of all varieties as long as you spend a sufficient amount of time in the rebuttals to warrant me voting on them. most of the time thats a substantial amount if not the entirety of one or more of your rebuttals.

- perm debates are weird and i dont feel great voting for "do both" without at least an explanation of how that works. "you dont get a perm in method debates" feels wrong mostly because like these are all made up debate things anyways and permutations are good ways to test the competitiveness of ks/cps/cas. that being said, if you have a good justification for why the aff shouldnt get one and they do an insufficient job of answering it, i will obviously vote on "no perms in method debates"

- dropped arguments are probably true arguments, but there are always ways to recover, however, not every argument made in a debate is an actual argument and being able to identify what is and isn't will boost your speaker points

speaks:

how these are determined is inherently arbitrary across the board and let's not pretend I have some kind of rubric for you that perfectly outlines the difference between a 28.5 and a 28.6, or a 29.3 and a 29.4, or that my 29.3 will be the same as some other judges.

I do however think about speaks in terms of a competitive ladder, with sections that require certain innate skills which ended up being fairly consistent with other judges, if not slightly on the higher side of things. Hopefully, this section will more so help give you an idea of how you can improve your speeches for the next time you have me in the back.

-26s: these are few and far between, but if are to get one of these, we've probably already talked about what happened after the round. The key here is probably don't do whatever is that you did, and is most likely related to the stuff I talked about at the top.

-27s: If you're getting something in this range from me, it means you should be focusing on speaking drills (with an emphasis on clarity, and efficiency), as well as developing a deeper/fuller analysis of your arguments that picks apart the detailed warrants within the evidence you are reading.

-28s: Still need to be doing drills, but this time with more of an emphasis on affective delivery, finding a comfortable speed, and endurance. At this point, what I probably need to see more from you is effective decision making as well as judge instruction - in order to move into the 29 range, you should be writing my ballot for me with your final rebuttals in so far as using those speeches to narrow the debate down and effectively execute whatever route that may be by painting a picture of what has happened leading up to this moment

-29s: at this point, you're probably fairly clear and can effectively distinguish between pitches and tones as you go in order to emphasize relevant points. The only drills you should be doing here should be concerned with efficiency and breathing control, and if you are in the low 29's this is most likely a clarity issue and you should probably slow down a bit in order to avoid stumbling and bump your speaks up to high 29's. Higher 29's are most likely those who are making the correct decisions at most if not all stages of the debate, and successfully execute the final speeches in ways that prioritize judge instruction, and clearly lay the ballot out for me throughout the speech.

-30s: I actually don't have a problem giving these out, because I think my bar for a "perfect" speech can be subjective in so far as 30's for me can definitely make mistakes, but in the end you had a spectacular debate where you gave it everything you could and then some. I try not to give these out often though because of the risk it could possibly mess with your seeding/breaking, so if you do get one of these, thanks - I had a wonderful experience judging you.

-0.0 - 0.9 - this section is similar for every category in that it is dependent on things like argument extension and packaging, handling flows/the line by line, cross ex, link debating, etc. however, a team that is in the 29 range will have a higher bar to meet for those sort of minutia parts of your speech than those in the 28 or 27. That's because as you improve in delivery you should also be improving in execution, which means that in my eyes, a debater who may be in the 27 range the first time I see them, but is now speaking in the 28 range will have a higher bar than they did before in order to get into the high 28s.

Berkeley Prep Assistant Coach - 2017 - Present

10+ years experience in national circuit policy @ Damien HS, Baylor University and other institutions

Email: Jack.Lassiter4@gmail.com

I will evaluate offense and defense to make my decision unless you tell me to do otherwise.

Framework

I have an appreciation for framework debates, especially when the internal link work is thorough and done on the top of your kritik/topicality violation before it is applied to pivotal questions on the flow that you resolve through comparative arguments. On framework, I personally gravitate towards arguments concerning the strategic, critical, or pedagogical utility of the activity - I am readily persuaded to vote for an interpretation of the activity's purpose, role, or import in almost any direction [any position I encounter that I find untenable and/or unwinnable will be promptly included in the updates below]

The Kritik

I have almost no rigid expectations with regard to the K. I spent a great deal of my time competing reading Security, Queer Theory, and Psychoanalysis arguments. The bodies of literature that I am most familiar with in terms of critical thought are rhetorical theory (emphasizing materialism) and semiotics. I have studied and debated the work of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze, to that extent I would say I have an operative understanding and relative familiarity with a number of concepts that both thinkers are concerned with.

Topicality:

I think that by virtue of evaluating a topicality flow I almost have to view interpretations in terms of competition. I can't really explain reasonability to myself in any persuasive way, if that changes there will surely be an update about it - this is also not to say nobody could convince me to vote for reasonability, only that I will not default in that direction without prompt.

Counterplans:

Theory debates can be great - I reward strategic decisions that embed an explanation of the argument's contingent and applied importance to the activity when going for a theory argument on a counterplan.

I believe that permutations often prompt crucial methodological and theoretical reflection in debate - structurally competitive arguments are usually generative of the most sound strategic and methodological prescriptions.

Updates:

Judging for Berkeley Prep - Meadows 2020

I have judged enough framework debates at this point in the topic to feel prompted to clarify my approach to judging framework v. K aff rounds. I believe that there are strong warrants and supporting arguments justifying procedural fairness but that these arguments still need to be explicitly drawn out in debates and applied as internal link or impact claims attached to an interpretation or defense of debate as a model, activity, or whatever else you want to articulate debate as. In the plainest terms, I'm saying that internal link chains need to be fully explained, weighed, and resolved to decisively win a framework debate. The flipside of this disposition applies to kritikal affs as well. It needs to be clear how your K Aff interacts with models and methods for structuring debate. It is generally insufficient to just say "the aff impacts are a reason to vote for us on framework" - the internal links of the aff need to be situated and applied to the debate space to justify Role of the Ballot or Role of the Judge arguments if you believe that your theory or critique should implicate how I evaluate or weigh arguments on the framework flow or any other portion of the debate.

As with my evaluation of all other arguments, on framework a dropped claim is insufficient to warrant my ballot on its own. Conceded arguments need to be weighed by you, the debater. Tell me what the implications of a dropped argument are, how it filters or conditions other aspects of the flow, and make it a reason for decision.

Judging for Damien Debate - Berkeley (CA) 2016

In judging I am necessarily making comparisons. Making this process easier by developing or controlling the structure of comparisons and distinctions on my flow is the best advice I could give to anyone trying to make me vote for an argument.

I don't feel like it is really possible to fully prevent myself from intervening in a decision if neither team is resolving questions about how I should be evaluating or weighing arguments. I believe this can be decisively important in the following contexts: The impact level of framework debates, The impact level of any debate really, The method debate in a K v K round, The link debate... The list goes on. But, identifying particular points of clash and then seeing how they are resolved is almost always my approach to determining how I will vote, so doing that work explicitly in the round will almost always benefit you.

If you have any questions about my experience, argumentative preferences, or RFD's feel free to ask me at any time in person or via email.

Email for the year: slee11398@gmail.com

Email for UMich Camp Tournament: tdhsqtdr@umich.edu

--

Led a sophomore lab at Michigan for 3 years. I judge high school debate exclusively during the year for MBA.

Outside of debate, I’m also a PhD student and college instructor in Philosophy.

--

Theory

More than 3 condo is probably too much. Probably one of these needs to be a K or a a counterplan for ideo-flex reasons. (In other words, 3 condo counterplans is less defensible to me than 2 counterplans + 1 K.) I find it hard to fathom why a team needs more than 3 condo.

Your counterplans should have solvency advocates.

I like advantage counterplans and went for these often when I debated. I think it's important to test whether the aff's internal link chains are key. However, I like these strategies only when they're well-thought through and have solvency advocates. I am learning that advantage counterplans have become ways to cheat in debates in ways that I tend to think are both anti-educational, as well as are somewhat insulting to my time.

If you go for T, you need to slow down and remember to go for impacts with clear reasoning and examples that explain your internal link chains.

--

K

The kind of rounds I enjoy judging most are “clash” rounds - especially policy aff v K neg, but also including K aff v framework.These are the rounds that I enjoy the most, and the rounds for which you'll probably find that I provide the best feedback.

Due to a variety of factors, I do not think that I ultimately have a side preference for debates in which these strategies are executed. However, again, that does not suggest (as is the case for most/all judges) that I am a "blank slate" for all argument. These tendencies are not set in stone, but below, I have provided some of my thoughts that may be helpful if you are debating in front of me:

For the "K" side:

I’m interested in a number of kinds of K’s, but I can be persuaded to vote on things whether or not I personally like the lit base it comes from. I especially like strategies which read specific links to each advantage/impact, rather than broad links that have little to do with anything specific or unique to the aff (but I have also voted on the latter when aff teams fail to adequately answer such arguments).

For the "policy" side:

One of the policy FW arguments I tend to be particularly persuaded by is something like the following: scenario-planning is good, it’s a quite unique thing we get to do in debate, and it turns K impacts into ethical education/advocacy skills/political activism, etc.

When you’re aff v the K, I tend to like link turn + perm arguments significantly more than case o/w + ext 1st arguments (and a gamut of arguments that tend to go with that framing, i.e. "future generations are the only important ethical consideration.")

Both sides:

Please do line by line, to the extent possible. I appreciate debaters who can organize debates which are pretty messy - even as simply by signposting like “I’ll do the link debate here.”

I tend to think fairness is an internal link, but I can be persuaded otherwise - though it would likely take some effort and nuanced debating on your part.

--

Misc.

Impact Turns & Straight Turns

Pretty confusing stuff. I'll do my best, but you can help me do my best by doing big-picture framing and storytelling clearly what the stakes of your side of the argument are.

Impact Calculus

I encourage you to try to do nuanced impact calculus that avoids hyperbole and stays at least somewhat grounded in reality. That is, obviously debate is a funny little game in which people try to make everything turn into extinction, but the more interesting debaters say something less like “they definitely 100% lead to war which outweighs on timeframe because fiat makes the plan happen immediately” and more like “the plan decreases the propensity for war sufficiently to allow for stopgap measures like diplomacy to win out in the long-term.”

Various things

I'm more tech over truth than the other way around. But remember that an argument is (at least) a claim and (a) warrant(s).

I tend to be sympathetic to neg flex arguments, though there are limits to that.

If I can't flow you, the argument doesn't "count." Make sure you're clear. That probably means you need to go slower than you tend to go. Most debaters are not as clear as they are fast.

Important notes

Be nice. Rude debaters are annoying, and your speaks will reflect that.

I appreciate debaters who are competitive and have the desire and the spunk to win - it's a competitive activity! However, I don't appreciate debaters who act like they're better than other people or see mowing down the competition as their sole or primary motivator in the activity. Be gracious and self-aware. At the end of the day, it's a game, and games should be fun.

Former HS Policy and NDT debater.

But, it has been a long time....

- Tabula rasa, if that is still a thing. Open to all lines of argumentation, but please tell me why I should care.

- Very rusty flowing, but should be able to keep up. Most important is that you speak clearly to help me follow your speech.

- Have fun, but please be respectful. Debate is not an excuse to be rude.

Affiliations and History:
Please email (tjlewis1919@gmail.com) me all of the speeches before you begin.
I was Director of Debate at Damien High School in La Verne, CA from 2021-2024.
I was the Director of Debate for Hebron High School in Carrollton, TX from 2020-2021.
I was an Assistant Coach at Damien from 2017-2020.
I debated on the national circuit for Damien from 2009-2013.
I graduated from Occidental College in Los Angeles with a BA in Critical Theory and Social Justice.
I completed my Master's degree in Social Justice in Higher Education Administration at The University of La Verne.
My academic work involves critical university studies, Georges Bataille, poetics, and post-colonialism.
Author of Suburba(in)e Surrealism (2021).

Yearly Round Numbers:
I try to judge a fair bit each year.
Fiscal Redistribution Round Count: About 40 rounds
I judged 75 rounds or more on the NATO Topic.
I judged over 50 rounds on the Water Topic.
I judged around 40 rounds on the CJR topic.
I judged 30 rounds on the Arms topic (2019-2020)
I judged a bit of LD (32 debates) on the Jan-Feb Topic (nuke disarm) in '19/'20.
I judged around 25 debates on the Immigration topic (2018-2019) on the national circuit.
I judged around 50 rounds on the Education topic (2017-2018) on the national circuit.
LD Protocol:I have a 100% record voting against teams that only read Phil args/Phil v. Policy debates. Adapt or lose.
NDT Protocol: I will rarely have any familiarity with the current college topic and will usually only judge 12-15 rounds pre-NDT.
Please make your T and CP acronyms understandable.

Front Matter Elements:
If you need an accommodation of any kind, please email me before the round starts.
I want everyone to feel safe and able to debate- this is my number one priority as a judge.
I don't run prep time while you email the speech doc. Put the whole speech into one speech doc.
I flow 1AC impact framing, inherency, and solvency straight down on the same page nowadays.
Speed is not an issue for me, but I will ask you to slow down (CLEAR) if you are needlessly sacrificing clarity for quantity--especially if you are reading T or theory arguments.

I will not evaluate evidence identifiable as being produced by software, bots, algorithms etc. Human involvement in the card’s production must be evident unique to the team, individual, and card. This means that evidence you directly take from open source must be re-highlighted at a minimum. You should change the tags and underlining anyways to better fit with your argument’s coherency.

Decision-making:
I privilege technical debating and the flow. I try to get as much down as I possibly can and the little that I miss usually is a result of a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker or because the actual causal chain of the idea does not make consistent sense for me (I usually express this on my face). Your technical skill should make me believe/be able to determine that your argument is the truth. That means warrants. Explain them, impact them, and don't make me fish for them in the un-underlined portion of the six paragraph card that your coach cut for you at a camp you weren't attending. I find myself more and more dissatisfied with debating that operates only on the link claim level. I tend to take a formal, academic approach to the evaluation of ideas, so discussions of source, author intentions and 'true' meaning, and citation are both important to me and something that I hope to see in more debates.

The best debates for me to judge are ones where the last few rebuttals focus on giving me instructions on what the core controversies of the round are, how to evaluate them, and what mode of thinking I should apply to the flow as a history of the round. This means that I'm not going to do things unless you tell me to do them on the flow (judge kick, theory 'traps' etc.). When instructions are not provided or articulated, I will tend to use (what I consider to be) basic, causal logic (i.e. judicial notice) to find connections, contradictions, and gaps/absences. Sometimes this happens on my face--you should be paying attention to the physical impact of the content of your speech act.

I believe in the importance of topicality and theory. No affs are topical until proven otherwise.
Non-impacted theory arguments don't go a long way for me; establish a warranted theory argument that when dropped will make me auto-vote for you. This is not an invitation for arbitrary and non-educational theory arguments being read in front of me, but if you are going to read no neg fiat (for example), then you better understand (and be able to explain to me) the history of the argument and why it is important for the debate and the community.

Reading evidence only happens if you do not make the debate legible and winnable at the level of argument (which is the only reason I would have to defer to evidentiary details).

I find framework to be a boring/unhelpful/poorly debated style of argument on both sides. I want to hear about the ballot-- what is it, what is its role, and what are your warrants for it (especially why your warrants matter!). I want to know what kind of individual you think the judge is (academic, analyst, intellectual etc.). I want to hear about the debate community and the round's relationship within it. These are the most salient questions in a framework debate for me. If you are conducting a performance in the round and/or debate space, you need to have specific, solvable, and demonstrable actions, results, and evidences of success. These are the questions we have to be thinking about in substantial and concrete terms if we are really thinking about them with any authenticity/honesty/care (sorge). I do not think the act of reading FW is necessarily constitutive of a violent act. You can try to convince me of this, but I do start from the position that FW is an argument about what the affirmative should do in the 1AC.

If you are going to go for Fairness, then you need a metric. Not just a caselist, not just a hypothetical ground dispensation, but a functional method to measure the idea of fairness in the round/outside the round i.e. why are the internal components (ground, caselist, etc.) a good representation of a team's burden and what do these components do for individuals/why does that matter. I am not sure what that metric/method is, but my job is not to create it for you. A framework debate that talks about competing theories for how fairness/education should be structured and analyzed will make me very happy i.e. engaging the warrants that constitute ideas of procedural/structural fairness and critical education. Subject formation has really come into vogue as a key element for teams and honestly rare is the debate where people engage the questions meaningfully--keep that in mind if you go for subject formation args in front of me.

In-round Performance and Speaker Points:
An easy way to get better speaker points in front of me is by showing me that you actually understand how the debate is going, the arguments involved, and the path to victory. Every debater has their own style of doing this (humor, time allocation, etc.), but I will not compromise detailed, content-based analysis for the ballot.

I believe that there is a case for in-round violence/damage winning the ballot. Folks need to be considerate of their behavior and language. You should be doing this all of the time anyways.

While I believe that high school students should not be held to a standard of intellectual purity with critical literature, I do expect you to know the body of scholarship that your K revolves around: For example, if you are reading a capitalism K, you should know who Marx, Engels, and Gramsci are; if you are reading a feminism k, you should know what school of feminism (second wave, psychoanalytic, WOC, etc.) your author belongs to. If you try and make things up about the historical aspects/philosophical links of your K, I will reflect my unhappiness in your speaker points and probably not give you much leeway on your link/alt analysis. I will often have a more in-depth discussion with you about the K after the round, so please understand that my post-round comments are designed to be educational and informative, instead of determining your quality/capability as a debater.

I am 100% DONE with teams not showing up on time to disclose. A handful of minutes or so late is different than showing up 3-5 min before the round begins. Punish these folks with disclosure theory and my ears will be open.

CX ends when the timer rings. I will put my fingers in my ears if you do not understand this. I deeply dislike the trend of debaters asking questions about 'did you read X card etc.' in cross-x and I believe this contributes to the decline of flowing skills in debate. While I have not established a metric for how many speaker points an individual will lose each time they say that phrase, know that it is something on my mind. I will not allow questions outside of cross-x outside of core procedural things ('can you give the order again?,' 'everyone ready?' etc.). Asking 'did you read X card' or 'theoretical reasons to reject the team' outside of CX are NOT 'core procedural things.'

Do not read these types of arguments in front of me:
Arguments that directly call an individual's humanity into account
Arguments based in directly insulting your opponents
Arguments that you do not understand

Dan Lingel Jesuit College Prep—Dallas

danlingel@gmail.com for email chain purposes (the new tabroom file share is actually the easiest and fastest--let's use it)

dlingel@jesuitcp.org for school contact

30 years of high school coaching/6 years of college coaching
I will either judge or help in the tabroom at over 20+ tournaments

"Be smart. Be strategic. Tell your story. And above all have fun and you shall be rewarded."--the conclusion of my 1990 NDT Judging Philosophy

****Top Level--read here first*****
I still really love to judge (its makes me a better coach) and I enjoy judging quick clear confident comparative passionate advocates that use qualified and structured argument and evidence to prove their strategic victory paths. I expect you to respect the game and the people that are playing it in every moment we are interacting.

I believe that framing a strategic victory path(s) and especially labeling arguments and paper flowing are crucial to success in debate and maybe life so I will start your speaker points absurdly high (just look at some of my early season points) and work my way up (look at the data) if you acknowledge and represent these elements: frame a strategic victory path, label your arguments (even use numbers and structure) and can demonstrate that you flowed the entire debate and that you used your flow to give your speeches and in particular demonstrate that you used your flow to actually clash with the other teams arguments directly.

Top 5 things that influence my decision making process:

1. Debate is first and foremost a persuasive and comparative activity that asks both teams to advocate something. Defend an advocacy/method and defend it with evidence and compare your advocacy/method to the advocacy of the other team. I understand that there are many ways to advocate and support your advocacy so be sure that you can defend your choices. I do prefer that the topic is an access point for your advocacy.

2. The negative should always have the option of defending the status quo (in other words, I assume the existence of some conditionality) unless argued otherwise.

3. The net benefits to a counterplan must be a reason to reject the affirmative advocacy (plan, both the plan and counterplan together, and/or the perm) not just be an internal net benefit/advantage to the counterplan.

4. I enjoy a good link narrative since it is a critical component of all arguments in the arsenal—everything starts with the link. I think the negative should mention the specifics of the affirmative plan in their link narratives. A good link narrative is a combination of evidence, analytical arguments, and narrative.

5. Be sure to assess the uniqueness of offensive arguments using the arguments in the debate and the status quo. This is an area that is often left for judge intervention and I will.

Topicality--I am not the biggest fan of topicality debates unless the interpretation is grounded by clear evidence and provides a version of the topic that will produce the best debates—I am still hopeful to find some this year. Generally speaking, I can be persuaded by potential for abuse arguments on topicality as they relate to other standards because I think in round abuse can be manufactured by a strategic negative team.

Kritiks and Framework--I believe that the links to the plan/advantages/representations, the impact narratives, the interaction between the alternative and the affirmative harm, and/or the role of the ballot should be discussed more in most kritik debates. The more case and topic specific your kritik the more I enjoy the debate. Framework should be about competing models of debate and/or provide a sequencing/decision calculus for the ballot process. Too much time is spent on framework in many debates without clear utility or relation to how I should use it to judge the debate.

Theory--being someone who has seen the evolution of all modern theory positions I enjoy a good nuanced and round specific theory debate especially given the proliferation of inconsistent advocacies. Theory should be used more to stop the proliferation of negative positions that do not engage or challenge the core questions of either the affirmative or the topic. For example, general PICs bad is usually an uphill battle but multiple conditional PICs without a solvency advocate could set up a theory victory path. The impact to theory is rarely debated beyond trite phrases and catch words and the implications for both sides of the game are rarely played out so often my default is to reject the argument not the team on theory issues when it could have been a vote against the team victory path.

Speaker points--If you are not preferring me on this issue you are using old data and old perceptions. It is easy to get me to give very high points. Here is the method to my madness on this so do not be deterred just adapt. I award speaker points based on the following: strategic and argumentative decision-making, the challenge presented by the context of the debate, technical proficiency, persuasive personal and argumentative style, your use of the cross examination periods, and the overall enjoyment level of your speeches and the debate. If you devalue the nature of the game or its players or choose not to engage in either asking or answering questions, your speaker points will be impacted. If you turn me into a mere information processor and encourage or force me to scroll vs flow then your points will be impacted. If you choose artificially created efficiency claims instead of making complete and persuasive arguments that relate to an actual victory path then your points will be impacted.

Logistical Notes--if you have not tried it yet I suggest using the file share/speech doc drop that is part of tabroom, if not than an email chain. I feel that each team should have accurate and equal access to the evidence that is read in the debate. I have noticed several things that worry me in debates. People have stopped flowing and paying attention to the flow and line-by-line which is really impacting my decision making; people are exchanging more evidence than is actually being read without concern for the other team, people are under highlighting their evidence and "making cards" out of large amounts of text, and the amount of prep time taken exchanging the information is becoming excessive. I reserve the right to request a copy of all things exchanged as verification. If three cards or less are being read in the speech then it is more than ok that the exchange in evidence occur after the speech.

Finale--I believe in the value of debate as the greatest pedagogical tool on the planet. Reaching the highest levels of debate requires mastery of arguments from many disciplines including communication, argumentation, politics, philosophy, economics, and sociology to name a just a few. The organizational, research, persuasion and critical thinking skills are sought by every would-be admission counselor and employer. Throw in the competitive part and you have one wicked game. I have spent over thirty years playing it at every level and from every angle and I try to make myself a better player everyday and through every interaction I have. I think that you can learn from everyone in the activity how to play the debate game better. The world needs debate and advocates/policymakers more now than at any other point in history. I believe that the debates that we have now can and will influence real people and institutions now and in the future—empirically it has happened. I believe that this passion influences how I coach and judge debates.

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

she/her

i coach policy debate at damien-st. lucy's

--

Recently rewritten paradigm, probably best to give it a quick skim!

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am good for policy teams that do topic research and aim to not go for process cp backfiles every 2nr. I am also good for k teams that do topic research and answer the aff and go for 2nr arguments that are substantive (not "role of the ballot"). I am bad for ld teams that go for ld-specific things ("tricks"), but am good for ld teams that are well-researched and read policy or k arguments.

More LD-specific notes/thoughts at bottom of paradigm.

--

Topic Knowledge:

I don't teach at a policy camp in the summer. I am involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research, and have vaguely kept up with the camp evidence updates. I generally know what's going on with the topic, but extra handholding when breaking new prep is likely to be beneficial.

--

email chains:

ld email chains: nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

please include an adult (your coach, chaperone, or even parent) on the email chain if you are emailing me directly -- just a good safety norm to not have direct communications between minors & adults that don't know them!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am aggressively pro-disclosure. Disclosure is one of the elements of debate that is most important for small-school and novice accessibility. If you do not disclose, I will assume that you prefer the exclusionary system where only big schools have access, and I will punish your speaker points accordingly. I am so aggressive about enforcing disclosure with all teams (big and small school) because I believe in the mission of the open evidence project and other similar open source disclosure practices. tldr disclose or lose!

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

--

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the impact is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

--

Planless affs:

I tend to believe that affirmatives need to defend the topic. I think most planless affs can/should be reconfigured as soft left affs. I have voted for affs that don't defend the topic, but it requires superior technical debating from the aff team.

You need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

--

T/framework vs planless affs:

In a 100% evenly debated round, I am likely better for the neg than the aff. However, most of these debates are not evenly debated. Either team/side can win my ballot by doing the better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:

The best way for aff teams to win my ballot is to be more technical than the neg team. Seems obvious, but what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm less persuaded by personal/emotional pleas for the ballot and more persuaded by a rigorous and technical defense of why your model of debate is good in this instance or in general. I have historically voted against aff teams that made arguments along the lines of "vote for me or I'll quit debate."

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

--

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

--

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

--

Kritiks (neg):

I am absolutely terrible for K teams that don't debate the case. If your idea of a winning strategy is to read a bunch of links that aren't to the consequences of the plan and then also not answer the affirmative at all, I am best at the middle/bottom of your pref sheet. I'm good for K teams that read links to the consequences of the plan, answer the case, and do line-by-line (if the neg block is 13 min of prewritten block soup, that's not line-by-line!)

I vote for K teams often when they are technical and make smart big-picture arguments and demonstrate topic knowledge. I vote against K teams when they do ... not that!

--

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

--

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about theory other than that some amount of condo is probably good. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

No judge kick. Make a choice!

--

LD-specific section:

-you might think of cx judges in ld as people who despise judging ld and despise you for doing ld. i try to not let this be true about me. all of my issues with ld can be grouped into two general categories: 1) speech times/structure (not your fault, won't penalize you for it), and 2) the tendency to read unwarranted nonsense, such as "tricks," shoes theory, etc (you can avoid reading these args very easily and make me very happy)

-i am a horrid judge for tricks and frivolous theory. please just go for another argument!

-i am okay for phil. i don't have any personal opposition to philosophy-based arguments, i just don't coach/judge these arguments often, so i will need more explanation/hand-holding. many phil debates recently have involved tricks, which has soured me on this argumentative style, but i would be happy to judge a straight-up phil debate:)

-you don't get 1ar add-ons -- there is no 2ac in ld

-i teach at ld camp every summer, so assume i have some idea of community norms, but don't assume i am following trends super closely

--

Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

-a team should get the ballot simply for proving that they are not unfair or uneducational

-the ballot should be a referendum on a debater's character, personal life, pref sheet, etc

-the affirmative's theory argument comes before the negative's topicality argument

-some random piece of offense becomes an "independent voter" simply because it is labeled as such

-debates would be better if they were unfair, uneducational, lacked a stasis point, lacked clash, etc

-a debater's moral character is determined by whether they read policy or k arguments

-evidence ethics should be a case neg, as opposed to an opportunity for reasonable preround discussion and an opportunity to correct mistakes [note: i will not vote on ev ethics if you do not have proof you contacted the team beforehand]

-"tricks"

-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist

-the debate should be evaluated after any speech that is not the 2ar

-the "role of the ballot" means topicality doesn't matter

--

Arguments that I am personally skeptical of, but will try to evaluate fairly:

-it would be better for debate if affirmatives did not have a meaningful relationship to the topic

-debate would be better if the negative team was not allowed to read any conditional advocacies

-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate

-"role of the ballot"

-the outcome of a particular debate will change someone's mind or will change the state of debate

-the 5-second aspec argument that was hidden in the 1nc can become a winning 2nr

-the affirmative may not read a plan because of "bare plurals"

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Emory ’26. Calvert Hall ’22. Yes, email chain: lcsrlobo@gmail.com. Chain should be named “Tournament -- Round # -- AFF Team vs Neg Team.”

Important:
1. I have zero knowledge about the IP topic. Didn't work at a camp, haven't done any topic research, and have taken very few classes that overlap with any content. Please do not assume I know any acronyms or legalese.
2. The following is a general set of ways I view debate that can VERY easily be modified depending on quality of arguments and quality of debating.
3. Tech > truth on most everything that isn’t objectively false (i.e. elections disad after it happened), death good (if you are unsure your argument qualifies as this, it probably does), or clearly problematic.
4. I really don’t want to vote for dropped, arbitrary theory arguments. Expect low speaks for everyone involved if this is the case.
5. If you introduce an ethics violation you must stake the debate on it.

T: persuaded by reasonability when impact/internal link differentials are tiny, less receptive when big. “Good is good enough” alone doesn’t make much sense. Include caselists, do impact comparison, and answer defensive arguments contextual to your interp. It matters a lot to me that every word is counter defined but it matters more that a non-counter defined word has a concrete limits/ground case attached to it.

CPs: No judge kick unless told to. Evidence quality and impacted deficits matter lots. Links less is usually unpersuasive, sufficiency framing usually is. Condo- numerical interps are arbitrary, logic + risk aversion make sense to me, and fairness by default outweighs education. Substance > theory, but if you do go for theory slow down and answer arguments.

DAs: Relative risk precedes and determines turns case. Cards aren’t necessary if logical defense beats a DA, but I’d prefer ev if you have it. Love the politics DA.

Ks: I find myself voting for the team that best compartmentalizes the moving parts of the debate. I want framework to be as much of a wash as possible- “no Ks” and “you link you lose” are equally unpersuasive, so winning alt solves, impact outweighs, or links turn case claims are the path of least resistance in front of me. That's not to say I won't vote on framework, especially if large swaths of offense are dropped/mis-answered. Links should be somewhat unique and include rehighlights/pull lines. Am more persuaded by “aff outweighs” than the perm/link turn unless the alt is fiated. I am fundamentally unpersuaded to one-sentence 'role of the judge' and 'role of the ballot' arguments other than deciding who did the better debating and submitting it to tabroom, respectively. These arguments are often better explained as pieces of framework offense.

Planless: Anything can be an impact (aff or neg) contingent on comparison and turns case. Extremely persuaded by SSD and TVA when contextualized to AFF offense. It’s hard to toe the line between C/I + link turn and impact turn, so picking one or the other is best. KvK debates almost always come down to the perm, so win a theoretical objection (meh) or material DA (better) to it.

I have taken a million steps back from debate. Assume I know nothing about the topic... or even the activity.

please add to the email chain:

gbsdebate2024@gmail.com

djmcdermott2@gmail.com

HS Debate: 18-22 (4 years) -- Walter Payton WM

College Debate: 23 (1 year) -- Michigan MS

Top

Judging record is more informative than judging opinions.

How I Decide Rounds

I go through parts of the debate in this order, and stop at one if it is sufficient for me to not need to go further.

1. The flow.

This aspect is all tech, no truth. As far as I can tell, I am easily among the most tech-oriented debaters/judges in debate right now. I imagine I'd pull the trigger on a small technical concession much more readily than many other judges. Similarly, I think there are probably far more low point wins than are actually given out. The flow is where my analysis will end for almost all crushes and many debates that are semi-close but not that that close. I have switched to flowing on computer because back-to-back analytics were unflowable for me on paper. I still have no qualms voting you down on an argument I didn't flow in a speech because you were spreading through blocks even if it truly had been there, but hopefully flowing on computer will make this less of an issue.

2. Evidence

Mixture of tech and truth (truer args have better ev, but better card cutters/researchers will put out better ev). I get to this level of analysis in two circumstances: either a) I'm told to read cards or evidence quality is centered in the debate or b) despite not being told to read ev, the flow is too close to vote on alone. This is where most good, close debates will end.

3. Minor Intervention

Tech guided by truth. If I still can't comfortably decide a round based on ev and flow, I'll do things like give more weight to evidence quality despite not being told to by the debaters, look for potential cross-apps, or try to find something like that to decide a round without having to fully insert my opinion. This is where most bad debates without enough judge instruction will end.

4. Major Intervention

All truth. This is where bad debates with no clash and no judge instruction will end.

Biases

I hope to use the above steps consistently irregardless of what args are in front of me, and I think judges who are ideologically predisposed for or against a certain argument or style are annoying. I hope these biases won't affect my decisions, but the way someone has debated/coached will inevitably affect their judging in some way, so following is a list of biases based on how I've debated:

1. Policy bias. I'm almost certainly better for the K than you think (especially Ks on the NEG), and certainly better for it than my debating record would suggest; cross-apply all the tech first stuff here -- more than happy to vote on some small conceded disad to a NEG framework model if competently extended. This bias is mainly limited to thinking about these debates differently from how primarily K debaters would since I've almost always been on the policy side of policy v K debates.

2. 2N bias. This is small and to be honest could help the AFF more than it helps the NEG because I'm somewhat lenient for 1ARs in terms of if I count an extension to be an argument. I think structural AFF side bias (first and last speech) is probably true in theory but tech determines if I think that's true when judging. Overall I don't expect this to affect my judging very much. Probably one of the most 50/50 judges on condo. Default to judge kick.

3. "Small School" bias. For the most part I think people complaining about being from a "small school" would be better off spending the time they spend talking about it cutting cards, and if you do that you'll be just as competitive as your peer from a big school. However, the one area where I think there is truly a difference in schools is that I think a sizeable majority of judges are likely to (obviously subconsciously) factor school's/team's rep into their decision in close debates. I hate this and have a bit of a chip on my shoulder because of it. If debate rounds could be judged blindly I'd be all for it. I obviously won't hack for "small schools" or against "big schools," but when I was doing prefs late in my career I frequently wondered if a judge who would be good for me in most debates might be bad for me in those few key debates where I was hitting a team with more rep. I am not one of those judges.

4. Good argument bias. This is maybe too obvious to warrant saying. I'll vote on tricks and dropped ASPEC or whatever (all the flow first stuff applies for annoying args as well) but obviously in a close debate find it easier to vote for an argument with good ev, deep defenses, well-explained warrants, etc., and will likely award higher speaks in those kinds of debates.

Stuff I Frequently Wondered About Judges

-- What framework impact? --

I almost always went for fairness and consider it the most strategic, however I know I was considerably worse going for non-fairness impacts when I tried to adapt to judges, so I would just do whatever you like best.

.

-- Can I go for the K/K AFF? --

Yes.

.

-- How many condo? --

Don't care. If you lose condo you'll lose and if you win condo you'll win, the amount you read probably won't end up mattering past a good 2A contextualizing their interp to the round.

.

-- Do advantage counterplans need solvency advocates? --

Don't care.

.

-- 1NC construction/do they care about a ton of off? --

Don't care. Do whatever.

.

-- Insert rehighlightings? --

Fine.

.

-- Plan text in a vacuum? --

Fine.

.

-- Is going for theory hopeless? --

No.

.

-- If they drop condo or aspec or it's a crush etc do I have to fill the whole 2NR/2AR? --

No.

.

Speaks

Mean speaks is 28.5, standard deviation is .4, so two-thirds of debaters will be from 28.1-28.9, 95% will be from 27.7 to 29.3, and essentially all will be from 27.3 to 29.7.

Chris McDonald (He/Him) - cmcmcdonald58@gmail.com

Use the above email for any email chains during the round.

Head Coach Eagan High School in Minnesota

While I mainly have coached and judged Policy Debate for the past 37 years I do judge my fair share of LD, Public Forum and Congressional Debate Rounds.

Items for all formats to consider:

1. Disclosure theory: While I understand why this started out as something good for the community it has unfortunately morphed into an abusive argument and as such I will not consider it in my decision for the round.
2. Evidence sharing: Have a system for sharing evidence setup before the round begins. This will make this more efficient and your judges happier. If you are asked for a piece of evidence you just read and it takes you more than 10 seconds to find the card, you can use your prep time locating it or the argument will become unsupported by evidence.
3. Paraphrasing in Debate: I dislike paraphrasing and even though the rules allow it I find that is has become abused by some debaters. I would ask that teams read actual quotes from evidence and not paraphrase. If you do paraphrase your evidence must comport with current NSDA rules concerning how paraphrasing works in line with MLA standards.

Policy Debate - Please know that while I used to judge a lot of rounds throughout the season in policy debate it has been a few years since I judged more than a handful of policy rounds. I do work with my school's novice and varsity policy teams, so I should be fairly up to date on key arguments on the current on topic.

My philosophy has pretty much remained consistent throughout my career. I consider policy debate to be a test of policy based ideas between two teams. How those teams approach the topic and frame the debate is entirely up to them. Below are a few things to know about me on some specifics but please know my primary objective is for us to have an enjoyable round of debate.

Delivery Speed - Since it has been a few years for me since last judging lots of policy debate my ability to listen to really fast debate has faded. Please keep it to a slightly slower speed of delivery especially when using the online platforms. I will let you know if you are unclear or going too fast by verbally indicating such during your speech. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being oratory speed and 10 being approaching the sound barrier (only joking here) I would place myself as a 7 these days.

Topicality - I enjoy a good topicality debate but have found that over the years teams are taking too many shortcuts with the initial development of the topicality violation. I prefer topicality to have a clear definition, a clearly developed violation, standards for evaluating the violation and reasons why it is a voting issue. For the affirmative side you really need to engage with the topicality violation and provide a counter interpretation that supports your interpretation of the resolution. Topicality is distinct from framework.

Framework - I also enjoy evaluating a debate when framework is clearly articulated and argued by both the affirmative and negative sides. Framework is focused around how you would like me to evaluate the arguments in the round. Do you prefer a consequentialist framework, a deontological framework, etc..

Critiques - I am fine with critical approaches by the negative and the affirmative sides. For the affirmative please keep in mind that you will need to defend your critical affirmative as either a topical representation of the resolution or why it is important for us to debate your affirmative even if it isn't necessarily within the boundaries of the topic.

Flow - Please label all arguments and positions clearly throughout the debate. Signposting has become a lost art. Debaters doing an effective job of signposting and labeling will be rewarded with higher speaker points.

Disadvantages - Please be certain to articulate your links clearly and having clear internal links helps a great deal.

Counter plans - I think counter plans are an essential tool for negative teams. Please note that I am not a big fan of multiple conditional counter plans. Running a couple of well developed counter plans is better than running 4 or 5 underdeveloped counter plans. Counter plans should have a text to compete against the affirmative plan text.

Theory - General theory in debate rounds like conditionality are fine but have rarely been round winners without a lot of time devoted to why theory should be considered over substance.

If you have any questions please let me know and I will happily answer those questions.

Lincoln Douglas

1. I am not a fan of theory as it plays out in LD debate rounds. Most of the theory that is argued is pretty meaningless when it comes to the topics at hand. I will only consider topicality if the affirmative is presenting a plan text in the round or isn't debating the resolution we are supposed to be considering at that given tournament. I ask that the debaters debate the topic as it is written and not as they would like it to be.

2. Beyond my dislike for theory you are free to pretty much debate the round as you see fit. Please keep your speed to a level where you are clear.

3. Evidence should be shared using an email chain. Please include me at cmcmcdonald58@gmail.com

4. If you have specific questions please ask. I will disclose at the end of the round but I will also respect the tournaments schedule and work to keep it on time.

Public Forum

1. Evidence is very important to me. I prefer direct quotation of evidence over paraphrasing. Please make note of the NSDA rule regarding paraphrasing. Source Citations: make sure that you present enough of a source citation that I should have no problem locating the evidence you present in the round. This would include the author or periodical name and date at a minimum. So we are clear Harvard '23 is not a source citation. Harvard is a really great University but has, to my knowledge never written a word without the assistance of some human that attends or works at Harvard.

2. There is to be no game playing with regards to evidence sharing during or after the round. If you are asked for evidence by your opponents you must produce it in a timely manner or I will discount the evidence and only treat the argument as an unsubstantiated assertion on your part. Even if it means handing over one of your laptops you must provide evidence for inspection by the other team so that they may evaluate it and respond to the evidence in subsequent speeches.

3. Prep Time - you are only provided with 3 minutes of prep time, unless otherwise stated by the tournament you are attending. Please use it wisely. I will only give a little latitude with regards to untimed evidence sharing or organizing your flows, but please be efficient and quick about it.

4. Argument choices are completely up to the debaters. I prefer a good substantive debate with clear clash and that the debaters compare and weigh the arguments they feel are important for their side to prevail as the debate comes into focus but the substance of those arguments is completely within the control of the teams debating.

5. Please respect your opponents and treat everyone involved in the debate round with the utmost respect. Speaker points will be effected by any rude behavior on the part of a debater.

6. I will disclose and discuss my decision at the end of the round so long as there is time and the tournament stays on schedule.

7. Finally, please remember to have fun and enjoy the experience.

Ryan McFarland
Debated at KCKCC and Wichita State

Two years of coaching at Wichita State, 3 years at Hutchinson High School in Kansas, two years at Kapaun Mt. Carmel, now at Blue Valley Southwest.

email chain: remcfarland043@gmail.com, bvswdebatedocs@gmail.com

Stop reading; debate. Reading blocks is not debating. You will not get higher than a 28.3 from me if you cant look away from your computer and make an argument.

I've seen deeper debates in slow rounds than I've seen in "fast" rounds the last couple years. "Deep" does not mean quantity of arguments, but quality and explanation of arguments.

Talk about the affirmative. I've judged so many debates the last couple years where the affirmative is not considered after the 1AC. Impact defense doesn’t count. I don't remember the last time my decision included anything about impact defense that wasn't dropped.

2024-2025 things ----

I haven't done as much topic reading at this point in the year as I have in the past. I think the topic is incredibly boring and neg args are pretty bad. I think the K links are much more persuasive this year than previously. I'm not sure how I feel about being very anti-process/ridiculous advantage counterplans in a world where the best DA is court clog, but I could see myself being much more sympathetic to negative teams in this regard. That said, I still think affirmative teams should get good at theory against these arguments.

I've left my paradigm from last year below. That should still filter how you pref me, but I will likely find the K much more strategic and persuasive, which is probably the most significant change.

Old ----

I am not a fan of process counterplans. I’m not auto-vote against them, but I think they’ve produced a lazy style of debating. I don’t understand why we keep coming up with more convoluted ways to make non-competitive counterplans competitive instead of just admitting they aren’t competitive and moving on with our lives.

I'm not good for the K. I spent most of my time debating going for these arguments, have coached multiple teams to go for them, so I think I understand them well. I've been trying to decide if it's about the quality of the debating, or just the argument, but I think I just find these arguments less and less persuasive. Maybe its just the links made on this topic, but it's hard for me to believe that giving people money, or a job, doesn't materially make peoples lives better which outweighs whatever the impact to the link you're going for. I don't think I'm an auto-vote aff, but I haven't voted for a K on this topic yet.

If you decide to go for the K, I care about link contextualization much more than most judges. The more you talk about the aff, the better your chances of winning. I dislike the move to never extend an alternative, but I understand the strategic choice to go for framework + link you lose type strategies.

An affirmative winning capitalism, hegemony, revisionism true/good, etc. is a defense of the affirmatives research and negative teams will have a hard time convincing me otherwise.

I think K affirmatives, most times, don't make complete arguments. They often sacrifice solvency for framework preempts. I understand the decision, but I would probably feel better about voting for an affirmative that doesn't defend the topic if it did something.

Zero risk is real. Read things other than impact defense. Cross-ex is important for creating your strategy and should be utilized in speeches. Don’t be scared to go for theory.I will not vote on something that happened outside of a debate, or an argument that requires me to make a judgement about a high school kid's character.

Don't clip. Clarity issues that make it impossible to follow in the doc is considered clipping.

Updated Sept 18 2024

Tracy McFarland

Jesuit College Prep - for a long while; back in the day undergrad debate - Baylor U

Please use jcpdebate@gmail.com for speech docs. I do want to be in the email chain.
However, I don't check that email a lot while not at tournaments - so if you need to reach me not at a tournament, feel free to email me at tmcfarland@jesuitcp.org

Clash - it's good - which means you need to flow and not script your speeches. using blocks = good - placing them where they belong on the LBL = good. LBL with some clear references to where you're at = good. Line by line isn't answer the previous speech in order - it's about grounding the debate in the 2ac on off case, 1nc on case.

Dates and "real world" matter - andI am persuaded by teams that call out other teams based on their evidence quality, author quals, lack of highlighting (meaning they read little of the evidence).

Process CPs and other neg trickeration - I get it. I do, however, think that the aff can make compelling arguments about why the process doesn't result in the aff and/or that the prioritization of the process is a bad thing. A discussion of what normal means is by the aff and neg would also help both sides to explain how the CP is competitive.

DAs - it's possible to win zero risk that the DA is an opportunity cost to the aff. Specific to agenda and elections - the aff can make compelling no link and non-unique arguments. The direction of the link doesn't influence uniqueness on these DAs. And, yes, even in a world of a CP Affs could win zero risk of agenda politics or elections. The aff should make arguments - even without evidence - that the link needs to be specific, the internal link needs to be about specific voting blocks in sufficient swing states to shift the electoral college.

Ks - specific links are good. You should have a sense on the aff and the neg what FW is going to get you in a debate -- too often that FW debate really just ends up two ships passing in the night.

K affs - should be tied to the topic in some way. If they aren't, then neg args with topical versions or ways to access the education the K aff offers through the resolution are usually persuasive to me. The neg can win that the TVA solves sufficient access to the lit. If the aff has a K of the topic, that's great offense that negs need to have an answer. I don't think that debate is just a game. Its a competitive activity that does shape our political subjectivity. And, despite all that, I often vote aff on these debates - so negs should make sure that they are engaging why their model creates better skills than the affs.

T - if you have a good violation and reasons why an aff should be excluded, by all means read it. If you are just reading it as a "time suck" then, meh, read more substance. And, an argument that ends in -spec is usually an uphill battle unless it's clever [this cleverness standard does preclude generally a- and o-]

Impact turns - topic specific one = good; generic ones - more meh

New affs are good - and don't need to be disclosed before a debate if it's truly the very first time that someone at your school has read the argument. But new affs may justify theoretically sketchy args by the neg - you can integrate that into the theory debate, you don't need a new affs bad 1nc arg to do that.

Be nice to each other - it's possible to be competitive without being overly sassy.

Modality matters - when you are debating in person, remember that people can hear you talk to your partner and you should have a line of sight with the judge. If you are online, make sure that your camera is on when possible to create some engagement with the judge.

Debate Coach - University of Michigan

Debate Coach - New Trier High School

Michigan State University '13

Brookfield Central High School '09

I would like to be on the email chain - my email address is valeriemcintosh1@gmail.com.

A few top level things:

• If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is. This also includes forwarding the argument that death is good because suffering exists. I will not vote on it.
• If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
• Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
• I'm a very expressive judge. Look up at me every once in a while, you will probably be able to tell how I feel about your arguments.
• I don't think that arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates are at all relevant to my decision and I will not evaluate them. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.

Pet peeves

• The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start
• Asking if I am ready or saying you'll start if there are no objections, etc. in in-person debates - we're all in the same room, you can tell if we're ready!
• Email-sending related failures
• Dead time
• Stealing prep
• Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team
• Asserting things are dropped when they aren't
• Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards
• Disappearing after the round

Online debate: My camera will always be on during the debate unless I have stepped away from my computer during prep or while deciding so you should always assume that if my camera is off, I am not there. I added this note because I've had people start speeches without me there.

Ethics: If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points.
*NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me.

Organization: I would strongly prefer that if you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn that it go on its own page - its super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders. Ditto to reading advantage CPs on case - put it on its own sheet, please!

Cross-x: Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions. If you don't start the timer before you start asking those questions, I will take whatever time I estimate you took to ask questions before the timer was started out of your prep. If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.

Translated evidence: I am extremely skeptical of evidence translated by a debater or coach with a vested interest in that evidence being used in a debate. Lots of words or phrases have multiple meanings or potential translations and debaters/coaches have an incentive to choose the ones that make the most debate-friendly argument even if that's a stretch of what is in the original text. It is also completely impossible to verify if words or text was left out, if it is a strawperson, if it is cut out of context, etc. I won't immediately reject it on my own but I would say that I am very amenable to arguments that I should.

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate: I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting. This can also be accomplished by reading those lines in cross-x and then referencing them in a speech or just making analytics about their card(s) in your speech and then providing a rehighlighting to explain it.

Topicality: I enjoy judging topicality debates when they are in-depth and nuanced. Limits are an an important question but not the only important question - your limit should be tied to a particular piece of neg ground or a particular type of aff that would be excluded. I often find myself to be more aff leaning than neg leaning in T debates because I am often persuaded by the argument that negative interpretations are arbitrary or not based in predictable literature.

5 second ASPEC shells/the like that are not a complete argument are mostly nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.

Counterplans: I would say that I generally lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps, but obviously am more than willing to vote for them if they are debated better by the negative.

I think that CPs should have to be policy actions. I think this is most fair and reciprocal with what the affirmative does. I think that fiating indefinite personal decisions or actions/non-actions by policymakers that are not enshrined in policy is an unfair abuse of fiat that I do not think the negative should get access to. The CP that has the US declare it will not go to war with China would be theoretically legitimate but the CP to have the president personally decide not to go to war with China would not be. Similarly CPs that fiat a concept or endgoal rather than a policy would also fall under this.

It is the burden of the neg to prove the CP solves rather than the burden of the aff to prove it doesn't. Unless the neg makes an attempt to explain how/why the CP solves (by reading ev, by referencing 1AC ev, by explaining how the CP solves analytically), my assumption is that it doesn’t and it isn’t the aff’s burden to prove it doesn’t. The burden for the neg isn’t that high but I think neg teams are getting away with egregious lack of CP explanation and judges too often put the burden on the aff to prove the CP doesn’t solve rather than the neg to prove it does.

Disads: Uniqueness is a thing that matters for every level of the DA. I am not very sympathetic to politics theory arguments (except in the case of things like rider disads, which I might ban from debate if I got the choice to ban one argument and think are certainly illegitimate misinterpretations of fiat) and am unlikely to ever vote on them unless they're dropped and even then would be hard pressed. I'm incredibly knowledgeable about politics and enjoy it a lot when debated well but really dislike seeing it debated poorly.

Theory: Conditionality is often good. It can be not. Conditionality is the ONLY argument I think is a reason to reject the team, every other argument I think is a reason to reject the argument alone. Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?

Kritiks: I've gotten simultaneously more versed in critical literature and much worse for the kritik as a judge over the last few years. Take from that what you will.

Your K should ideally be a reason why the aff is bad, not just why the status quo is bad. If not, you're better off with it primarily being a framework argument.

Yes the aff gets a perm, no it doesn't need a net benefit.

Affs without a plan: I generally go into debates believing that the aff should defend a hypothetical policy enacted by the United States federal government. I think debate is a research game and I struggle with the idea that the ballot can do anything to remedy the impacts that many of these affs describe.

I certainly don't consider myself immovable on that question and my decision will be governed by what happens in any given debate; that being said, I don't like when judges pretend to be fully open to any argument in order to hide their true thoughts and feelings about them and so I would prefer to be honest that these are my predispositions about debate, which, while not determinate of how I judge debates, certainly informs and affects it.

I would describe myself as a good judge for T-USFG against affs that do not read a plan. I find impacts about fairness and clash to be very persuasive. I think fairness is an impact in and of itself. I am not very persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.

I generally am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.

I don't think debate is roleplaying.

I am uncomfortable making decisions in debates where people have posited that their survival hinges on my ballot.

Email: mjmcmahon3739@gmail.com

Debated at Kansas, currently in law school

*Harvard update*

I haven't judged or thought about debate in a while. I don't know much (if anything) about the topic. This means these debates will be the first time I'm thinking about an argument you've probably thought about for months. I think everyone (including me) would benefit greatly from being a tad slower and clearer than they normally would. You don't have to go conversational speed or explain things to me like I'm five, there's a happy medium here (somewhere). Please don't assume I know acronyms, authors, how a carbon tax works, etc. I don't have a problem with turning away an argument simply because I don't understand it.

All that said, keep in mind I care a lot about getting the right decision, and I'll work hard to get there.

I don't have any rigid thoughts about particular arguments. I will say a few probably helpful things though:

1) Since attending law school, I've learned that a lot of common arguments are sheer legal nonsense. I will reward you for pointing this out.

2) Much bigger fan of smaller, deeper debates. Really big 1NC's scare me.

Debated for 4 years in HS for Hawken School out of Ohio.

Current 2nd year at UChicago.

No topic knowledge.

Talk to me if you have questions.

Misc procedural things:

1. He/him/his; "DML">"Dustin">>>"judge">>>>>>>>>>"Mr. Meyers-Levy"

2. Debated at Edina HS in Minnesota from 2008-2012, at the University of Michigan from 2012-2017, and currently coach at Michigan and Glenbrook North

3. Please add me to the email chain: dustml[at]umich[dot]edu. College debaters only: please also add debatedocs[at]umich[dot]edu (note that this is not the same as the community debatedocs listerv).

4. Nothing here set in stone debate is up to the debaters go for what you want to blah blah blah an argument is a claim and a warrant don't clip cards

5. Speaks usually range from 28.5-29.5. Below 28.5 and there are some notable deficiencies, above 29.5 you're going above and beyond to wow me. I don't really try to compare different debaters across different rounds to give points; I assign them based on a round-by-round basis. I wish I could give ties more often and will do so if the tournament allows. If you ask me for a 30 you'll probably get a 27.

6. If you're breaking something new, you'll send it out before your speech, not after the speech ends or as it's read or whatever. If you don't want to comply with that, your points are capped at 27. If you're so worried that giving the neg team 9 extra minutes to look at your new aff will tip the odds against you, it's probably not good enough to win anyway.

7. You will time your own speeches and prep time. I will be so grumpy if I have to keep track of time for you.

8. Each person gives one constructive and one rebuttal. The first person who speaks is the only person I flow (I can make an exception for performances in 1ACs/1NCs). I don’t flow prompting until and unless the assigned speaker says the words that their partner is prompting. Absolutely no audience participation. If you need some part of this clarified, I’m probably not the judge for you.

9. I am a mandatory reporter and an employee of both a public university and a public high school. I am not interested in judging debates that may make either of those facts relevant.

10. If you would enthusiastically describe your strategy as "memes" or "trolling," you should strike me.

11. Online debates: If my camera's off, I'm not listening. Get active confirmation before you start speaking, don't ask "is anyone not ready" or say "stop me if you're not ready," especially if you aren't actually listening to/looking at the other participants before you check. If you start speaking and I'm not ready or there, expect abysmal speaker points.

Top-level:

When making my decisions, I seek to answer four questions:

1. At what scale should I evaluate impacts, or how do I determine which impact outweighs the others?

2. What is necessary to address those impacts?

3. At what point have those impacts been sufficiently addressed?

4. How certain am I about either side’s answers to the previous three questions?

I don’t expect debaters to answer these questions explicitly or in order, but I do find myself voting for debaters who use that phrasing and these concepts (necessity, sufficiency, certainty, etc) as part of their judge instruction a disproportionate amount. I try to start every RFD with a sentence-ish-long summary of my decision (e.g. "I voted affirmative because I am certain that their impacts are likely without the plan and unlikely with it, which outweighs an uncertain risk of the impacts to the DA even if I am certain about the link"); you may benefit from setting up a sentence or two along those lines for me.

Intervention on my part is inevitable, but I’d like to minimize it if possible and equalize it if not. The way I try to do so is by making an effort to quote or paraphrase the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR in my RFD as much as possible. This means I find myself often voting for teams who a) minimize the amount of debate jargon they use, b) explicitly instruct me what I need in order to be certain that an argument is true, and c) don’t repeat themselves or reread parts of earlier speeches. (The notable exception to c) is quoting your evidence—I appreciate teams who tell me what to look for in their cards, as I’d rather not read evidence if I don’t have to.) I would rather default to new 2AR contextualization of arguments than reject new 2AR explanation and figure out how to evaluate/compare arguments on my own, especially if the 2AR contextualization lines up with how I understand the debate otherwise.

I flow on my computer and I flow straight down. I appreciate debaters who debate in a way that makes that easy to do (clean line-by-line, numbering/subpointing, etc). I’ll make as much room as you want me to for an overview, but I won’t flow it on a separate sheet unless you say pretty please. If it’s not obvious to me at that point why it’s on a separate sheet, you’ll probably lose points.

Consider going a little bit slower. I prefer voting on arguments that I am certain about, and it is much easier to be certain about an argument when I know that I have written down everything that you’ve said.

Presumption always initially goes negative because the affirmative always has the burden of proof. If the affirmative has met their burden of proof against the status quo, and the negative has not met their burden of rejoinder, I vote affirmative.

I am "truth over tech." I will not vote for something if I cannot explain why it is a reason that one side or the other has done the better debating, even if it is technically conceded by the other team. Obviously, this is not to say that technical concessions do not matter--they're probably the most important part of my decisionmaking process! However, not all technical concessions matter, and the reasons that some technical concessions matter might not be apparent to me. A dropped argument is true, but non-dropped arguments can also be true, and I need you to contextualize how to evaluate and compare those truths.

I appreciate well-thought-out perms with a brief summary of its function/net beneficiality in the 2AC. I get frustrated by teams who shotgun the same four perms on every page, especially when those perms are essentially the same argument (e.g. “perm do both” and “perm do the plan and non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt”) or when the perm is obviously nonsensical (e.g. “perm do the counterplan” against an advantage counterplan that doesn’t try to fiat the aff or against a uniqueness counterplan that bans the plan).

I appreciate when teams read rehighlightings and not insert them, unless you’re rehighlighting a couple words. You will lose speaker points for inserting a bunch of rehighlightings, and I’ll happily ignore them if instructed to by the other team.

I prefer to judge engagement over avoidance. I would rather you beat your opponent at their best than trick them into dropping something. If your plan for victory involves hiding ASPEC in a T shell, or deleting your conditionality block from the 2AC in hopes that they miss it, or using a bunch of buzzwords that you think the other team won't understand but I will, I will not be happy.

I generally assume good faith on the part of debaters and I'm very reticent to ignore the rest of the debate/arguments being made (especially when not explicitly and extensively instructed to) in order to punish a team for what's often an honest mistake. I am much more willing to vote on these arguments as links/examples of links. Obviously, there are exceptions to this for egregious and/or intentionally problematic behavior, but if your strategy revolves around asking me to vote against a team based on unhighlighted/un-underlined parts of cards, or "gotcha" moments in cross-x, you may want to change your strategy for me.

K affs:

1. Debate is indisputably a game to some degree or another, and it can be other things besides that. It indisputably influences debaters' thought processes and subjectivities to some extent; it is also indisputably not the only influence on those things. I like when teams split the difference and account for debate’s inevitably competitive features rather than asserting it is only one thing or another.

2. I think I am better for K affs than I have been in the past. I am not worse for framework, but I am worse for the amount of work that people seem to do when preparing to go for framework. I am getting really bored by neg teams who recycle blocks without updating them in the context of the round and don’t make an effort to talk about the aff. I think the neg needs to say more than just “the aff’s method is better with a well-prepared opponent” or “non-competitive venues solve the aff’s offense” to meaningfully mitigate the aff's offense. If you are going for framework in front of me, you may want to replace those kinds of quotes in your blocks with specific explanations that reference what the aff says in speeches and cards.

3. I prefer clash impacts to fairness impacts. I vote negative often when aff teams lack explanation for why someone should say "no" to the aff. I find that fairness strategies suffer when the aff pushes on the ballot’s ability to “solve” them; I would rather use my ballot to encourage the aff to argue differently rather than to punish them retroactively. I think fairness-centric framework strategies are vulnerable to aff teams impact turning the neg’s interpretation (conversely, I think counter-interpretation strategies are weak against fairness impacts).

4. I don't think I've ever voted on "if the 1AC couldn't be tested you should presume everything they've said is false"/"don't weigh the aff because we couldn't answer it," and I don't think I ever will.

5. I think non-framework strategies live and die at the level of competition and solvency. When aff teams invest time in unpacking permutations and solvency deficits, and the neg doesn’t advance a theory of competition beyond “no perms in a method debate” (whatever that means), I usually vote aff. When the aff undercovers the perm and/or the alt, I have a high threshold for new explanation and usually think that the 2NR should be the non-framework strategy.

6. I do not care whether or not fiat has a resolutional basis.

Ks on the neg/being aff vs the K:

I am getting really bored by "stat check" affs that respond to every K by brute-forcing a heg or econ impact and reading the same "extinction outweighs, util, consequentialism, nuke war hurts marginalized people too" blocks/cards every debate. That's not to say that these affs are non-viable in front of me, but it is to say that I've often seen teams reading these big-stick affs in ways that seem designed to avoid engaging the substance of the K. If this is your strategy, you should talk about the alternative more, and have a defense of fiat that is not just theoretical.

I care most about link uniqueness and alt solvency. When I vote aff, it's because a) the aff gets access to their impacts, b) those impacts outweigh/turn the K, c) the K links are largely non-unique, and/or d) the neg doesn't have a well-developed alt push. Neg teams that push back on these issues--by a) having well-developed and unique links and impacts with substantive impact calculus in the block and 2NR, including unique turns case args (not just that the plan doesn't solve, but that it actually makes the aff's own impacts more likely), b) having a vision for what the world of the alt looks like that's defensible and ostensibly solves their impacts even if the aff wins a risk of theirs (case defense that's congruent with the K helps), and/or c) has a heavy push on framework that tells me what the alt does/doesn't need to solve--have a higher chance of getting my ballot. Some more specific notes:

1. Upfront, I'm not a huge fan of "post-/non-/more-than/humanism"-style Ks. I find myself more persuaded by most defenses/critical rehabilitations of humanism than I do by critiques of humanism that attempt to reject the category altogether. You can try your best to change my mind, but it may be an uphill battle; this applies far more to high theory/postmodern Ks of humanism (which, full disclosure, I would really rather not hear) than it does to structuralist/identity-based Ks of humanism, though I find myself more persuaded by "new humanist" style arguments a la Fanon, Wynter, etc than full-on rejections of humanism.

2. There's a new trend of Ks about debt, debt imperialism, etc. I may not be the best judge for these arguments, simply because of my difficulty with understanding economics on its own terms, let alone in the context of a K. It's not for lack of trying to understand or familiarize myself, I just have tremendous difficulty understanding even basic economic concepts at a fundamental level, and this is seriously amplified when those concepts are being analyzed by relatively complex critical theory. This isn't to say these arguments are unwinnable in front of me (I've voted for them this year and in past years), but you may want to consider something else and/or investing a really large amount of time in explaining the fundamentals of your arguments to me.

3. I also don't really get all these new Ks about quantum physics in IR and stuff. Again, it's me, not you. I was an English major; every time I try to read these articles I get a headache. I'm interested, I promise, and if you can explain it to me I'll be very appreciative! But for transparency's sake, I think it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to both explain the argument to me in a way that I can comprehend AND invest the time necessary to win the debate in your 36 collective minutes of speaking time.

4. I'm quite interested in emerging genres of critical legal theory. I think I would be a good judge for Ks that defend concrete changes to jurisprudence and are willing to debate out the implications of that.

5. I think that others should not suffer, that biological death is bad, and that meaning-making and contingent agreement on contextual truths are possible, inevitable, and desirable. If your K disagrees with any of these fundamental premises, I am a bad judge for it.

6. I don't get Ks of linear time. I get Ks of whitewashing, progress narratives, etc. I get the argument that historical events influence the present, and that events in the present can reshape our understanding of the past. I get that some causes have complex effects that aren't immediately recognizable to us and may not be recognizable on any human scale. I just don't get how any of those things are mutually exclusive with, and indeed how they don't also rely on, some understanding of linear time/causality. I think this is because I have a very particular understanding of what "linear time" means/refers to, which is to say that it's hard for me to disassociate that phrase with the basic concept of cause/effect and the progression of time in a measurable, linear fashion. This isn't as firm of a belief as #5; I can certainly imagine one of these args clicking with me eventually. This is just to say that the burden of explanation is much higher and you would likely be better served going for more plan-specific link arguments or maybe just using different terminology/including a brief explanation as to why you're not disagreeing with the basic premise that causes have effects, even if those effects aren't immediately apparent. If you are disagreeing with that premise, you should probably strike me, as it will require far longer than two hours for me to comprehend your argument, let alone agree with it.

7. "Philosophical competition" is not a winning interpretation in front of me. I don't know what it means and no one has ever explained it to me in a coherent and non-arbitrary way.

8. There's a difference between utilitarianism and consequentialism. I'm open to critiques of the former; I have an extremely high burden for critiques of the latter. I'm not sure I can think of a K of consequentialism that I've judged that didn't seem to link to itself to some degree or another.

Policy debates:

1. 95% of my work in college is K-focused, and the other 5% is mostly spot updates. I have done very little policy-focused research in the preseason.

For high school, I led a lab this summer, but didn't retain a ton of topic info and have done exclusively K-focused work since the camp ended. I probably know less than you do about economics.

2. “Link controls uniqueness”/“uniqueness controls the link” arguments will get you far with me. I often find myself wishing that one side or the other had made that argument, because my RFDs often include some variant of it regardless.

3. Apparently T against policy affs is no longer in style. Fortunately, I have a terrible sense of style. In general, I think I'm better for the neg for T than (I guess) a lot of judges; reading through some judge philosophies I find a lot of people who say they don't like judging T or don't think T debates are good, and I strongly disagree with that claim. I'm a 2N at heart, so when it comes down to brass tacks I really don't care about many T impacts/standards except for neg ground (though I can obviously be persuaded otherwise). I care far more about the debates that an interpretation facilitates than I do about the interpretation's source in the abstract--do explanation as to why source quality/predictability influences the quality of debates under the relevant interpretation.

4. I think judge kick makes intuitive sense, but I won't do it unless I'm told to. That said, I also think I have a lower threshold for what constitutes the neg "telling me to" than most. There are some phrases that signify to me that I can default to the status quo by my own choosing; these include, but aren't necessarily limited to, "the status quo is always a logical policy option" and/or "counter-interp: the neg gets X conditional options and the status quo."

5. I enjoy counterplans that compete on resolutional terms quite a bit; I'd rather judge those than counterplans that compete on "should," "substantial," etc.

6. Here are some aff theory arguments that I could be persuaded on pretty easily given a substantive time investment:

--Counterplans should have a solvency advocate ideally matching the specificity of the aff's, but at least with a normative claim about what should happen.

--Multi-actor fiat bad--you can fiat different parts of the USFG do things, and international fiat is defensible, but fiating the federal government and the states, or the US and other countries, is a no-no. (Fiating all fifty states is debatably acceptable, but fiating some permutation of states seems iffy to me.)

--No negative fiat, but not the meme--counterplans should take a positive action, and shouldn't fiat a negative action. It's the distinction between "the USFG should not start a war against Russia" and "the USFG should ban initiation of war against Russia."

--Test case fiat? Having osmosed a rudimentary bit of constitutional law via friends and family in law school, it seems like debate's conception of how the Supreme Court works is... suspect. Not really sure what the implications of that are for the aff or the neg, but I'm pretty sure that most court CPs/mechanisms would get actual lawyers disbarred.

--“…large advantage counterplans with multiple planks, all of which can be kicked, are fairly difficult to defend. Negative teams can fiat as many policies as it takes to solve whatever problems the aff has sought to tackle. It is unreasonable to the point of stupidity to expect the aff to contrive solvency deficits: the plan would literally have to be the only idea in the history of thought capable of solving a given problem. Every additional proposal introduced in the 1nc (in order to increase the chance of solving) can only be discouraged through the potential cost of a disad being read against it. In the old days, this is why counterplan files were hundreds of pages long and had answers to a wide variety of disads. But if you can kick the plank, what incentive does the aff have to even bother researching if the CP is a good idea? If they read a 2AC add-on, the neg gets as many no-risk 2NC counterplans to add to the fray as well (of course, they can also add unrelated 2nc counterplans for fun and profit). If you think you can defend the merit of that strategy vs. a "1 condo cp / 1 condo k" interp, your creative acumen may be too advanced for interscholastic debate; consider more challenging puzzles in emerging fields, as they urgently need your input.” -Kevin "Kevin 'Paul Blart Mall Cop' James" James Hirn

Debated for UWG ’15 – ’17; Coaching: Notre Dame – ’19 – Present; Baylor – ’17 – ’19

email: joshuamichael59@gmail.com

Online Annoyance

"Can I get a marked doc?" / "Can you list the cards you didn't read?" when one card was marked or just because some cards were skipped on case. Flow or take CX time for it.

Policy

I prefer K v K rounds, but I generally wind up in FW rounds.

K aff’s – 1) Generally have a high threshold for 1ar/2ar consistency. 2) Stop trying to solve stuff you could reasonably never affect. Often, teams want the entirety of X structure’s violence weighed yet resolve only a minimal portion of that violence. 3) v K’s, you are rarely always already a criticism of that same thing. Your articulation of the perm/link defense needs to demonstrate true interaction between literature bases. 4) Stop running from stuff. If you didn’t read the line/word in question, okay. But indicts of the author should be answered with more than “not our Baudrillard.”

K’s – 1) rarely win without substantial case debate. 2) ROJ arguments are generally underutilized. 3) I’m generally persuaded by aff answers that demonstrate certain people shouldn’t read certain lit bases, if warranted by that literature. 4) I have a higher threshold for generic “debate is bad, vote neg.” If debate is bad, how do you change those aspects of debate? 5) 2nr needs to make consistent choices re: FW + Link/Alt combinations. Find myself voting aff frequently, because the 2nr goes for two different strats/too much.

Special Note for Settler Colonialism: I simultaneously love these rounds and experience a lot of frustration when judging this argument. Often, debaters haven’t actually read the full text from which they are cutting cards and lack most of the historical knowledge to responsibly go for this argument. List of annoyances: there are 6 settler moves to innocence – you should know the differences/specifics rather than just reading pages 1-3 of Decol not a Metaphor; la paperson’s A Third University is Possible does not say “State reform good”; Reading “give back land” as an alt and then not defending against the impact turn is just lazy. Additionally, claiming “we don’t have to specify how this happens,” is only a viable answer for Indigenous debaters (the literature makes this fairly clear); Making a land acknowledgement in the first 5 seconds of the speech and then never mentioning it again is essentially worthless; Ethic of Incommensurability is not an alt, it’s an ideological frame for future alternative work (fight me JKS).

FW

General: 1) Fairness is either an impact or an internal link 2) the TVA doesn’t have to solve the entirety of the aff. 3) Your Interp + our aff is just bad.

Aff v FW: 1) can win with just impact turns, though the threshold is higher than when winning a CI with viable NB’s. 2) More persuaded by defenses of education/advocacy skills/movement building. 3) Less random DA’s that are basically the same, and more internal links to fully developed DA’s. Most of the time your DA’s to the TVA are the same offense you’ve already read elsewhere.

Reading FW: 1) Respect teams that demonstrate why state engagement is better in terms of movement building. 2) “If we can’t test the aff, presume it’s false” – no 3) Have to answer case at some point (more than the 10 seconds after the timer has already gone off) 4) You almost never have time to fully develop the sabotage tva (UGA RS deserves more respect than that). 5) Impact turns to the CI are generally underutilized. You’ll almost always win the internal link to limits, so spending all your time here is a waste. 6) Should defend the TVA in 1nc cx if asked. You don’t have a right to hide it until the block.

Theory - 1) I generally lean neg on questions of Conditionality/Random CP theory. 2) No one ever explains why dispo solves their interp. 3) Won’t judge kick unless instructed to.

T – 1) I’m not your best judge. 2) Seems like no matter how much debating is done over CI v Reasonability, I still have to evaluate most of the offense based on CI’s.

DA/CP – 1) Prefer smart indicts of evidence as opposed to walls of cards (especially on ptx/agenda da's). Neg teams get away with murder re: "dropped ev" that says very little/creatively highlighted. 2) I'm probably more lenient with aff responses (solvency deficits/aff solves impact/intrinsic perm) to Process Cp's/Internal NB's that don't have solvency ev/any relation to aff.

Case - I miss in depth case debates. Re-highlightings don't have to be read. The worse your re-highlighting the lower the threshold for aff to ignore it.

LD

All of my thoughts on policy apply, except for theory. More than 2 condo (or CP’s with different plank combinations) is probably abusive, but I can be convinced otherwise on a technical level.

Not voting on an RVI. I don’t care if it’s dropped.

Most LD theory is terrible Ex: Have to spec a ROB or I don’t know what I can read in the 1nc --- dumb argument.

Phil or Tricks (sp?) debating – I’m not your judge.

Asian Debate League

Graduate of Emory University

Email chain: hmdebate01@gmail.com

Last Updated: September 2024

I am pretty much down to listen to anything, barring arguments that are disrespectful to your opponents, racist, sexist, etc. Do your thing, and don't take debate too seriously. Most of my experience is in the "policy" side of debate, but I have both argued and coached all sides.

My default understanding of kritiks are as CPs/DAs that have a different understanding of what constitutes a link and what determines competition. I can be convinced of anything, though.

Topicality against K AFFs is not dramatically different than topicality against policy AFFs. I can be convinced of almost anything, which is to say that ballot framing and impact calculus are very important. When talking about the merits of a K AFF, I am perhaps more persuaded than some that AFFs ought to be responsible for defending their method broadly, beyond the confines of just this individual debate. For example, suppose an AFF defends an orientation toward death. I am very easily convinced that I should evaluate its desirability for everyone and not just the debaters in the room. I think that perms exist in method debates, but not that they are just doing the AFF and the alt at the same time with no further explanation.

Current Director of Debate at the University of Northern Iowa #GoPanthers!

high school = Kansas 2012-2016 (Policy and LD)

undergrad = Emporia State 2016-2020 (Policy)

grad = Kansas State 2020-2022 (Policy Coach)

edited for the youth

Updated 8/2/24

Policy Debate

Yes, put me on the email chain. Squiddoesdebate@gmail.com

Virtual Debates --- Do a sound check before you start your speech. Simply ask if we can all hear you. I will not dock speaks because of audio issues, however, we will do everything we can to fix the audio issue before we proceed.

SEND YOUR ANALYTICS - if you want me to flow every word, you should send me every word you have typed. I am not the only one who uses typed analytics. Don't exclude folks from being able to fully participate just because you don't want to share your analytics.

The first thirty seconds of the last rebuttal for each side should be what they expect my RFD should be. I like being lazy and I love it when you not only tell me how I need to vote, but also provide deep explanations and extensive warrants for why the debate has ended in such a way to where I have no other choice to vote that way.My decision is most influenced by the last two rebuttals than any other speech. I actively flow the entire debate, but the majority of my attention when considering my decision comes down to a flow-based comparison of the last rebuttals. If you plan to bounce from one page to the next in the 2NR/2AR, then please do cross-applications and choose one page to stay on. That will help both of us.

I think debate should be an activity to have discussions. Sometimes these discussions are fun, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they are obvious and clear, sometimes they are not. Sometimes that's the point. Regardless, have a discussion and I will listen to it.

I don't like to read evidence after debates. That being said, I will if I have to. If you can make the argument without the evidence, feel free to do so. If I yell "clear", don't trip, just articulate.--- If I call for evidence or otherwise find myself needing to read evidence, it probably means you did not do a good enough job of explaining the argument and rather relied on author extensions. Please avoid this.

Your speaks start at a 30. Wherever they go from there are up to you. Things that I will drop speaks for include clearly not explaining/engaging the arguments in the round (without a justification for doing so), not explaining or answering CX questions, not articulating more after I clear you. Things that will improve your speaks include being fast, being efficient with your words, being clear while reading evidence, demonstrating comprehensive knowledge of your args by being off your blocks or schooling someone in cross-x, etc. If I significantly hurt your speaks, I will let you know why. Otherwise, you start at 30 and I've only had to go below 26 a handful of times.

my range is roughly 28.7-29.5 if you are curious for open and higher for Novice because I love novice debate

Prep time, cross-x, in-between-speeches chats, I'll be listening. All that means- be attentive to what's happening beyond the speeches. If you are making arguments during these times, be sure to make application arguments in the speech times. That's not just a judge preference, it's often devastating.

I like kritikal/performative debate. I did traditional/policy-styled debate. I prefer the previous but won't rule out the latter. <---this is less true as I judge more and more high school debate but it is still true for college debate.

General Tips;

have fun

slow down when reading the theory / analytics / interps

don't assume I know everything, I know nothing in the grand scheme of things

don't be rude unless you're sure of it

Ask me more if you want to know. Email me. I am down to chat more about my decisions in email if you are willing.

LD

• theory is wild. i don't know as much about it as you think I do
• tell me how to evaluate things, especially in the later speeches because new things are read in every speech and its wild and new to me. tell me what to do.
• I love the k's that are in this activity, keep that up.

Congress

I reward clash. If you respond to your opponents in a fluent, coherent manner, you will get high points from me.

I am not the most knowledgeable on the procedures of Congress so I don't know what tricks of the game to value over others. But I'm an excellent public speaking and argumentation coach/professor so I mostly give points based off of the speeches than the politics of the game - i.e. blocking others from speaking, switching/flipping, etc.
For P.O.'s --- I reward efficiency and care. I feel like some P.O.'s take things super seriously in order to be efficient but they come off as cold and unwelcoming in the process. P.O.'s who can strike a balance between the two get the most points from me. I don't keep track of precedence so you gotta be on top of that. I don't time speeches, that's on you as well. I just vibe and look for clash.

Affiliation: Debated at Jesuit Dallas and Trinity University

I am currently finishing a semester at Trinity while coaching Jesuit and Trinity.

2N Life

Email: mojack221.goo@gmail.com

Updated: 8/31/24

*Things in bold are either huge speaker point opportunities or huge speaker point killers/round losers.

*******

Round Procedure:

- Send out the 1ac before start time, not after. The debate starts at start time. Absent a technical failure, I’ll start docking speaks for this (.1 for every minute we’re not ready)

- Send cards in a doc - not the body of the email

- Prep stops when docs are saved. Deleting Analytics is Prep. Don't send cards in the body of the email. If you do, I will make you take prep to put it in a document and send it.

- Respect your opponents and be nice to each other.

- Inserting Evidence: I'm conditionally fine with it. If it from a different part of the article that the other team hasn't cut, you must read it. If it's highlighting parts of the card that they just didn't underline or highlight, you don't have to read it IF you paraphrase or do the work to explain why the re-highlighting matters. BUT, if it's so important, you may as well read it because that's powerful

- Disclosure: new affs are good. Disclosure ought to happen, but it does not need to happen. Mis-disclosure is the only type of disclosure theory I will vote on and for that to happen I either need to have seen the mis-disclosure, which I probably won't OR both teams need to agree on what happened during CX or something.

- While I won't punish the lack of disclosure, I think generally keeping an updated wiki is good, so tell me if you have one and if you update it before my decision, I'll add a few points. If the wiki is down or some uncontrollable happens where that's not possible, I'll assume good faith.

*******

Online Debates:

- if my camera is not on, I'm not ready

- please slow down.

- I'd encourage cameras to be on the whole debate, but obviously understand that's not always possible

- please get confirmation everyone is ready.

*******

How I Go About Judging Debates:

- I take judging very seriously and recognize the hard work you all put into it. Debate is not easy and sometimes it is very difficult to even show up to a tournament, much less debate your best every round. I do my best to keep a positive attitude and facilitate learning. You get my full attention during the debate and in the post round. I appreciated the judges and coaches who helped me grow as a debater by not just deciding the round, but also giving extensive feedback on how to improve. I strive to do the same.

- I'm not very expressive unless you say something absurd. I'm not really grumpy, that's just my face.

- I’m not a blank slate. Nobody is. If someone says they can evaluate the debate only from a technical point of view, they are lying to you and themselves. To some degree, the arguments we read or don’t engage, shape our beliefs and the way we go about our lives. The good thing about me, is I’ll be very honest in this philosophy on what I will not vote on and what I’m generally not persuaded by. While I believe in the technical evaluation of the debate, this activity is also about persuading people who might disagree with you. If both teams seem to agree on larger value claims within a debate, I have an easier time setting aside some of my biases, but they are never truly gone.

- I’m deeply concerned by members of this community who refuse to think about critical literature because they just like the DA thing better. I think it is a political and unfortunate choice to say you are not good for the K because you are unwilling to learn about K debate. Isn’t the whole point of this activity that you’re forced to engage with content you might not understand?

- It is my personal belief that the United States represents the greatest threat to the world. I will not take descriptions of other parts of the world or the benevolence of US imperialism lightly. There’s a tendency to read the Heg DA against K aff. What are we doing here? Yes it might link sometimes, but when an aff is discussing complex issues of Antiblackness or disability, you kind of look like a jerk when you respond with "but the military is really cool." If you don’t see the problem with saying alternate perspectives are an existential threat to the world, I’m not the judge for you. I’m not saying I will stop the debate, butyour speaks will probably be capped pretty low. I've judged a debate where the neg read the red spread DA against an aff about queer poetry and prisons. This is one of those contexts where I'm nearly completely unwilling to evaluate that debate in favor of the Neg.

- Can you still read your heg or tech dominance adv? Of course! I still believe it’s valuable to evaluate debates that happen and not every performance against those arguments will be victorious. But context matters. My suggestions if you read these types of arguments in front of me: 1) Read qualified and peer-reviewed people, not the garbage that comes out of the National Interest, the Breakthrough Institute, or other propaganda websites; 2) I'm less persuaded by hot takes about other countries being revisionist because a) that's not an impact or a predictor of all behavior, and b) the US has revised the "international order' more comprehensively and violently than any other force in history. The super ideological defenses of heg are simply ignorant. Focus on the particulars of your case and keep the bashing of other countries to a minimum.

- Flowing:

- a) medium: I flow on paper 99% of the time. For me, that means I flow the debate and track it by the line by line. Even if you just speak "straight down" in overview fashion, I will still try to line things up to where I think that goes on the flow. It would benefit you to tell me either directly where you are going on the line by line OR tell me a different way to flow and give me plenty of pen/organization time.

- b) instrument: I prefer pen. G2 .38 or .5. I write a lot so slowing down is good

- Reading Evidence: I don’t read along with you in the docs because that would compromise my flowing. I do not fill in my flow using the doc. It’s your job to communicate the argument, not the speech doc. I do read cards during prep time and after the debate. I will ask for a card doc if needed, but if the debate involves lots of cards (upwards of 25 per side for a given page), I’d just start making the card doc.

- Speed: Go for it. Clarity, Organization, and Pen Time are all essential to effective speed.

- Evidence quality > quantity. Part of this includes highlighting sentences/making your cards comprehensible. If I look at cards, I only look at the highlighting you read.

- Decisions: I start with important frames and judge instructions given by the 2nr/ar. I think through different ballots that could be given, exploring all possible victories for each team. I pick the one I think is most supported by the round.

- Trolls: If you've done the work to cut a lot of cards that at least have the illusion of quality and demonstrate how your argument interacts with the other teams in significant ways, I'm fine for you. If it's a terrible back file check or something that anyone could prep in 30 minutes, I'm not your judge and your points will suffer. It also helps if your argument has an impact instead of only trying to trigger presumption.

- I'm not interested in evaluating a round about things that occurred out of round.

*******

Intellectual Property Rights Topic:

-I think this topic is great because there’s a lot of specific literature and IMO the aff has a harder job on this topic. Long Live the 2Ns.

- I’ve spent most of the preseason cutting K cards and a few very targeted patents searches. I’m quite excited to see how y’all develop your arguments. Try something new

- I think the case debate here is very interesting and has opportunities for very specific debates with lots of offense for both aff and neg.

- T is questionable on this topic

- When all things lead to innovation, differentiation and comparison of the internal links are super helpful. “Our internal link o/w theirs because XYZ warrants”

- In terms of argument and evidence quality, the capitalism good-bad debate is one sided. I simply think most people writing in defense of capitalism don’t understand the arguments they are responding to or are incapable because reality is nowhere close to on their side. It’s not an auto W, because I’m very particular about cap K things. I'm much more persuaded by aff specific presses against the K than a 6-minute ode to capitalism that doesn't answer particular neg link, impact, alt arguments.

- FW and perm double bind vs the cap k is cowardice. Defend your stuff

*******

College Climate Topic

- This topic is so cool. I wish I could have had this topic. I’m beyond excited to see the creative affs and neg strats. Y'all are super smart and I can't wait to hear all the arguments. I'm super into all facets of the climate debate from understanding core market positions to the weirdest sections of the critical environmental literature.

- I suspect a certain critique of capitalism will be featured a lot this year. Teams going for the K should have specific links to the aff because they exist to everything on this topic. Same old 1 or 2 meh link cards + warrant spam on the sustainability debate is less appreciated by someone who has spent so much time with the cap k. Everything from the link, impact, and alt to the sustainability and fw cards can all be about market mechanisms to solve climate change. Have some cap k cohesion for God’s (Karl’s) sake.

- Similarly, I think the aff needs an aff specific approach to the K that prioritizes defending their market mechanism before they start the impact turn spam. It will be hard to win without substantive answers to the links. Case specific alt presses are underutilized and get you a lot more than reading some staff writer at Forbes who thinks they know what degrowth or socialism is because they lived during the cold war. Red-baiting is not a good look.

- I haven’t done any T research on this topic, so I’m not sure if the words have exclusive meanings. But I’m open to the debate.

- If you read warming good, I’ll presume you think I’m immoral or incapable of knowing the truth. Your speaks will suffer for this insult. There's a tendency to say "if it's such a bad argument, just beat it." No. We're willing to turn away from other arguments we find morally repugnant. I think this is one of them. As a person in the Global North, it comes across badly when you say we can benefit from warming while people have been dying because of those lies.

*****

The rest of the philosophy is mostly me rambling and heavily influenced by the explanation in any given round.

Case:

- It's underutilized - specific internal link and solvency arguments go a long way in front of me. Strategically, a good case press in the block and 2nr makes all substantive arguments better

- Impact turns are fantastic. The better the literature, the better the impact turn.

Topicality:

- It's only a serious threat when the words of the rez have a specific meaning.

- Plan text in a vacuum is ridiculous and not a helpful way to evaluate a T debate, especially when plans are incredibly vague and the solvency evidence describing it is right there. If you do the topic mechanism by doing something that's not the topic, I can't comprehend why you think you would meet.

- We meet is a yes/no thing. I never understood attempts to evaluate this in terms of risk.

- Case lists please. Be realistic about what is included/excluded and explain why debates over those affs =good/bad/too burdensome to prepare for/whatever.

- T Should = predictive will always have a place in my heart. The haters were really wrong about this one.

DA:

- I will vote on defense against a DA. There's probably always a risk, but that doesn't mean I care about such risk

- ev comparison or judge instruction about micro-moments in the debate goes a long way for winning individual parts of a DA.

- Neg teams defending the status quo should make a comprehensive case press. Even if your DA isn't the best, it may very well be more important than the advantages.

- I like good evidence that contains arguments. You should keep that in mind before going for politics.

- Most politics DAs end up sounding more like the political capital K to me, meaning they lack any specific internal link from an unpopular plan to an agenda item. I'm better for arguments like horse-trading or riders because I think the cards are usually a bit more there for those internal links than political capital. That being said, politics DAs that are a bit more fiat-based are either pretty good or garbage, all depending on the link card.

- I think the elections DA has a bit more to it, particularly on the climate topic where quality links exist.

- Trump Good Elections DA = L. No exceptions. Even if you don’t go for it, you will lose for defending fascism. Even if the other team doesn't say anything, you will lose.

CP:

- For questionably competitive CPs, clarity on the difference between the aff and the cp, what words if any are being defined, and an organized presentation of why your standard is better are crucial. It would also be helpful to slow down on texts, perms, theory, the usual stuff. Blippy cards and analytics mixed with speed are the enemy of the flow.

- Solvency advocates that compare the CP to topic or plan mechanisms greatly help in winning competition and theory

- I don't judge kick unless instructed to in the 2nr. Debate to me is about choices and persuasion. Unless your choice in the 2nr explicitly includes the failsafe of judge kick, I'm not going to do it for you.

Theory:

- I don't think I lean heavily aff or neg.

- Conditionality is debatable. Quantitative interps don’t make sense to me. Condo is good or bad. Fun fact, dispositionality was originally used because it was in a thesaurus under the word conditionality. This is to say, if your interp is anything under than condo bad, I'm going to need you to unpack the terms for me. 40 second condo in the 1ar is usually insufficient to justify the new 2ar absent the 2nr dropping condo.

- My default is to reject the argument for all things except conditionality. This shouldn't deter you from going for theory because rejecting a CP usually means the neg has little defense left in a debate.

K on the Negative:

- Good K debating is good case debating. A good critique would explain why a core component of the 1ac is wrong or bad.

- The link is the most important part of the debate. Be specific, pull 1AC lines, say what you are disagreeing with, give examples, etc. Explain why winning the thesis takes out specific parts of the solvency or internal link chain. More link debating is my number one comment to teams going for the K.

- I really really really do not understand most Aff FW args vs the K. They claim to be some sort of “middle ground,” but that middle ground requires the neg to present their K like a DA and a CP. That’s not a K. That’s not a middle ground. That’s no Ks in disguise. The idea that assumptions, discourse, or general political orientation have no bearings on policy is absolutely lost on me. I also don’t believe most Ks that engage the aff or the topic moot the aff. Simply put, I think questions of fairness are rarely relevant to the debate. Aff teams are in an infinitely better position if they are making substantive arguments about how I should make a decision, i.e. impact calc. When the K is in floaty land, I’m much more persuaded by defenses of pragmatism or incrementalism than I am by “you’re breaking our activity.” An exception is something like a word PIK. Other PIKs I don't find too persuasive because the links are usually to strong to justify inclusion of the aff's policy or the neg's alt card is not written in aff specific pik language.

- That might seem difficult for the Aff, but the other side is I don’t really think many K strats that exclusively rely on FW or Ks of debate get very far for me. Particularly with topics that either demand an expansion of the intellectual property regime or use of a market mechanism to solve climate change, we can do a little better than a glorified FYI about fiat. Win a link, win an impact, do impact calc. I think K tricks don't make sense if the neg isn't winning core portions of the K already.

- Defend things. The neg should have a clear disagreement with the aff. The aff should defend the core assumptions of the aff. If you're reading an aff that defends US hegemony, going for super specific internal literature indicts against a settler colonialism K won't help you. A defense of IR scholarship, realism, impact prioritization, and alt indicts might. Given I'm not persuaded by FW args, that's a lot of time you could get back to defend things

- Interventions good = L. I’m disgusted by judges who have let this slide.

- Recycling the Escalante dual power organizing alt is a thumbs down.

- Perms against pessimism Ks, absent some super specific perm card, have generally been unpersuasive to me.

- While my critical vocabulary is fine, I find some of it difficult to flow paragraph style tags that drop a bunch of important sounding words/concepts with no definitions. I suggest you slow down a bit on the most important things you want on my flow.

K on the Aff:

- Go for it. They should have some connection to the topic and some statement of advocacy. If you can read your aff on every topic without changing cards or tags, I’ll enjoy the debate less, but it's your debate, not mine.

- Role of the ballot means nothing to me and is often a substitute for judge instruction

- Presumption questions are usually just questions of framework and the value the aff's model provides. Neg teams spend way too much time asking questions about ballot spill up or the debate round changing the world. We all agree fiat illusory is a bad argument in a policy prescription model of debate. Why is it all of the sudden good now? Your time is much better served explaining how the aff's model of debate is counterproductive to its benefits. In other words, answer the should not would question.

- Aff teams should critique presumption as a conservative bias.

K vs a K

- I think these debates are super valuable and when done well reflect some of the most specific research and argumentative skills this activity offers.

- I don't evaluate these debates too differently. Tell me what the major issues and disagreements are, win an impact,

- "No perms in a method debate" has never really made sense to me. Justifications for this argument tend to rely on quasi FW arguments that have likely been thoroughly critiqued or don't live up to the aff argument of "but are they mutually exclusive." If you have something more specific to your strategy that has substantive warrants to it, I'm definitely willing to listen. Otherwise, your time is better spent making link arguments that demonstrate mutual exclusivity between the aff and the neg.

Framework/T USFG:

- Framework debates are important because they force us to question fundamental assumptions and norms of the activity. It's about models of debate. Convince me yours is good and theirs is bad.

- These debates are really good and specific or extremely repetitive and shallow. Strive for the former and actually do the clash thing that everyone says is so good.

- I'm open to most impacts to framework. I judge them like most debates where I compare the aff's offense to the neg's offense, defense, and framing arguments from 2nr and 2ar. I have voted for and against all the common impacts for T-USFG/traditional FW (procedural fairness, clash, topic mechanism education, agonistic democracy, advocacy skills, etc).

- I'm not the biggest fan of aff strategy's vs T that exclusively rely on the impact turn. It's a really hard sell that the idea of a topic for debate shouldn't be a thing. I think the impact turns are more persuasive if the neg is exclusively going for fairness or it's a game with no other value. However, if the neg has a coherent defense of clash, negation, or research over a limited topic plus defense against the impact turn, I'm likely to be persuaded by the impact turn strategy.

- The inverse of this is that when the aff has a counter interpretation that defines resolution words in creative ways, I find it very hard for the negative to win much offense. I'm much more persuaded by an argument that says singular interpretation of the topic as mandating simulated federal government policy are unpredictable and bad than I am by the argument we should throw away the topic because it can be read in a singular way.

- I'd rather the impact turn cards to fairness be from the academic journals or publications about debate. The cards and literature exists because of decades of academics in this activity who have put the care into writing about it. I think the K of fairness or what not is much more persuasive when specific to debate and not trial proceedings for example.

- Hypotesting is better than T USFG. Change my mind.

*******

Speaker Points:

- a bit arbitrary, but I'll start at 28.5 and go up and down based on the round

- If all your cards on the arg you are going for are super-specific and good, I will probably start at 28.8 and go up. If I see your initials next to a bunch of cards you’re reading, that’s an extra speaker point boost.

- I have trouble being able to evaluate you as speakers and then compare that to some arbitrary standard based on where I think you'll be in the tournament. Factors I do consider include: smart arguments, strategic choice, organization and good evidence.

- No 30s unless rd. 8 of the NDT. Don't ask for speaker points. Even if you think your arg is persuasive, I'm not flowing it and am much more concerned with the actual debate. Sorry high schoolers, no 30s for you.

Please add me to the email chain:

mwmunday@gmail.com

wildcatdebatedocs@gmail.com

Affiliations and History

Director of Debate at Westminster. Debated in college between 2008 and 2012. Actively coaching high school debate since 2008.

Debate Views

I am not the kind of judge who will read every card at the end of the debate. Claims that are highly contested, evidence that is flagged, and other important considerations will of course get my attention. Debaters should do the debating. Quality evidence is still important though. If the opposing team's cards are garbage, it is your responsibility to let that be known. Before reading my preferences about certain arguments, keep in mind that it is in your best interest to do what you do best. My thoughts on arguments are general predispositions and not necessarily absolute.

T – Topicality is important. The affirmative should have a relationship to the topic. How one goes about defending the topic is somewhat open to interpretation. However, my predisposition still leans towards the thought that engaging the topic is a good and productive end. I find myself in Framework debates being persuaded by the team that best articulates why their limit on the topic allows for a season's worth of debate with competitively equitable outcomes for both the aff and the neg.

Disads/Case Debate – While offense is necessary, defense is frequently undervalued. I am willing to assign 0% risk to something if a sufficient defensive argument is made.

Counterplans – Conditionality is generally fine. Functional competition seems more relevant than textual competition. If the affirmative is asked about the specific agent of their plan, they should answer the question. I increasingly think the affirmative allows the negative to get away with questionable uses of negative fiat. Actual solvency advocates and counterplan mechanisms that pass the rational policy option assumption matter to me.

Kritiks – I teach history and economics and I studied public policy and political economy during my doctoral education. This background inherently influences my filter for evaluating K debates. Nonetheless, I do think these are strategic arguments. I evaluate framework in these debates as a sequencing question regarding my resolution of impact claims. Effective permutation debating by the aff is an undervalued strategy.

Theory – A quality theory argument should have a developed warrant/impact. “Reject the argument, not the team” resolves most theory arguments except for conditionality. Clarity benefits both teams when engaging in the substance of theory debates.

Speaker Points

(Scale - Adjective - Description)

29.6-30 - The Best - Everything you could ask for as a judge and more. (Top 5 speaker award)

29-29.5 - Very, Very good - Did everything you could expect as a judge very, very well.

28.6-28.9 - Very Good - Did very well as a whole, couple moments of brilliance, but not brilliant throughout.

28.3-28.5 - Good - Better than average. Did most things well. Couple moments of brilliance combined with errors.

28-28.2 - OK - Basic skills, abilities, and expectations met. But, some errors along the way. Very little to separate themselves from others. Clearly prepared, just not clearly ahead of others.

Below 28 - OK, but major errors - Tried hard, but lack some basic skills or didn’t pay close enough attention.

FOR COLLEGE TOURNAMENTS: ukydebate@gmail.com

FOR HS TOURNAMENTS:devanemdebate@gmail.com

My name is Devane (Da-Von) Murphy, and I'm the Associate Director of Debate at the University of Kentucky. My conflicts are Newark Science, Coppell High School, University High School, Rutgers-Newark, Dartmouth College, and the University of Kentucky. I debated 4 years of policy in high school and for some time in college, however, I've coached Lincoln-Douglas as well as Public Forum debaters so I should be good on all fronts. I ran all types of arguments in my career, from Politics to Deleuze and back, and my largest piece of advice to you with me in the back of the room is to run what you are comfortable with. Also, I stole this from Elijah Smith's philosophy

"If you are a policy team, please take into account that most of the "K" judges started by learning the rules of policy debate and competing traditionally. I respect your right to decide what debate means to you, but debate also means something to me and every other judge. Thinking about the form of your argument as something I may not be receptive to is much different from me saying that I don't appreciate the hard work you have done to produce the content"

***Emory LD Edit***

I'm a policy debater in training but I'm not completely oblivious to the different terms and strategies used in LD. That being said, I hate some of the things that are supposed to be "acceptable" in the activity. First, I HATE frivolous Theory debates. I will vote for it if I absolutely have to but I have VERY HIGH threshold and I will not be kind to your speaker points. Second, if your thing is to do whatever a "skeptrigger" is or something along that vein, please STRIKE me. It'd be a waste of your time as I have nothing to offer you educationally. Another argument that I probably will have a hard time evaluating is constitutivism/truth testing. Please compare impacts and tell me why I should vote for you. Other than that, everything else here is applicable. Have fun and if you make me laugh, I'll boost your speaks.

DA's: I like these kinds of debates. My largest criticism is that if you are going to read a DA in front of me, please give some form of impact calculus that helps me to evaluate which argument should be prioritized with my ballot. And I'm not just saying calculus to mean timeframe, probability or magnitude but rather to ask for a comparison between the impacts offered in the round. (just a precursor but this is necessary for all arguments not just DA's)

CP's: I like CP's however for the abusive ones (and yes I'm referring to Consult, Condition, Multi-Plank, Sunset, etc.) Theoretical objections persuade me. I'm not saying don't run these in front of me however if someone runs theory please don't just gloss over it because it will be a reason to reject the argument and if its in the 2NR the team.

K's: I like the K too however that does not mean that I am completely familiar with the lit that you are reading as arguments. The easiest way to persuade me is to have contextualized links to the aff as well as not blazing through the intricate details of your stuff. Not to say I can't flow speed (college debate is kinda fast) I would rather not flow a bunch of high theory which would mean that I won't know what you're talking about. You really don't want me to not know what you're talking about. SERIOUSLY. I will lower your speaker points without hesitation

Framework: I'm usually debating on the K side of this, but I will vote on either side. If the negative is winning and impacting their decision-making impact over the impacts of the aff then I would vote negative. On the flip side, if the aff wins that the interpretation is a targeted method of skewing certain conversations and wins offense to the conversation, I would vote aff. This being said I go by my flow. Also, I'm honestly not too persuaded by fairness as an impact, but the decision-making parts of the argument intrigue me.

K-Affs/Performance: I'm 100% with these. However, they have to be done the right way. I don't wanna hear poetry spread at me at high speeds nor do I want to hear convoluted high theory without much explanation. That being said, I love to watch these kinds of debates and have been a part of a bunch of them.

Theory: I'll vote on it if you're impacting your standards. If you're spreading blocks, probably won't vote for it.

cam, they/she, camnofdebate@gmail.com

last time large substance changes were done : nov 2022

if you are a contemporary reading this and i have stolen things from your paradigm, it's because they are good and i will not rehash something already well-written.

bio

- 8 years of cx debate experience and counting

- happily in college debate limbo (transfer student blues)

- lane tech debate captain ('21)

- lane tech debate co-coach (‘22-now)

- went to the toc in hs if that sort of thing has significance to you

- people who have had a significant effect on my debate style and experience: lila lavender, george lee, geo liriano, sam price, uiowa CE, and the entire university west georgia with an emphasis on CL

top level

online debate: please turn your camera on, I hate listening to 4 black boxes - this excludes tech problems, my laptop is also prone to very dramatic tantrums.

don't call me judge, my name will do just fine.

very little offends me. it should be simple for you to prevail if it's so wrong and you're so right.

in my personal career i primarily went for policy aff's and k's or t on the neg. i generally think that good things are good and bad things are bad. i have few stipulations (probably even less than most) on how the "rules" of debate ought to work, if you win the thing that you are running then i will vote on it.

1) an argument is a claim and a reason (at least).

2) evidence supports your argument, evidence is NOT your argument

3) i won't kick arguments for you

4) line by line debating is non-optional

5) tech > truth (this has nuances, you won't read them if i write them...)

5) if you cannot collapse, you are a bad debater

the most significant thing to remember is that i am a human (by most definitions) that does make mistakes (despite my best attempts). i'm generally proficient at flowing, and i will flow the entire round-barring something catastrophic. i've had excellent and extensive conversations with many other college-age judges about this, during which i have concluded the following. my job as a judge is to do my best to fairly adjudicate the round to the best of my ability, which i can assure you that i will do. if you feel the need to hammer me in the post-round, by all means, go for it, but make note that i will respect you as much as you respect me. there are right and wrong decisions in varsity debates, and judges can & do fail to deliver the right ones, which is a regrettable, yet inevitable part of the game; i do my absolute best to avoid this, and i can assure you i have interpreted every argument on the flow to the best of my working ability.

now, much like keryk kuiper outlines, i am a fairly expressive judge. i laugh when things are funny, i do make faces at things, and i have been known to throw flow paper about in a rather dramatic way. you are under no obligation to change strategies based on the way i react to it, and you will win something that i don't "like" as long as you are winning it on the flow. you may, however, choose to alter it. that is your right and your decision. you are also a human with "free will". do as you please - but note that reacting to those things is a crucial part of becoming a better debater - and if your argument is so bad that i look like i’m about to throw up, good luck getting me to hack for you in the rfd.

i believe it goes without saying i would much rather judge a well-executed policy v policy round than a poorly executed k v k round. just because i have a better substantive grasp on a larger body of k lit than an average clash judge does not mean that i think you should pref me higher as a k team. my ideal debate is something you have the best grasp of, and that you are the most excited about. if that happens to be the k, then wonderful, but if it is also a CP you have labored over then i am equally as enthusiastic. all good debate teams do their best to exert themselves on arguments that they think have the most merit - that is what i want to hear.

below are, as the intro would suggest, my many conflicting opinions on debate. do not confuse this with rules for a round. these are just my personal thoughts, and i take pride in my ability to objectively adjudicate whatever presents itself to me.

k things

K's proper: LT PN was explicitly a set col team for many moons, so i am personally most familiar with that set of lit in the context of my own competitive practice. in my time as a coach, i've also worked on plenty of semio-cap/po-mo/ "high theory" based k's. external to debate, i'm fairly well-versed in anti-capitalist and queer theory literature. this is not an excuse to not judge instruct. i have a strong distaste for k teams whose strategy is to confuse the opponent out of ballots with large, and often unnecessary words. i find this practice incredibly disingenuous and i have (unhappily) noticed its presence increase over time. if you rely on obfuscation, the argument is probably quite poor, and you should not be reading it. on a personal note, in working with the lovely lila lavender for quite some time, i have found myself more drawn to k v k debate over time, as i firmly believe it is the most interesting and innovative form that debate can take.

additionally, i do wholeheartedly agree with her analysis of non-colonized and non-black people reading afro-pessimism as a strategy, for more information I have included the same blog link here

https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/

K on the aff: you must be willing to commit. it is far too often that i judge k aff teams that are determined to make their aff more middle-of-the-road/palatable. clever k teams should be able to achieve equilibrium with effective policy teams with the amount of tools at their disposal and yet they seem unwilling to use them. i am far more willing to hear that debate is better with no competition models, debate should be thrown off a cliff, or that debating the resolution has no intrinsic value than your average clash judge. that being said, i have a stronger preference for k affs that defend something material (specific political project) than the average k judge. too many k affs shy away from fiating the alt, but i digress. as far as content goes, the material that i have the most personal familiarity is outlined above. i think lila says it best when they say "If you are going to reject the res, which is totally cool with me, you should make sure to have justifications as to why the res is bad, and why rejecting it on the affirmative is key."

if you are going to perform, and it is significant to you that the performance is flowed a certain way, indicate that.

i will probably not flow your overview if it is longer than 30 seconds.

i will definitely not flow your overview if it requires a separate sheet.

K on the neg: should deal with the case in some way (either moot it entirely on the FW flow/ fiat the alt/ what have you). generating philosophical or research practice based competition is most likely to be persuasive to me - i am of the many that believe beyond game theory, debate is a research practice. one team will win their FW interpretation, as most other standards are arbitrary. same content familiarity applies here. generally, the neg shouldn't be lazy with their links, and the aff should be smarter debating fiat arguments. i prioritize specificity and spin above all else. i also think affs should be smarter (and earlier) on the FW flow.

my favorite part of nick rosenbaum's theory of debate is that "you do not need an alternative if you are winning framework OR if your links are material DA's to the aff's implementation where the squo would be preferable OR if your theory of power overdetermines the aff's potential to be desirable OR if you can think of another reason you don't need an alt." same material praxis alternative preference as k aff's (internal or external to debate). fiating mindset shifts/epistemic reorientations (i have yet to hear a sound description of what that is) is probably abusive and generally not a good argument. i will (and have - dont ask) vote on death good - if you win it.

FW: i generally believe that framework is probably true to some extent, and net good for clash v k affs because reciprocity is good and so on and so forth. as my judging record would indicate, i am neg leaning in K v FW debates, mostly for the reasons outlined in the k aff section of this paradigm. i find tournament and season preparation disparity arguments fairly silly. for the negative, use smart defensive tactics like switch-side debating and TVA's, explain the flaws in the counter-interpretation (unlimited topic, links to aff offense), and produce smart arguments about limits, mechanism education, or clash.

making sure there is fairness in a competition between two teams is one of the judge's main responsibilities. judges are fundamentally expected to evaluate the discussion honestly; forcing them to disregard fairness in that appraisal removes the prerequisite for debate. on the aff, you should impact turn the process of policy debates on the topic - this is distinct from the affs on the topic. if you win that the process of debating the topic is bad, then preserving fairness is futile to the game.

policy things

T: probably makes its way into 75% of my own 1NR’s, competing interps/quality of evidence comes first. do not hinge your strat on some vague cross ex answer, clear and concise arguments only. additionally, both or either team reading blocks through the rebuttals without refuting the other team's arguments in depth is very boring and not something I want to watch.

Theory: See T. I err aff on condo generally and for the sake of transparency thing, most consult/agent counterplans are probably abusive, but don't let that sway you, i will still vote on the flow work (yes i am a strong believer in the debate truth that neg fiat is bad). i'm predisposed to believe exactly what YOU think debate ought to be.

Da's: make sure you do plenty of impact work, and PLEASE articulate why the impact of your DA overwhelms the harms of the aff. Links exist on a spectrum; the "chance of a link" has to be qualified and then incorporated into the risk assessment component of impact calculus. Expert turns case analysis is invaluable. “Any risk” is inane. Below some level of probability, signal should be overwhelmed by noise, or perhaps the opposite effect might occur. Pretending that one can calculate risk precisely is stupid. Are you really sure that the risk of a disad is fifteen percent? Are you sure it’s not, say, twenty? Or maybe ten? Or, God forbid, twenty-five? If you are able to calculate risk with such precision, please quit debate and join the DIA. Your country needs you, citizen. If not, recognize that risks can be roughly calculated in a relative way, but that the application of mathematical models to debate is a (sometimes) useful heuristic, not an independently viable tool for evaluation. - mollison stolen from matheson which has now trickled down to here.

CP's: win the net ben and how you access it, otherwise i will vote on a nice Aff perm. That being said, If a perm is present in the 1ar, I will NOT automatically judge kick the CP if the squo is preferable. In this scenario, the 2nr would need to instruct me as to why I should do this, however I think judge kick goes aff easily in the presence of a perm.I think lots of counterplans that steal much of the aff (interpret that as you wish) are illegitimate and the aff should hammer them. the aff still needs has to win theory regardless of my personal disdain for certain CP's. i do like a well executed tricky PIC though on a NATO topic, i find them widely entertaining. not sure of their legitimacy, but at least i'll be in a good mood.

final notes

have fun, debate should be something you enjoy doing. be nice and cordial to your opponents, that being said don't be afraid to be assertive. don't clip cards. i follow the nsda handbook re: evidence violation, so any of those issues must be resolved through tab. if the tournament is not NSDA sanctioned and i am instructed to make the decision, i will default to my best interpretation of what "good practice" looks like on the current college circuit/"general accepted community norms". all that good stuff

bonus speaks section

+0.1 for open sourcing (let me know, i won't look)

+0.1 for any good joke in a speech (this is at my discretion, good luck)

+0.1 for novices that show me their flows after the round has ended

Tldr: top 5 things to know (applies to any debate event you do in front of me)

• policy coach, tech > truth, tabula rasa critic of argument - details below but basically this means i'm tabula rasa as long as you have complete claim-warrant-impact arguments, and i place a premium on logical analytical work, evidence comparison, and impact comparison; importantly, quality logical analysis can easily beat subpar evidence

• be excellent to each other - "Keanu Reeves & Alex Winter explain "Be Excellent to Each Other" ": this video gets the spirit right (minus Alex Winter's gendered language)

• doing your own style = good & respected (i'm just as happy in a stock issues or case / DA round as in a circuity policy or K round as long as there's clear clash, weighing, & analysis, not just a card & block war)

• in national circuit style, i prefer the depth and clarity of 80% of toc style speed and fewer off [much happier with the depth in a 1-4-ish off situation] rather than full fast

• please no blippy unwarranted args - esp not for theory (you need claim-warrant-impact for it to be a voting issue - and reasoning for the voting issue when you first assert it's a voter)

everything below this line mainly includes background info, advice, and event-specific predispositions which you can override w/ skillful debating as long as you focus on the basic ideas above!

**************************************************************************************************

about you:

thank you for being here and for your commitment to speech & debate! i respect your work in this life-changing activity that builds essential life skills and shares important messages and advocacies. please communicate with me if you need any sort of support or accommodation during the round!

about me:

• she/her...and you can call me Michaela; michaelanorthrop@gmail.com – put me on the chain

• current debate & speech coach at Archbishop Mitty High School in San Jose

• policy: policy debate on a spectrum from slow lay judge format to fast circuit style nearly every year since 1999 but have focused less on circuit style the last few years - more lay & semi-fast / mixed pool debate for regional / state & nsda / cat nats

• former head coach with experience coaching all speech & debate events

• competed in hs & college speech & debate (policy, extemp, congress, duo, oratory, & parli) in the late 1990s

• tabroom experience is deceptive; i normally judge 50+ practice rounds a year

• coaching experience:

• 2000-2003 - head speech and debate coach at Lynbrook H.S. in San Jose (California and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2003-2006 - head speech and debate coach from at Chantilly H.S. in the Washington D.C. metro (D.C. metro and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2006-2008 - assistant coach for policy debate at Wayzata H.S. in Minnesota & Twin River (formerly Henry Sibley) H.S. (Minnesota and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2015-2024- policy & impromptu coach at Leland High School in San Jose (California and some national circuit tournaments) + assistance for other events as needed

• 2024-present - debate & speech coach at Archbishop Mitty

SPEAKER POINTS

• i adjust to a particular tournament’s level of challenge and objectives; in lay local debate, i defer to the adaptation goals of that community and adjust points accordingly; on the national circuit, i hold the line more on substance and relative skill in the pool

• speaks are earned by a combo of:

• style (art, creativity, accessibility, memorability, ethos/pathos/logos balance)

• + substance (tech, strategy, demonstrating knowledge and control of the flow + clearly writing my ballot)

• + adaptation (i think this shows your ability to pave a way to persuasion and willingness to make a speech act connect; as a critic of argument focused on education, to me that seems like part of the mission; you make a clear effort to reach out to my understanding of and goals for debate; it’s flagged; it’s obvious; bonus points in paneled prelim round situations if i can tell you're doing this for the whole panel)

• the College Debate Ratings speaker point scale from a few years ago is a good guide for toc-qualifying tournaments but here i overlay my personal rubric so you see more of what i’m looking for per level:

• 29.7+ – exceptional; top few speakers; you’ve blown me away in style + substance + adaptation

• 29.5-29.6 – should be top 10 speakers; the force is strong with you across style + substance + adaptation

• 29.3-29.4 – still high points for top 10 speakers; very strong in at least one subset of style + substance + adaptation and other areas are still high

• 29.1-29.2 – median for top 10 speakers; by here, you may not have the full package of style + substance + adaptation but you are excellent in at least some of those areas

• 28.8-29.0 – roughly 75th percentile at the tournament; bubble territory; i see a bright spark in at least one of the areas of style + substance + adaptation but the breadth isn’t there yet / today

• 28.5-28.7 – roughly 50th percentile at the tournament; emerging strengths in style + substance + adaptation but some clear deficits in skills or effort across the areas

• 28.3-28.4 – roughly 25th percentile at the tournament; not projecting certainty in style + substance + adaptation; clearly uneven performance

• 28.0-28.3 – roughly 10th percentile speaker at the tournament; not projecting certainty in style + substance + adaptation

• 27.5-27.9 – having a tough day / round or looking early in your journey for style + substance + adaptation; some skills which seem basic for the tournament mission aren’t clear yet
  
  

MOST GENERAL PARADIGM FOR ANY DEBATE EVENT: (see below for more specific paradigms for Policy, LD, PF, Parli, and Speech - it’s a lot more specific below)

i’m a critic of argument open to most arguments (exceptions below in terms of arguments which marginalize or create harm).

If you’re unfamiliar with “critic of argument” as a paradigm, think of me as a tabula rasa judge who is:

1. tech > truth, as long as arguments have a claim-warrant-impact

2. open to whatever role of the judge / ballot you want to set up...but i first view myself as an educator seeking the outcome of advocacy skills and informed activism in / beyond the debate space

3. will default to the best-warranted logical argumentation (analysis and judge direction held in nearly equal weight with strong evidence) and the best control of comparative impacting throughout the debate (not just in final rebuttals).

4. evidence quality + analysis quality instead of evidence>analysis:

• Arguments like “I read evidence, so you must prefer it over a high school debater’s analysis” aren't persuasive for a critic of argument. Reading evidence alone doesn't trump analysis or judge direction. Instead, the quality and quantity of warrants - and the comparisons of these warrants - will be persuasive.

• Contextualized analytics with clear logical warrants / reasoning (empirics, cause and effect, etc.) easily beat evidence missing clear warranting other than having a non-impressive source.

• Flagging fallacies and a lack of warrants in opponents’ arguments moves you up the believability spectrum.

• Source quality is persuasive as a separate metric.

5. most impressed by these things (highly rewarded with speaks):

• strategic thinking in speeches and cx

• in-depth comparison of evidence (source quality, internal analysis, warrants);

• detailed, clearly substantiated analytics;

• clear advocacy (applies to condo / dispo as much as any other advocacy - tell me what this advocacy means and why it's good);

• cross-examination as an art form which i'm flowing and applying highly to speaks and then to the round if you apply cx concessions during speeches;

• a good balance of ethos, logos, and pathos

• comparative overviews BEFORE FINAL REBUTTALS (starting in the 2ac) telling me your path to the ballot via the avenues above, the flow, and clear impact calculus (saving all your impact comparisons for the final rebuttals seems unfair and poorly develops the debate)

General Preferences Across Debate Formats:

• rate / speed: speed is fine but needs to be clear; no predisposition for or against a rate as long as it's clear but I'm happiest and doing the best processing and evaluation when debaters choose a *moderately* fast rate. Please include the whole panel’s preferences when deciding a rate. If you're not clearly communicating (too fast, not enough articulation or separation of words, etc.), I'll indicate that once by typing "clear" in the chat or in person by saying "clear." If you don't change and i've already indicated an issue, don't expect me to flow.

• Debate needs to be a safe space for all participants. Be kind. We're all here to learn and grow. Ad hominem, rudeness, and exclusionary behavior are unacceptable. At a minimum, you will lose speaker points. Personal attacks or marginalizing behavior - whether careless or intentional - which are repeated without apology after an objection is raised (by myself or anyone else in the room) may also be grounds for a loss, especially (but not only) if your opponents raise the issue.

• i won’t vote on an individual's behavior *outside* my ability to observe it within the round.

POLICY DEBATE ADVICE / PREFERENCES (remember it’s all up for debate / persuasion)

• Number of off case / depth vs. breadth in arguments & cards: as a critic of argument who values argument development, you'll fare better with me in a 1-4 off round than a 5+ off round. i'd much rather see a few well-developed arguments. i'd rather hear more internal analysis in a smaller set of quality cards than lots of cards highlighted down to bare bones.

• CX: love it, pay attention to it, actually flowing it for reference, but waiting to hear you integrate it in speeches to factor it in beyond speaker points and general credibility

• Overviews: love them! impact calc and a clear lens for the round at the top of a speech and / or on top of the core issues is strategic starting in the 2ac and in most subsequent speeches. (just make sure the line by line is developed enough to substantiate this work!)

• Clash rounds: i don't have a strong default for sequencing, so please argue what level of impact / implication comes first and why.

• Theory: enjoy it but cannot be blipped - i don’t vote on tagline theory debates, even if conceded; limited condo (reasonable # for any access requests by opponents) is probably good, as long as it doesn't force the aff into contradictory advocacies

• no automatic judge kick for cps: waiting for the neg to pick an advocacy and i’d prefer it by the neg block

• T / framework:

• • i default to competing interpretations / models with an eye on education unless given another method of evaluation

  • please offer distinct, warranted standards and voters, case lists, and descriptions of the quality of debate and other impacts those case lists create, plus the *importance* of the ground you've lost; no preference for potential abuse vs. in-round abuse arguments

  • a clean articulation of a counter-interp that hones in on one impact turn and how the counter-interp solves it is often pretty persuasive

  • Framework specifically: what does your model of debate do? why is it better? both sides can provide a lot of clarity by throwing down on a TVA and what it does and doesn't resolve.

  • perfectly willing to vote on old school T metrics like jurisdiction and justification if you tell me reasons that would be good in the debate space or in life; i’ve loved T debates forever including reading 1980s backfiles so do with that what you will…T theory is cool!

• Case debate - yes! offense is great but case defense can also be very helpful in the overall decision (assigning relative risk). yes, i will vote on presumption (if you tell me how & why i should)

• K affs and K v K: looking for a clear thesis, connection to the resolution, clear method or solvency, and a clear role of the judge and ballot; though i'm open to hearing K v K rounds, i wouldn't call them my wheelhouse. don’t assume i know your lit and give me strong sequencing arguments, please!

• Performance: be very specific in telling me how to evaluate it with the role of the ballot and judge; explain how your performance is uniquely valuable and effective

• Disads: yes zero risk exists; i heavily lean towards link strength + analysis ; love to hear about how the world of the disad implicates case claims and solvency; well-explained uniqueness + link specificity > long uniqueness walls & link walls

• Ks: excited to hear Ks but i'm not steeped in high theory lit, so you need to use overviews and analysis to develop those; the link story and overall position need to be clear, as well as your role of the judge & role of the ballot; please contextualize specific links to case / speech acts instead of relying on generic links alone; please separate sections (framework / perm / links / implications / alt); also, alt specificity matters and it's frustrating and unfair when debaters are evasive about their alts

• Counterplans: if your CP doesn't have a solvency card / advocate, you're way behind and probably have to justify that with how small the aff is + some reasonable indication of solvency based on facts in the round (e.g. aff evidence)...or exploiting a plan flaw…but in general, i think the playing field needs to be level and counterplans should have solvency, given that affs should have solvency

DEBATE EVENTS BESIDES POLICY:

i'll go w/ the standards the debaters set as opposed to judging your LD, PF, and Parli rounds "like a policy judge" unless you give me no guidance, in which case i default to being a critic of argument

for LD Debate:

• any style is fine unless your opponent requests a slow round based on access or comfort concerns

• i rely heavily on the criterion debate in assessing my decision, unless the debaters argue another approach

• will listen to theory arguments if they are substantiated and impacted

• will follow / enforce the specific rules of a tournament (e.g. "no plans" / "no counterplans")as directed by debaters' objections or formal protest (e.g. CHSSA or NSDA rules) in those particular settings

• comfortable with traditional or progressive LD stylistically but let's be real about what's reasonable to cover with quality in a 1ar and not get too wild with the number of positions; i think depth is more important than breadth (see everything elsewhere in my paradigm about no blippy, unsubstantiated arguments)

for PF Debate:

• my ideal PF round has debaters setting a clear framework for the round and pointing their contentions and their impacts towards this goal

• conceded args / defense / whatever is NOT sticky - you need to say it in summary for it to be valid in final focus (i don't think it's fair for me to have to evaluate what was responded to or extended “enough” - requires too much subjectivity - so the objective standard for me is concrete extensions); rebuttal speeches don't have to cover their own side's case extension but it's often wise for them to do so at least at a top level or versus core opponent arguments, just based on the time to develop quality responses being at a premium later in the debate

• can you please just share your ev w/ one another before speeches rather than making everyone wait for these vague and lengthy specific card requests?

• crossfire / grand crossfire are important for argument testing and argument resolution - and i'm flowing them; however, debaters should apply cx concessions in speeches if they want crossfire to be part of the decision

• theory - fine if substantiated and impacted, though i think PF lacks adequate time for impacting theory without placing yourself significantly behind on clash, so choose wisely

• will follow / enforce the specific rules of a tournament (e.g. "no plans" / "no counterplans") as directed by debaters' objections or formal protest (e.g. CHSSA or NSDA rules) in those particular settings

• cards, not links or vague paraphrasing - "[author name] says X in 2022" where X is not a direct quote or at least mentioning a very specific data point / argument rather than a broad claim is absolutely not evidence to me. i'm dismayed by the paraphrasing i've seen in PF lately: paraphrasing brief claims without warrants or drop quotes...or simply providing a pile of author names. These things truly aren't persuasive if there's no quoted evidence or warranted analysis based upon specific conclusions. I also often see PF debaters adding their OWN power-tagged claims to these paraphrases and this really seems unethical and superficial.

• this isn't to say you need giant paragraphs like policy evidence…but actually cite specific details and quotes with warrants for your claim if you want me to view that as a supported claim.

• i won't go through your separate evidence doc to find the support for you if you haven't read it into the round.

• you don't get to summarize a whole book or article w/o detail. NSDA rules (which apply to CHSSA & CFL tournaments as well as NSDA tournaments) are very clear on this point. See NSDA High School Unified Manual (March 2024 updated version) (command F "Evidence Rules for Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Big Questions Debate" and in particular, rule 7.2.B.3 on p. 30: "If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round.")

for Parli Debate:

• I can go larpy or K here but I hold the line on T

• mainly looking for clear warranting & impacting and a tight case debate linking plan provisions / your case thesis to advantages and the weighing standard for the round; willing to apply other frameworks based upon debaters' warranted advocacy

• theory is fine if substantiated and impacted; T / other theory / off-case positions are welcome if clearly warranted; either "dismiss the argument" or "drop the team" claims need to be very heavily substantiated and demonstrate clear potential or in-round abuse

RETIRED FROM DEBATE COACHING/JUDGING AS OF FALL 2024. WAHOOOO!!!!

Please put me on the email chain:eriodd@d219.org.

Experience:

I'm currently an assistant debate coach for Niles North High School. I was the Head Debate Coach at Niles West High School for twelve years and an assistant debate coach at West for one year. I also work at the University of Michigan summer debate camps. I competed in policy debate at the high school level for six years at New Trier Township High School.

Education:

Master of Education in English-Language Learning & Special Education National Louis University
Master of Arts in School Leadership Concordia University-Chicago
Master of Arts in Education Wake Forest University
Juris Doctor Illinois Institute of Technology-Chicago Kent College of Law
Bachelor of Arts University of California, Santa Barbara

Debate arguments:

I will vote on any type of debate argument so long as the team extends it throughout the entire round and explains why it is a voter. Thus, I will pull the trigger on theory, agent specification, and other arguments many judges are unwilling to vote on. Even though I am considered a “politics/counter plan” debater, I will vote on kritiks, but I am told I evaluate kritik debates in a “politics/counter plan” manner (I guess this is not exactly true anymore...and I tend to judge clash debates). I try not to intervene in rounds, and all I ask is that debaters respect each other throughout the competition.

Identity v. Identity:
I enjoy judging these debates. It is important to remember that, often times, you are asking the judge to decide on subject matter he/she/they personally have not experienced (like sexism and racism for me as a white male). A successful ballot often times represents the team who has used these identity points (whether their own or others) in relationship to the resolution and the debate space. I also think if you run an exclusion DA, then you probably should not leave the room / Zoom before the other team finishes questions / feedback has concluded as that probably undermines this DA significantly (especially if you debate that team again in the future).

FW v. Identity:
I also enjoy judging these debates. I will vote for a planless Aff as well as a properly executed FW argument. Usually, the team that accesses the internal link to the impacts (discrimination, education, fairness, ground, limits, etc.) I am told to evaluate at the end of the round through an interpretation / role of the ballot / role of the judge, wins my ballot.

FW v. High Theory:
I don't mind judging these debates. The team reading high theory should do a good job at explaining the theories / thesis behind the scholars you are utilizing and applying it to a specific stasis point / resolutional praxis. In terms of how I weigh the round, the same applies from above, internal links to the terminal impacts I'm told are important in the round.

Policy v. Policy:
I debated in the late 90s / early 2000s. I think highly technical policy v. policy debate rounds with good sign posting, discussions on CP competition (when relevant), strategic turns, etc. are great. Tech > truth for me here. I like lots of evidence but please read full tags and a decent amount of the cards. Not a big fan of "yes X" as a tag. Permutations should probably have texts besides Do Both and Do CP perms. I like theory debates but quality over quantity and please think about how all of your theory / debate as a game arguments apply across all flows. Exploit the other team's errors. "We get what we get" and "we get what we did" are two separate things on the condo debate in my opinion.

Random comments:

The tournament and those judging you are not at your leisure. Please do your best to start the round promptly at the posted time on the pairing and when I'm ready to go (sometimes I do run a few minutes late to a round, not going to lie). Please do your best to: use prep ethically, attach speech documents quickly, ask to use bathroom at appropriate times (e.g. ideally not right before your or your partner's speech), and contribute to moving the debate along and help keep time. I will give grace to younger debaters on this issue, but varsity debaters should know how to do this effectively. This is an element of how I award speaker points. I'm a huge fan of efficient policy debate rounds. Thanks!

In my opinion, you cannot waive CX and bank it for prep time. Otherwise, the whole concept of cross examination in policy debate is undermined. I will not allow this unless the tournament rules explicitly tell me to do so.

If you use a poem, song, etc. in the 1AC, you should definitely talk about it after the 1AC. Especially against framework. Otherwise, what is the point? Your performative method should make sense as a praxis throughout the debate.

Final thoughts:

Do not post round me. I will lower your speaker points if you or one of your coaches acts disrespectful towards me or the opponents after the round. I have no problem answering any questions about the debate but it will be done in a respectful manner to all stakeholders in the room. If you have any issues with this, please don't pref me. I have seen, heard and experienced way too much disrespectful behavior by a few individuals in the debate community recently where, unfortunately, I feel compelled to include this in my paradigm.

MBA '22

Northwestern '26

Add me to the email chain: jackpacconi2026@u.northwestern.edu

tl;dr

- These are my predispositions, but technical prowess can easily alter them.

- Tech > Truth. I will evaluate an argument to the extend that I understand it and could explain it to the losing team post-round. The flow and technical debating resolve most debates, but I appreciate quality evidence and if necessary will read it. Dropped arguments are true, but only insofar as I will only evaluate the words you said. Often teams will expand on dropped arguments, permitting new answers.

- I'm fine with any argument style. I have both defended a plan and planless debating.

IP Topic Update

- I do not have familiarity with the arguments people have been reading on this topic, but worked at an IP firm last year and have basic knowledge about the topic.

Topicality vs. K Affs

- I can go either way. I would prefer to see a substantive debate, but play to your strengths.

- I generally think debate requires 1) the judge to cast a winner and a loser and 2) the aff to affirm something and the neg to prove affirming that thing is not a good idea compared to the squo or a competitive alternative - your strategy should tell me 1) what my ballot does when I cast a decision in relation to each sides impacts, 2) I should have some conception about what debates about your aff or your model look like (this is true for both sides)

- I am fine for models of debate and impact turning.

- Fairness > Clash.

Topicality vs. Policy Affs

- I will vote for any predictability, limits, or ground impact but typically care more about the internal links. I should have a clear vision of what the topic looks like for the aff and neg as well as what arguments will be read.

- I'm better for plan text in a vacuum than most judges.

K vs. Policy Affs

- I generally find links can be about x y z interps more persuasive than don't weight the aff frameworks.

- I like alts that do something beyond just rethinking or being critical.

- I prefer links to be to the plan.

- Death and extinction are probably bad. The neg is more likely to convince me that the link outweighs, alt solves case, or link turns case than to adopt an alternative risk calculous.

Counterplans

- I'm good for competition. I think the aff frequently lets the neg get away with murder. Functional + textual competition makes intuitive sense to me, but I am down for functional vs. textual competition debates.

- I love PICs when they're aff specific.

- Condo is probably good; egregious, kickable 20 plank advantage counterplans are probably bad. If the neg wants me to judge kick the counterplan, they should tell me.

Misc

- You can insert re-highlightings if you explain what the re-highlighting says and why I should care. Teams should be punished for what their evidence says, but you need to explain it. I will be very grumpy if you just say "insert this rehighlighting" without explanation.

Overview

E-Mail Chain: Yes, add me (chris.paredes@gmail.com) & my school mail (damiendebate47@gmail.com). I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.

Experience: Damien '05, Amherst College '09, Emory Law '13L. This will be my third year coaching full time; eighth year at Damien and my third year at St. Lucy's Priory. While I consider myself fluent in debate, my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) are influenced by debating in the 00s.

Topic Knowledge: I do not teach at camp, so I will be a very poor judge for arguments that rely on following "meta norms" established by camp. I should be a pretty good judge for evaluating topic specific arguments; I studied IP law while at Emory and was the recipient of an IP law scholarship.

Debate: I believe that the point of the resolution is to force debaters to learn about a different topic each year, so debaters who develop good topic knowledge generally out-debate their opponents. That being said, I am open to voting for almost any argument or style so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. Debate is a game. Rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, standards of the game (condo, competition, limits of fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate compared to your opponent's. What counts as better (more fair or more pedagogically valuable) is something determined in round itself. My ballot always is awarded to whoever debated better. I will not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the round (whether that was at camp or a previous round).

I run a planess aff; should I strike you?: As a matter of truth I am predisposed to the neg, but I try to leave bias at the door. I end up voting aff about half the time. I will hold a planless aff to the same standard as a K alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, I will "hack" out on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) are non-factors until you contextualize and justify why they are solvency mechanisms for the aff in the debate space.

Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is easier to debate well when using true arguments and better cards. In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however I read critically. Cards are meaningless without highlighted warrants; you are better off with one painted card than several under-highlighted cards. Well-explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, can beat bad/under-highlighted cards.

Debate Ideologies: I think that judges should reward good debating over ideology, so almost all of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents. You can limit the chance that I intervene by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions. The best 2NRs and 2ARs are pitches that present a fully formed ballot that I can metaphorically sign off on.

Accommodations: External to any debate about my role that happens on framework, I treat my function in the room as judge first and facilitator of education second. Therefore, any accommodation that has potential competitive implications (limiting content or speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary. Failure to adhere to proper accommodation request procedure heavily impacts whether I give credence to in-round voters.

Argument by argument breakdown below.

Topicality

Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive impact debate. You win my ballot when you are the team that proves their interpretation is best for debate -- usually by proving that you have the best internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to a terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I love judging a good T round and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses. I would much rather hear a well-articulated 2NR on why I need to enforce a limited vision of the topic than a K with state/omission links or a Frankenstein process CP that results in the aff.

I default to competing interpretations, but reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable (e.g., "The aff interp only imposes a reasonable additional research burden of two more cases") versus vague generalities ("Good is good enough").

I believe that many resolutions (especially domestic topics) are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that preserving topicality as a viable generic negative strategy is important. I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if I think that the aff is/should be topical in a truth sense. I am also a judge who will actually vote on T-Substantial (substantial as in size, not subsets) because I think there should be a mechanism to check small affs.

Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are impacted as independent voters. However, I believe they are internal links to the original violation and standards (i.e. you don't meet if you only meet effectually). The neg is best off introducing Fx/Xtra early with me in the back; I give the 1ARs more leeway to answer new Fx/Xtra extrapolations than I will give the 2AC for undercovering Fx/Xtra.

Framework / T-USFG

For an aff to win framework they must articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model. Procedural fairness starts as an impact by default and the aff must prove why it should not be. I can and will vote on education outweighs fairness, or that substantive fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but the aff must win these arguments. The TVA is an education argument and not a fairness argument; affs are not entitled to the best version of the case (policy affs do not get extra-topical solvency mechanisms), so I don't care if the TVA is worse than the planless version from a competitive standpoint.

For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or a better type of education). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for -- I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both -- it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss in the round, but why neg ground loss under the aff's model is inevitable and uniquely worse. When going for education, deploy arguments for why plan-based debate is a better internal link to positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. Empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable, or how policy-focused debate scales up better than planless debate, are extremely persuasive in front of me.

Procedurals/Theory

I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy, therefore I believe that the best iteration of debate is one that teaches people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae about process. I have MUCH less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case and the negative is entitled to test that implementation strategy. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I will hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why they should be considered competitive with the aff.

That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you absent actual line-by-line refutation that includes a coherent abuse story which would be solved by your interpretation.

Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time; you cannot spread a block of analytics at me like they were a card and expect me to catch everything. I will be very unapologetic in saying I didn't catch parts of the theory debate on my flow because you were spreading too fast.

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

- Condo is good (but should have limitations, esp. to check perf cons and skew).

- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate if they prove competition; a specific solvency advocate proves competitiveness while the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates high risk of a solvency deficit and/or no competition.

- The aff gets normal means or whatever they specify; they are not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) due to the lack of specificity.

- The neg is not entitled to intrinsic processes that result in the aff (i.e. ConCon, NGA, League of Democracies).

- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

My defaults that are UNLIKELY to change or CANNOT be changed:

- CX is binding.

- Lit checks/justifies (debate is primarily a research and strategic activity).

- OSPEC is never a voter (except fiating something contradictory to ev or a contradiction between different authors).

- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth).

- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg.

- Teams should disclose previously run arguments; breaking new doesn't require disclosure.

- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms), but specific instances of behavior outside the room/round that are not verifiable are not relevant in this round.

- Condo is not the same thing as severance of the discourse/rhetoric. You can win severance of your reps, but it is not a default entitlement from condo.

- ASPEC is checked by cross. The neg should ask and if the aff answers and doesn't spike, I will not vote on ASPEC. If the aff does not answer, the neg can win by proving abuse. Potential ground loss is abuse.

Kritiks

TL;DR: I would much rather hear a good K than a bad politics disad, so if you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid doing specific case research and brute force ballots with links of omission and reusing generic criticisms about the state/fiat, I am a bad judge for you.If I'm in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, reconsider your prefs/strategy.

A kritik must be presented as a comprehensible argument in round. To me, that means that a K must not only explain the scholarship and its relevance (links and impacts), but it must function as a coherent call for the ballot (through the alt). A link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff and/or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you cannot explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt then I will have an extremely low threshold for disregarding the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as there is a coherent explanation for why I should do thatbeyond the mere fact the aff links (for example, if the K turns case). If the alt solves back for the implications of the K, whether it is a material alt or a debate space alt, the solvency process should be explained and contrasted with the plan/perm. Links of omission are very uncompelling. Links are not disads to the perm unless you have a (re-)contextualization to why the link implicates perm solvency. Ks can solve the aff, but the mechanism shouldn't be that the world of the alt results in the plan (i.e. floating PIK).

Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to weigh the impacts vs. labeling your discourse as a link. Being extremely good at historical analysis is the best way to win a link turn or impact turn. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm, especially if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relates directly to the impacts.

Against K affs, you should leverage fairness and education offensive as a way to shape the process by which I should evaluate the kritik. I would much rather, and am more likely to, give you "No perms without a plan text" because cheating should be mutual than weeding through the epistemology and pedagogy debate to determine that your theory of power comes first.

Counterplans

I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of your net benefit is evaluated inversely proportional to the quality of the counterplan is. Generic PICs are more vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits and carry much higher threshold burden on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias by rewarding negs who who diligent in research. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg has a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.

- Process CPs: I am extremely unfriendly to process counterplans where the process is entirely intrinsic; I have a very low threshold for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test opportunity cost. I am extremely friendly to process counterplans that test a distinct implementation method compared to the aff. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases. The team that understands these differences and can impact them is usually the team that wins my ballot. Intentionally vague plan texts do not give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan (Perm Do the CP). The neg can define normal means for the aff if the aff refuses to, but the neg has an equally high burden to defend the competitiveness of the CP process vs. normal means. The aff can win an entire solvency take out if there is a structural defect created by deviating from normal means.

I do not judge kick by default, but 2NRs can easily convince me to do so as an extension of condo. Superior solvency for the aff case alone is sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. the aff has no competition arguments in the 2AR).

I am very likely to err neg on sufficiency framing; the aff absolutely needs either a solvency deficit or arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative (and why that outweighs).

Disadvantages

I value defense more than most judges and am willing to assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense, but having a good counterplan is the way the neg has to leverage itself out of flawed disads.

Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not when you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force past near zero risk.

Misc.

Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average and not everyone being actually average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.

Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5 in speaks. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. If online please keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear through Zoom than in person.

Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.

Strategy Points: I will reward good practices in research and preparation. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Politics on a Courts CP is a disad; "CP gets circumvented" is not a disad). Negative teams with case specific strategies (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks.

jiyooon.park@gmail.com

Washburn Rural '22

Michigan '26

Assistant coach for Washburn Rural and TAS

I will judge solely on the technical debating done and will avoid intervening. As I judge more debates, I continue to vote on arguments I vehemently disagree with, but were executed well on a technical level. The only requirement for all debaters is that an argument has a claim and a warrant. This means a few things:

- I will decide debates based on my flow, but do not care whether you go for the fiat K, politics, or warming good. The main caveat is my bar for an argument is claim and warrant*, the absence of the latter will make it easier to discount or refute. I would prefer strategies reflective of the literature with good evidence, but debate is a game so you do you.

*If you say only "no US-China war" and the other team concedes it, that is functionally meaningless. If you say "no US-China war, interdependence and diplomacy" that holds more relevance if dropped, BUT not as much as you'd think given it was not a complete thought. The logical progression of this example is that you should fully flesh out your arguments.

- I will read evidence out of interest during the debate, but it will not influence my decision until the debaters make it matter. This can be through establishing a metric for how I should evaluate and elevate certain types of evidence and then naming certain authors/relevant cards for my decision. If a metric is never set, I favor better highlighted evidence, complete warrants, and conclusiveness. Argument made analytically can hold similar weight to evidence if warranted and smart.

- The last thing that will boost you chances of winning is clear judge instruction. Flag your clear pieces of offense, dropped concessions, and say where I should start my decision. This also means when extending a claim and a warrant, explain the implication of winning an argument.

- I will not vote on anything external to the debate such as personal attacks, receipts, prefs, or ad-homs. Ethical/external issues should be settled outside of the debate.

Things that will boost your speaks:

- Flow, i.e. correctly identifying dropped arguments, strategically going for dropped arguments, writing/typing when the other team is speaking, etc.

- Debating off paper and being less laptop dependent such as giving the final rebuttals with only paper.

- Having fun, debates are more fun when they are light hearted and you seem like you're enjoying it.

- Fewer off and a more cohesive strategy.

- Strategic and funny cross-exes. Most cross-exes are FYIs and reminders, don't do that.

- Down-time moving faster such as sending speeches out, starting cross-ex, etc. Asking for a marked doc when it was only two cards marked will annoy me and marked docs don't include cards not read. Just flow pls...

Miscellaneous things include:

- Keeping your camera on during online debates makes them more bearable.

- I will clear you twice and after that I will vote against you for clipping/stop flowing your speech, but for educational purposes I won't halt the debate.

UPDATED FOR THE THE GLENBROOKS 2023

uclabdb8@gmail.com

***history***
- Director of Programs, Chicago Debates 2023-current
- Head Coach, Policy - University of Chicago Laboratory Schools 2015-2023
- Assistant Coach, PF - Fremd HS 2015-2022
- Tournament of Champions 2022, 2021, 2018, 2016
- Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshop - guest lecturer, lab leader
- UIowa 2002-2006
- Maine East (Wayne Tang gharana) 1999-2002

***brief***
- i view the speech act as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- i go back and forth on kritik/performance affs versus framework which is supported by my voting record
- i enjoy k v k or policy v k debates. however i end up with more judging experience in policy v policy rounds because we're in the north shore
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters. pen time on overviews matters. i flow by ear and on paper, including your cards' warrants and cites. people have told me my flows are beautiful
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating
- don't vape in my round, it makes me feel like an enabler
- i have acute hearing and want to keep it that way. kindly be considerate of your music volume. i will ask you to turn it down if it's painful or prevents me from hearing debate dialogue

**background**
identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. my academic background is medicine. i now spend my time developing programming for Chicago's urban debate league. you may be counseled on tobacco cessation.

**how to win my ballot**
*entertain me.* connect with me. teach me something. be creative. its impossible for me to be completely objective, but i try to be fair in the way i adjudicate the round.

**approach**
as tim 'the man' alderete said, "all judges lie." with that in mind...
i get bored- which is why i reward creativity in research and argumentation. if you cut something clever, you want me in the back of the room. i appreciate the speech as an act and an art. i prefer debates with good clash than 2 disparate topics. while i personally believe in debate pedagogy, i'll let you convince me it's elitist, marginalizing, broken, or racist. in determining why i should value debate (intrinsically or extrinsically) i will enter the room tabula rasa. if you put me in a box, i'll stay there. i wish i could adhere to a paradigmatic mantra like 'tech over truth.' but i've noticed that i lean towards truth in debates where both teams are reading lit from same branch of theory or where the opponent has won an overarching claim on the nature of the debate (framing, framework, theory, etc). my speaker point range is 27-30. Above 28.3-4 being what i think is 'satisfactory' for your division (3-3), 28.7 & above means I think you belong in elims. Do not abuse the 2nr.

**virtual debate**
if you do not see me on camera then assume i am not there. please go a touch slower on analytics if you expect me to flow them well. if anyone's connection is shaky, please include analytics in what you send if possible.

**novices**
Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help :)

***ARGUMENT SPECIFIC***

**topicality/framework**
this topic has a wealth of amazing definitions and i'm always up for a scrappy limits debate. debaters should be able to defend why their departure from (Classic mode) Policy is preferable. while i don't enter the round presuming plan texts are necessary for a topical discussion, i do enjoy being swayed one way or the other on what's needed for a topical discussion (or if one is valuable at all). overall, its an interesting direction students have taken Policy. the best form of framework debate is one where both teams rise to the meta-level concerns behind our values in fairness, prepared clash, education, revolutionary potential/impotence, etc. as a debater (in the bronze age) i used to be a HUGE T & spec hack, so much love for the arg. nowadays though, the these debates tend to get messy. flow organization will be rewarded: number your args, sign post through the line-by-line, slow down to give me a little pen time. i tend to vote on analysis with specificity and ingenuity.

**kritiks, etc.**
i enjoy performance, original poetry & spoken word, musical, moments of sovereignty, etc. i find most "high theory," identity politics, and other social theory debates enjoyable. i dont mind how you choose to organize k speeches/overviews so long as there is some way you organize thoughts on my flow. 'long k overviews' can be (though seldom are) beautiful. i appreciate a developed analysis. more specific the better, examples and analogies go a long way in you accelerating my understanding. i default to empiricism/historical analysis as competitive warranting unless you frame the debate otherwise. i understand that the time constraint of debate can prevent debaters from fully unpacking a kritik. if i am unfamiliar with the argument you are making, i will prioritize your explanation. i may also read your evidence and google-educate myself. this is a good thing and a bad thing, and i think its important you know that asterisk. i try to live in the world of your kritik/ k aff. absent a discussion of conditional advocacy, i will get very confused if you make arguments elsewhere in the debate that contradict the principles of your criticism (eg if you are arguing a deleuzian critique of static identity and also read a misgendering/misidentifying voter).

**spec, ethics challenges, theory**
PLEASE DO NOT HIDE YOUR ASPEC VIOLATIONS. if the argument is important i prefer you invite the clash than evade it.

i have no way to fairly judge arguments that implicate your opponent's behavior before the round, unless i've witnessed it myself or you are able to provide objective evidence (eg screenshots, etc.). debate is a competitive environment so i have to take accusations with a degree of skepticism. i think the trend to turn debate into a kangaroo court, or use the ballot as a tool to ostracize members from the community speaks to the student/coach's tooling of authority at tournaments as well as the necessity for pain in their notion of justice. i do have an obligation to keep the round safe. my starting point (and feel free to convince me otherwise) is that it's not my job to screen entries if they should be able to participate in tournaments - that's up to tab and is a prior question to the round. a really good podcast that speaks to this topic in detail is invisibilia: the callout.

i'm finally hearing more presumption debates, which i really enjoy. i more often find theory compelling when contextualized to why there's a specific reason to object to the argument (e.g. why the way this specific perm operates is abusive/sets a bad precedent). i always prefer the clash to be developed earlier in the debate than vomiting blocks at each other. as someone who used to go for theory, i think there's an elegant way to trap someone. and it same stipulations apply- if you want me to vote for it, make sure i'm able to clearly hear and distinguish your subpoints.

**disads/cps/case**
i always enjoy creative or case specific PICs. if you're going to make a severance perm, i want to know what is being severed and not so late breaking that the negative doesn't have a chance to refute. i like to hear story-weaving in the overview. i do vote on theory - see above. i also enjoy an in depth case clash, case turn debate. i do not have a deep understanding on the procedural intricacies of our legal system or policymaking and i may internet-educate myself on your ev during your round.

**work experience/education you can ask me about**
- medical school, medicine
- clinical research/trials
- biology, physiology, gross anatomy, & pathophysiology are courses i've taught
- nicotine/substance cessation
- chicago
- udl
- coaching debate!

**PoFo - (modified from Tim Freehan's poignant paradigm):**

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at debate as competitive research or full-contact social studies. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Framework, philosophical, moral arguments are great, though I need instruction in how you want me to evaluate that against tangible impacts.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote with what's on what is on the flow only. I enter the round tabula rasa, i try to check my personal opinions at the door as best as i can. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

I am a fan of “Kritik” arguments in PF! I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. You can attack your opponents scholarship. Racism, sexism, heterocentrism, will not be tolerated between debaters. I have heard and will tolerate some amount of racism towards me and you can be assured I'll use it as a teaching moment.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. But if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Some of the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance more than style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

maine east '21. emory '25.

put me on the chain: bellapiekutdebate@gmail.com

tldr:

- little to no topic knowledge.

- time yourself. i will forget. i'm not perfect.

- send analytics. if you're good, you don't have to win because they drop things.

- online debate is hard, but please try to be timely and efficient. i'd appreciate if you have your camera on, but i understand that's not possible for everyone. make sure you're clear. if my camera is off, make sure i'm there and ready for the speech.

- i don't like reading through card docs, but will if i have to or am told to. spin matters. i often find that my decision tends to differ from other judges because of this. evidence quality matters, but if neither team tells me what is wrong with the other team's evidence or why their evidence is good, I will not make that determination myself. there is a debate to be had about the quality of evidence, and I view it as interventionist to decide that myself.

- stolen from dani roytburg: "this is the only belief i hold that i allow to determine my ballot: i exclusively evaluate the arguments in a debate and on my flow. the only time where i might see myself making decisions about things debaters don't say occurs with either abysmally little clash or near-perfect debating on both sides."

- nothing pissed me off more as a debater than seeing paradigms that say "specific strategies = speaks boosted." yes, in-depth, specific strategies are valuable and will probably make the debate easier for the neg, but are impossible to prep against every aff for many teams, especially with the proliferation of new affs at end of the year tournaments. what matters most is your ability to contextualize whatever you're going for to the affirmative. that's something that not many teams do well, and should also be rewarded!

- i won't hesitate to stop the round if anything racist/homophobic/sexist/etc happens. please please please be nice and don't be arrogant or problematic. there's a difference between standing your ground and laughing at the other team's arguments.

ks:

- stolen from margaret hecht: "i am admittedly not the best judge for critical arguments. my issue isn't ideological, rather a lack of experience and research. i have no preferences for what you read, relation to the topic, etc., and will do my best to judge these debates, but please don't assume that i know the implication of historical examples and/or have a deep understanding of the literature base." run what you want and if you win the flow, i'll vote for you. that being said, pretend i don't know anything about it. explain it without buzzwords. stay away from long overviews. clash.

- you probably need an alt absent winning framework or strong case turns arguments. make sure the alt solves the links.

- weighing the plan is probably good, but i'll try to be objective about it. i find i vote aff most often when the neg doesn't articulate clearly what the world of their interpretation looks like or have sufficient defense against the aff's impacts.

- on the aff: going for impact turns/heg good/cap good/etc and extinction outweighs has a special place in my heart. or go for the perm, also a fan, just stick to a strat. you're not going to win no link against cap when you have an economy advantage.

k affs:

- never been in a k v k debate [other than going for the cap k which barely counts]. not sure if i'm confident making the correct decision [expect for cap or the other policy basics]. do what you want with this information.

- go for a da! even if it's heg! just clearly articulate the link. i'm more inclined to lean neg on the link debate if the aff clearly doesn't do anything.

- fairness is an impact and probably the best one, but the neg needs to explain it in a way that makes it one. also a fan of clash style impacts. other impacts will probably be not strategic and unpersuasive in front of me. tvas and ssd are not always necessary but usually are helpful. explain how it solves the aff's offense, don't just repeat it accesses their literature. case lists are very helpful, but make sure they're contextualized to the aff's interpretation.

- on the aff, i usually find impact turns most convincing. i tend to view limits/predictability/ground/etc as linear impacts, so going for defense isn't the best strat in front of me, but if it's done well you can totally win. I tend to vote neg when ssd or the tva is mishandled and there's not enough defense extended to the negative's impact or IL.

t:

- i have little topic knowledge, so explain what your interpretation is to me like i'm a child. that being said, I've been thrown into a couple of t debates with little topic knowledge and found that the only real times this hinders me is in predictability debates when both teams insist their cards have topic experts without doing any comparisons or when each team spews case lists without explaining what those affirmatives are. i don't know what "new triers aff" is. explain.

- limits are very compelling, but predictability is probably the best impact. aff ground can totally win you the debate, but you have to do the work to make sure it outweighs whatever the neg's impact is. aff ground is most compelling when there's a structural reason the neg's interpretation makes it impossible to be aff [for example, no solvency deficits to agent cps or infinite pics existing] and when the aff is able to quantify and compare the magnitude of the ground lost to the magnitude of affs included under their interpretation. just saying you lose core of the topic affs means nothing and will ensure a negative ballot.

- like practically every judge, i default to competing interpretations, but mainly because people don't go for reasonability right. if you can do it, do it. contextualize your offense to the neg's interpretation. extend enough defense so that your interpretation is reasonable.

theory:

- don't spread through your blocks, clash!

- absent being dropped, the only reason to reject the team is probably condo. make sure to have clear offense, impact comparisons, and inroads to the other team's offense no matter which side of this debate you're on!

cps:

- cps that compete off of certainty or immediacy make me sad, but i understand they're necessary and have went for plenty myself.

- perm texts!!! write them!!! still, slow down in competition debates. i've been on both sides of these debates, but still get confused.

- sufficiency framing means practically nothing. spend your time explaining why there's no impact to the solvency deficit instead.

das:

- winning turns case is nice, but it's not always necessary [i also don't know why some people give it so much weight]. i would invest time on it if you're behind on case and need to mitigate it.

- don't forget about impact calc. i used to blow it off, but judging has made me realize that it's a lifesaver in close debates.

- i love a good politics debate, but storytelling and evidence quality will make or break it. for the aff, often times, I've found the weakest part of the DA and the part teams aren't prepared to defend is the internal link. although i understand the impulse to go for non-unique or thumpers, which are often strategic, don't be afraid to diversify your 2ar options.

- not much else to say. das are cool.

Maddie or Mads, not "judge"

any pronouns

maddiepieropandebate@gmail.com

Background/Affiliations: BVSW 2020, current KU debater; Coaching at the Berkeley preparatory school

TLDR: Do your thing, so long as you enjoy the thing you do. My favorite debates to watch are between debaters who demonstrate a nuanced understanding of their literature bases and seem to enjoy the scholarship they choose to engage in. Research should be a fun tool for you to explore new and interesting concepts, and debating is the manifestation of your process and progress in exploring new literature bases. The below paradigm is extremely long and in-depth--since I am largely in the back of clash debates, I feel the need to explain exactly how I decide debates so as to avoid confusion. I judge a ton of debates and I think judging is a privilege.

Prep Notes:

(1) I am very close to adopting Tim Ellis' prep practices. I've seen a major increase in people taking way too much time in between prep, CX, sending docs, etc---I will try and be as sympathetic as I can, but my patience is growing thin.

(2) "marked copy" does not mean "remove the cards you didn't read." you do not have to do that, and you should not ask your opponents to do that. If you must, that's prep (note: prep and not cx time). This is majorly pissing me off recently. (special thank you to holland bald for the wording)

Clipping: If an ethics challenge is forwarded, the debate will end and I will determine its validity with a loss and lowest speaks. If an ethics challenge is not forwarded but I believe clipping happened anyway, I will also give a loss and lowest speaks, but allow the debate to continue. Clipping includes being unreasonably unclear while spreading the text of a piece of evidence--I am willing to clear you three times before doing this.

Most important:

First --- I think most people would characterize me as a “clash” judge, which I’m okay with. I’m down for a good policy throwdown, but I’m best in terms of feedback for K v Policy, Framework, and K v K debates (and they’re the debates I enjoy judging the most). My voting record is pretty even.

Second --- I very passionately situate myself as an educator in debate. What I mean is I place quite a bit of value on my role as an educator, not in how I decide debates necessarily, but rather how I give decisions. I have previously held that I will put in as much effort into judging you as you do debating, but I have since realized that I tend to put in maximum effort into judging debates and give substantive feedback. I flow debates very carefully and care deeply about the post-round commentary and feedback I give, so be prepared for the RFD rants I have grown to enjoy.

Given that, I think the pedagogical value of this activity is tremendous and believe it should be acknowledged as such. If I deem that you have engaged in a practice that harms the community (read: don’t be racist, transphobic, misogynistic, or otherwise), I will not hesitate to dock your speaks, contact tournament directors and/or coaches, or simply end the round early as I deem necessary.

Third (this is important) --- Because I think debate is necessarily educational, I encourage debaters to be intentional in making arguments. Including arguments for the sake of including them is asinine and largely frustrating.

T-USFG/Framework

Things that matter to me:

1. Competing interpretations are more important to me than most others. This isn't true of all kritikal AFFs, but if the AFF is a critique of research practices, pedagogy, or orientations towards either, I am generally of the opinion that your angle vs framework should be one that posits a new model of engaging the activity/research that resolves your offense. The threshold to win an impact turn vs framework when reading an AFF about research practices tends to be difficult because it requires winning a threshold of contingent solvency that I don't think is usually achievable, or at the very least are typically poorly explained.

2. Both teams should identify what 2AC offense is intrinsic to the AFF vs the C/I, there are plenty of debates I watch in which the 2AR goes for a C/I that doesn't solve their impact turn to T, which is not persuasive. Negative teams should be taking advantage of poorly written C/I's.

3. Debate can certainly be characterized as a game, but I think it is better described as a competitive research activity--intuitively, debate is not yahtzee. Debate is a game is impact framing, not an impact.

4. Internal links matter more to me than others and I find this portion of the debate regularly is underdebated. That said, internal links and impacts are not interchangeable, your 2NR explanation should reflect that.

5. I have found myself giving many RFDs this year that are extremely frustrating because 2NR's and 2AR's alike are refusing to go for both offense and defense. Both teams need to extend an impact, do impact calcand impact comparison, and resolve residual pieces of offense with existing defense. If you do this, my life will be easier and your speaker points will be higher.

On the negative ---

----Clash is very persuasive – particularly:

1. Predictability > other internal links alone: Predictable clash is good and guided by resolutional wording. We rely on the resolution as a pre-season and pre-tournament research guide that allows us to determine what is and is not included in research areas under the resolution.

2. Contextualize it to the topic. Why is clash over the resolution good—what pedagogical, transformative, or reflexive potential does it have? I prefer these defenses of research to be personalized and about debate as opposed to spill-up arguments about enacting change – i.e. how does clash over the resolution change the ways we engage with the controversy surrounding the resolution rhetorically, educationally, and politically. These don't necessarily have to be "NATO good" but "studying NATO good" or something.

3. Turns case arguments are your friend, especially against AFFs that criticize debates research. Comparative internal link debating and impact calc are super important here --- contextualizing clash as a pre-requisite to actualizing the telos of the AFF, i.e. the epistemic shift the 1AC attempts to resolve.

----Fairness:

1. Good for this now. That being said, I often am hearing 2NR fairness explanations that end up being roundabout ways to get to a clash terminal, if this is the way you explain fairness, you would be better suited to simply go for clash in front of me.

2. Even when going for fairness, you need to answer AFF offense against your model of debate/content of research you mandate. Saying “debate is a game” and T is a “procedural question” doesn’t mean you are shielded from AFF offense against the content/research produced as a consequence of “fairness”

3. Its an impact, but one that is typically poorly explained.

TVA/SSD: My apparent “hot take” is that I think there are few scenarios in which it is strategic and beneficial to include both a topical version of the AFF and switch side in the 2NR. Usually, there is a blatant reason why either one solves the AFF, and you should pick that in the 2NR. The TVA and switch side are not ‘you drop it you lose,’ but impact defense, use it that way, and flag which piece of offense you think it is responsive against.

On the affirmative---

1AC Construction:

1. Be intentional: I want to emphasize this for those who read kritikal affirmatives. The 1AC should be a complete and cohesive argument in some capacity, I am not particular about the form through which this is conveyed (i.e. performance or scholarship or both), but I think many kritikal affirmatives lack an argumentative telos that is largely frustrating. The AFF should not be an 8 minute framework pre-empt, just as you should avoid including evidence that is not useful to you as offense. (this is a similar frustration to that I hold of policy AFF’s with K-pre empts and framing contentions)

2. You don’t need an advocacy statement, but if you do not have one, I should know what your argument is prior to CX of the 1AC.

C/I:

1. Prior to writing the AFF, you should decide if your angle vs fwk relies on offense that is intrinsic to the speech act of the 1AC or your counter-interpretation as a model of debate/research. You should make this distinction clear in the 2AC and establishes a threshold of what solvency mechanisms you have to win in order to access your framework offense.

2. Contextualize the C/I to the 1NC’s offense, anything the C/I doesn’t solve you should impact turn.

Misc:

1. I appreciate those who show me that they understand the academic context of the 1AC beyond the evidence included --- that includes history, examples, references to authors, etc.
2. If you are reading from a literature base from which you are unfamiliar with,I will know and I won't be happy. I do not care if you have skimmed the cards, if you cannot answer questions that your literature base has foundational answers to, I will be reluctant to give you speaks higher than 28.5
3. 1AR/2AR consistency is important --- you should be using similar language to explain your offense
4. Please defend things. Stop trying to avoid talking about the AFF, if you’ve read your lit base and are confident in your level of explanation, I don’t see a reason why you should be responding to every 1AC CX question with a variation of “we don’t do that,” especially when you clearly do.
5. ROB/ROJ arguments are very helpful for 2AR packaging and framing, you should use them
6. 2-3 well developed, carded DA’s to FW > shotgunning 8 DA’s that say the same thing
7. 2AR impact turn strategies need defense

Policy v K:

Misc:

1. I usually think AFFs get to weigh consequences/impacts, but you get links to discourse/rhetoric/scholarship, this is easily changed with good framework debating.

2. Framework probably matters to me a lot more than most. I think about debate a lot through its mechanics, not necessarily only through its content. I start here in most debates, unless told otherwise.

On the neg:

----The 2NR should always extend framework as a framing argument for how I evaluate consequences, otherwise you’ll likely take the L to a 2AR that moralizes about extinction. Explain what winning the framework means in context of the permutation/evaluating link arguments, I need contextualization and instruction of what you think framework does for you.

----You don’t need to extend 10 trillion link arguments, 1-2 is fine, impact them out and include link alone turns case arguments and specific contextualizations to the AFF---1AC lines or references to AFF speeches are rewarded.

----If you’re not going to the case debate, tell me why it doesn’t matter - I have been voting on extinction outweighsa lot recently

----I don’t think you need an alternative, but you do need to either win framework or links should have external offense and you should have substantial case defense

----Theories of power/structural claims mean nothing in a vacuum – you have to apply them where they matter and tell me what it means to win your theory of power

----I judge a lot of these debates and find that so many 2NR's overstretch themselves here. The 2NR should not be a condensed version of the 2NC, rather, you should make strategic decisions about whether to go for an alternative OR framework heavy strategy depending on the 1AR's decision

On the AFF:

----Like I said, framework matters a lot more to me, and you should use it to your advantage. The most persuasive way to articulate FW on the AFF in front of me is in the context of competition. Most framework debates devolve into weighing the AFF vs not weighing the AFF, which is always messy. Instead, contextualize your offense to how competition gets established and how that implicates link generation/alt solvency.

----The 2AC permutation explanation should contextualize the permutation to all of the links, explaining how you resolve it

----“Extinction outweighs” is not a defense of extinction rhetoric. You have to defend your research/scholarship by defending its academic/pedagogical value, because most of the time they are not critiquing securitization/extinction rhetoric in a vacuum, but rather the aff’s use of extinction rhetoric in an academic space for whatever reason.

----Asserting that something is a link of omission does not a link of omission make, this 2AC line is often a cop out for answering link arguments.

----Your FWK interpretation shouldn’t be “you don’t get K’s,” I’m far more persuaded by predictable clash style arguments like I explained above. That said, I think predictability and competition based framework offense is incredibly persuasive if you explain why it matters. Framework should always be in the 2AR, competition based offense makes winning a permutation a lot easier as well.

----If the K makes a structural claim or theory of power, you should read defense to it but also offer an alternate theory that explains [the thing]

----I’m not a fan of the 1AC structure that’s like [4 card advantage] [17 K pre-empts], nor am I a fan of the 2AC card dump vs 1 off strategies --- you should be thinking about how your aff interacts with the K and contextualizing 1AC evidence/scholarship vs the K

----I have judged a few debates now where the 2AC reads a link turn and an impact turn to the K. Please refrain from double-turning yourself.

K v K:

----If you have an advocacy statement, I generally agree that you get permutations, but I can be convinced otherwise

----I will be very impressed if you exemplify knowledge of how your literature base interacts with the other literature base your debating, most of the time scholars engage with one another by name and discuss their theories co-constitutively, and if you have read those theorizations and can explain them well I will be very happy.

----Comparative debating about structural claims/theories of power is really important here

Separate note about settler colonialism because I find myself in the back of these debates often:

----I agree almost whole-heartedly with Josh Michael’s paradigm here

----I have found that some people attempt to overadapt and go for settler colonialism in front of me, for whatever reason. If you aren’t familiar with the literature base and read this just for the sake of it, don't. That said, if this is a literature base that you are wanting to become more familiar with, I am more than willing to offer feedback, resources, and any other advice that might be helpful for you to continue exploring!

----I usually think that settler colonialism debates should be one-off debates, most importantly because I feel that it’s difficult to make a well-developed settler colonialism shell that is 3 cards

----GBTL/Material Decol > everything else

----Paperson doesn’t say legalism good.

----“Ontology framing bad” doesn’t disprove the structural claim of settler colonialism.

----You should be reading indigenous scholars. Geez.

In the unlikely event that you find yourself in a policy throwdown with me in the back:

Theory

----SLOW DOWN – I need to catch interps

----neg leaning, dispo is the only thing that solves your offense.

----Random procedurals are a waste of time and ruin speaks.

CP’s

----like these debates. good for PICS, bad for process. Competition debates that depend on legal intricacies are difficult for me to decide.

----Solvency deficits need impacts

----default judge kick

----stop getting to internal net benefits with 30 seconds left in the block.

DA’s

----the more specific your link ev is the better.

----turns case matters more to me than others, i think. tiebreaker in close debates will usually come down to this for me.

----I judge too many debates where the 2NR just doesn't extend an internal link, do that.

T

----fine for most t debates, bad for t debates that are particularly couched in legal distinctions.

----precision and predictability > debatability

----have judged a few of these debates recently that came down to insufficient violation ev---making this part of the debate clear to me makes deciding the rest of the debate a lot more clear.

Closing rants and pet peeves:

----Don’t use language/jargon that isn’t found in your literature base. Academic diction isn’t something you can mix and match to apply to your argument unless the evidence you're reading uses that particular language. If your evidence doesn’t use “communities of care,” “ontology,” or “social death,” don’t describe things as that.

----“Lengthy” overviews are the bane of my existence. I cannot remember the last time I gave a K 2NC with an overview, everything you do there can be done on the line by line. When I say lengthy I mean literally anything more than 25 seconds.

----I'll doc your speaks by .2 if you give a stand-up 1AR.

----(ONLINE SPECIFIC) Be respectful of everyone’s time. I am sympathetic to tech issues, but please make sure you aren’t having to send 3 different documents because you forgot to hit reply all, someone isn’t on the email chain, or you attached the wrong document.

----I hate the CX line of questioning that's like "if we win x,y,z does that mean we win the debate?" most of the time you're just asking "if we win the debate do we win the debate" and it gets you nowhere

----If you seem like you’re genuinely enjoying the activity, being respectful, and not taking things too seriously, chances are I’ll reward you with high speaks. My favorite debates to judge are those in which debaters are having fun!

If you have any questions, comments, concerns, or otherwise, feel free to e-mail me and I’ll try and respond as soon as I can!

Glenbrook North- he/him

If you are visibly sick, I reserve the right to forfeit you and leave.

Use the tournament's doc share if it's set-up, speechdrop if it's not.

I won't vote for death good.

If you're taking prep before the other teams speech, it needs to be before they send out the doc. For example, if the aff team wants prep between the 2NC and 1NR, it needs to happen before the 1NR doc gets sent out, so I'd recommend saying you're going to do it before cross-x.

1. Flow and explicitly respond to what the other team says in order. I care a lot about debate being a speaking activity and I would rather not judge you if you disagree. I won't open the speech doc during the debate. I won't look at all the cards after the round, only ones that are needed to resolve something being debated out that are explicitly extended throughout the debate. If I don't have your argument written down on my flow, then you don't get credit for it. As an example, if you read a block of perms, I need to be able to distinguish between the perms in the 2AC to give you credit for them. If you are extending a perm in the 2AR I didn't have written down in the 2AC, I won't vote on it, even if the neg doesn't say this was a new argument. The burden is on you to make sure I am able to flow and understand everything you are saying throughout the debate. If you don't flow (and there are a lot of you out there) you should strike me.

2. Things you can do to improve the likelihood of me understanding you:

a. slow down

b. structure your args using numbers and subpoints

c. explicitly signpost what you are answering and extending

d. alternate analytics and cards

e. use microtags for analytics

f. give me time to flip between flows

g. use emphasis and inflection

3. I think the aff has to be topical.

4. I'm not great at judging the kritik. I'm better at judging kritiks that have links about the outcome of the plan but have an alternative that's a fiated alternative that's incompatible with the world of the plan.

5. You can insert one perm text into the debate. You can insert sections of cards that have been read for reference. You can't insert re-highlightings. I'm not reading parts of cards that were not read in the debate.

6. I flow cross-x but won't guarantee I'll pay attention to questions after cross-x time is up. I also don't think the other team has to indefinitely answer substantive questions once cx time is over.

7.Plans: If you say the plan fiats something in CX, you don't get to say PTIV means something else on T. So for example, if you say "remove judicial exceptions" means the courts, you don't get to say you're not the courts on T. If you say normal means is probably the courts but you're not fiating that, you get to say PTIV but you also risk the neg winning you are Congress for a DA or CP.

8. If your highlighting is incoherent, I'm not going to read unhighlighted parts of the card to figure out what it means.

Background

Debated: Wayzata High School (2015-2019), Concordia College (2019-2020), University of Minnesota (2020-2024)

Coaching: Edina (2021-2024), Thomas Edison (2024-Present)

I wasn't the most competitively successful debater, but I did both local and national circuit debate in high school and qualified to the NDT twice in college, so I would like to think that experience makes me at least relatively qualified to judge your round, whatever its content or style may be. I have pretty minimal topic knowledge on the high school IPR topic though, so please explain your acronyms and terms of art.

I use he/him/his pronouns. I would prefer for you to use my name when referring to me instead of calling me "judge".

prostc3@gmail.com for email chains - I would prefer that over SpeechDrop.

Three Most Important Takeaways

1. I would be proud if people described me as a “clash judge” – while I won’t pretend that I’m free of biases, I will try to hold your arguments to an equal standard regardless of what side of the imaginary “policy”/”critical” line they fall on. I’m firmly tech over truth, so please don’t change your pre-round or in-round strategy just because you think I’ll like it more; any preference listed here can easily be overcome by good debating. “Don't overadapt, do what you do best, make complete, smart arguments, and we'll be fine.” – Rose Larson

2. Please be clear – I’m serious. I won’t flow off the doc, so I need to be able to hear every word you say (including on the text of cards) and you need to have some differentiation when you’re switching between cards, arguments and flows. I find it extremely dissuasive when people think that the person who is supposed to be evaluating their speech doesn’t need to be able to understand all of it. Despite this, please don’t get psyched out if I call clear – it doesn’t mean you’re going to lose, it just means you need to speak more clearly.

3. Please try to be kind to each other – while I won’t enforce any strict standards of decorum, debate is just so much more enjoyable as an activity when people treat each other with respect. To that end, if your strategy is based around trying to intimidate, demean, or bully your opponents or anyone else in the room, please strike me.

K Affs/Framework

My voting record is pretty even in these debates, so just explain your arguments and we’ll be good.

I tend to be skeptical of affs that, for lack of a better term, “don’t do anything” – having a clearly explained method (examples appreciated) that solves a clearly identified impact will help you a lot. If you can't do that, then I tend to find presumption quite persuasive.

On T-USFG/Framework, I tend to prefer aff strategies based around a counter-interpretation (definitions appreciated) instead of ones based solely around impact turns. This is mainly because I find it much easier to conceptualize a debate between competing interpretations than a debate between an interpretation and "topicality bad".

Fairness can be an impact, but you actually need to explain why it is – just saying that it’s an “intrinsic good” isn’t going to cut it.

I tend to be most persuaded by clash impacts on T/Framework, but feel free to go for topic education, portable skills, deliberation, agonism, or whatever other impacts you want.

Both sides need to explain what debates will look like under their model.

I’m definitely a good judge for “soft” T args, like T-Tactics, if the aff actually violates your interpretation.

I can be persuaded that there’s “no perms in a method debate”, but it needs to be actually warranted.

Ks

Framework is really important on both sides, and I need judge instruction on what winning your interp actually means in the context of the debate. I won’t decide on an arbitrary middle ground between interpretations unless the two interps aren’t mutually exclusive (i.e. if the aff says “we get to weigh the aff” and the neg says “we get reps links”).

K tricks (fiat illusory, floating piks, serial policy failure, etc.) need to be more than five words in the block for me to vote for them.

Death K is fine by me, but if it approaches "death good" territory I would appreciate making sure that everyone in the round is alright with you reading it.

Policy Affs

I appreciate specific solvency advocates and well-explained internal link stories.

You need to at least reference the impacts you want to be evaluated when extending your advantages.

Impacts that aren't "extinction" are relevant.

Case debate that’s more than impact defense is great and people should do it more – most advantages suck, so make smart analytic arguments and your speaks will thank you.

I like impact turn debates but if you’re reading something that’s patently ridiculous (i.e. warming good) it will definitely require more technical debating to win my ballot.

CPs

Not too much to say here – I like advantage counterplans, topic counterplans, case-specific counterplans, agent counterplans – do whatever you want.

I’m capable of evaluating technical process counterplan debates but I don’t have too much experience with them – if you want to go for tricky competition args or funky perms I’m going to need a little more explanation.

DAs

Read whatever you want – I’ll evaluate a topic disad the same as a rider disad.

A good DA + Case 2NR will make me smile.

I’m not a member of the cult of turns case – those arguments can be important, but debating on the substance of a disad tends to matter more in my decision.

I'm fine with politics disads, even if most of them are pretty illogical.

Topicality vs. Policy

I don’t have a disdain for these debates like a lot of people seem to, so feel free to go for T if I'm in the back - just make sure to weigh your standards.

No strong preference for what impact you go for – this is my way of saying I haven’t drunk the “limits over everything” Kool-Aid.

Theory

I’ll vote on any theory argument, even if I personally think it's dumb – if you win the flow on new affs bad or no neg fiat, then you’ll get my ballot.

I’ll default to reject the arg not the team on non-condo theory args unless I’m given a warrant as to why I should reject the team.

Conditionality: I’ll vote on it, but I don’t really have a strong preference on whether it’s good or bad in a vacuum – debate it out!

My predispositions on judge kick are as follows: If the neg goes for a conditional advocacy in the 2NR and there is no debate over judge kick, I will judge kick by default, as I believe it is a logical consequence of conditionality. If the neg goes for a non-conditional advocacy in the 2NR, I will not judge kick unless told to before the 2NR. If the neg goes for an advocacy in the 2NR and its status is not clarified, I will not assume the advocacy is conditional and as such will not judge kick. If the neg goes for an advocacy in the 2NR and its status is not clarified, but other advocacies have been read and kicked as if they are conditional, I will assume the advocacy is conditional and as a result will judge kick. The easiest way to avoid me defaulting to these predispositions is to tell me whether to judge kick or not before the final speeches.

I think disclosure is an objective good, so feel free to read disclosure theory, but you still need to win the arg. The more egregious the instance of non-disclosure, the more likely I am to vote on it.

In theory debates I tend to find myself focusing a lot on the interpretations that both teams forward, so make sure to make those clear if theory is an argument you want to go for.

Ethics Stuff

If clipping occurs, I will stop the debate and give the offending team an L and the offending debater a 25. I don’t follow along on the doc, so if you want to make a clipping accusation you need a recording. If the tournament rules don't specify what is considered clipping, I will default to assuming it is when a debater skips 5 or more continuous highlighted words in a piece of evidence without verbally marking/cutting the card at the word they stopped reading the card at. If you are inexperienced, I will be lenient.

For all other evidence ethics issues (straw person, cut in the middle of a paragraph etc.), unless it’s something that is specified in the tournament rules, I will default to letting the debate play out and won’t stop the round. If it is a novice or JV round, I will adopt a much more lenient stance, as I would like to maximize the amount of speeches given for educational purposes.

I feel uncomfortable administering justice with my ballot for offenses that occurred outside of the round. However, I do care about the emotional and physical well-being of students, so if you have me in the back of a round that you would really prefer not to occur due to the out-of-round actions of an opposing debater, please talk to me before the round and we can talk to tab.

If something occurs that is actively harmful to students in-round (i.e. racism, sexism, homophobia, violence or threats of violence etc.) I will stop the round and give L 25s to the offending debater/team. If something occurs in-round that you feel should be an independent voting issue but isn't normally considered egregiously offensive, I encourage you to debate it out, but please make sure to isolate 1. What exactly the other team did, 2. Why what they did was bad, 3. Why me punishing them with the ballot is good, and 4. Why me tanking their speaks is not enough.

Miscellaneous Notes

I will probably take a while to decide if the debate was close at all. I have ADHD and my thoughts often bounce around in my head like a pinball machine, so as a result I like to type out my RFD before I give it. Even if the round wasn't very close, I will still almost always take a couple of minutes to type out my decision. This is probably better for you in the long run, as if I have to give my RFD off the top of my head I often sound pretty incoherent.

I won't give you a 30 just because you ask for it - I won't dock your speaks or anything if you do ask, I just don't think my speaker points are the prerogative of the debaters to decide.

Giving a rebuttal completely off the flow is awesome and will result in higher speaker points than if you didn’t.

I like jokes and appreciate bold strategic decisions.

“Have fun, try to learn something.” – Fred Sternhagen

Dimarvin (Dah-MAR-Vin) > Judge

Email Chain: puerd20@wfu.edu

TA: Wake Forest, Assistant Coach: Niles North

Nobel '16, Lane Tech '20, Wake Forest '24, Wake Forest M.A '26, Patterns of Movement '∞∞

Forever indebted to Black and Native Debate

The Goats; Amber Kelsie, Daryl Burch, Ignacio Evans, Taylor Brough, Kenny Delph, Ari Collazo, Aysia Grey, those unnamed...and Nate Nys (honorary white man).

TLDR;

Since high school, I have been a "K debater". I focus on arguments such as Afropessimism, Black Performance, Black Baudrillard, and other forms of black studies. I think debate should be a space for critical thinking skills and the production of strategies/performances. This mostly implies K v policy debates or KvK debates. You should win that your model of debate over the other team.

FRAMING IS KEY (judge framing, impact framing, link story, etc.)!!! You should prioritize the offensive you want to go for and make sure you are implicating the other side's arguments. For example, framework and the impact debate, disproving ontology and saying progress is possible, or proving why antiblackness is the paradigm that determines everything and proves why the aff reproduces cruel optimism and how it makes your impact.

K aff vs K:

Prove to me why your model is better, whether that means framework (either), the perm (aff), or the link story and alt (Neg), etc.

FW vs K Affs:

Honestly, this can go either side. It depends on what happens in the debate. But I think the question both sides need to engage with, is how your model of debate produces the best form of education/critical thinking skills, or what (un)limitations there should be to make the best engagements in debate.

Policy:

I didn't do policy land, but I have judged them. Take that whatever way you want for prefs.

Speaker points:

I prefer clarity over speed. Ethos moments are fire too.

Theory:

I haven't been in the back for a lot of these debates.

LD:

1. Every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact. "Vote Neg after the 1nc because it's reciprocal, we both have one speech" is not a complete argument.
2. Not a good judge for Phil and/or Trix - Don't pref me
3. I am new to LD; however, I have extensive experience in the highest levels of high school and collegiate debate.

Even though I'm debate partners with Sebastian Cho and close with Raunak Dua, I do not believe in the same argumentations that they do, but hopefully, I'll be a new judge for you. Thank you!

Misc:

Even if I have a certain style of debating, if the flow differential is mad different, then GG.

Don't be anti-black, say racism good, etc.

If you make an anime reference like One Piece, DBZ, JoJo's, Blue Lock, JJK, My Hero, Attack on Titan, HXH, Tokyo Ghoul, 7DS, etc; (Mainstream) expect a speaker point boost (.1-.3). Don't overuse them unless they fire.

Just have fun.

This is my twenty sixth year as an active member of the policy debate community. After debating in both high school and college I immediately jumped into coaching high school policy debate. I have been an argument coach, full time debate instructor, program director, and argument coach again for Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart in Miami, FL for the past seventeen years.

I become more convinced every year that the switch side nature of policy debate represents one of the most valuable tools to inoculate young people against dogmatism. I also believe the skills developed in policy debate – formulating positions using in depth research that privileges consensus, expertise, and data and the testing of those positions via multiple iterations—enhance students’ ability to think critically.

I am particularly fond of policy debate as the competitive aspect incentivizes students to keep abreast of current events and use that information to formulate opinions regarding how various levels of government should respond to societal needs.

Equipping students with the skills to meaningfully engage political institutions has been incredibly valuable for me. Many of my debate students have been Latina/Latinx. Witnessing them develop an expert ability to navigate institutions, that were by design obfuscated to ensure their exclusion, continues to be one of the most rewarding experiences of my life and I am constantly grateful for that privilege.

I am deeply concerned by the ongoing trend toward clash avoidance. This practice makes debate seem more trivial each year and continues to denigrate our efforts in the eyes of the academics we depend on for funding and support.

Affirmatives continue to lean into vague plan writing and vague explanations of what they will defend. This makes for late breaking and poorly developed debates. I understand why students engage in these practices (the competitive incentive I lauded above) I wish instructors and coaches understood how much more meaningful their contributions would be if they empowered students to embrace clash over gimmicks.

I will be less persuaded by your delivery if you choose to engage in clash avoidance. Actions such as deleting analytics, refusal to specify plans, cps, and K alts, allowing your wiki to atrophy, and proliferating stale competition style and Intrinsicness arguments will result in my awarding fewer speaker points.

Remember your friends’ hot takes and even your young coaches/lab leaders’ hot takes are just that – they are likely not the debates most of your critics want to adjudicate.

If you are not flowing during the debate, it will be difficult to persuade me that you were the most skilled debater in the room.

Be “on deck.” By that I mean be warmed up and ready for your turn at bat. Have your table tote set up, the email thread ready, you pens/paper/timer out, your laptop charged, go to the restroom before the round, fill up your water bottle, etc. I don’t say all this to sound like a mean teacher – in fact I think it would be incredibly ableist to really harp on these things or refuse to let students use the facilities mid-round – but being ready helps the round proceed on time and keeps you in the zone which helps your ability to project a confident winning persona. It also demonstrates a consideration for me, your opponents, your coaches and teammates and the tournament staffs’ time.

Be kind and generous to everyone.

You can likely deduce most of this from the discussion of clash avoidance and why I value debate above.

I would prefer to see a debate wherein the affirmative defends the USFG should increase security cooperation with the NATO over AI, Biotech, and/or cybersecurity.

I would like to see the negative rejoin with hypothetical disadvantages to enacting the plan as well as introducing competing proposals for resolving the harms outlined by the affirmative.

One of the more depressing impacts to enrolling in graduate school has been the constant reminder that in truth impact d is >>> than impact ev. A few years ago, I was increasingly frustrated by teams only extending a DA and impact defense vs. the case – I thought this was responsible for a trend of fewer and fewer affirmatives with intrinsic advantages. I made a big push for spending at least 50% of the time on each case flow vs the internal link of the advantage. My opinion on this point is changing. Getting good at impact defense is tremendously valuable – you are likely examining peer reviewed highly qualified publications and their debunking of well…less than qualified publications.

I find Climate to be one of the most strategic and persuasive impacts in debate (life really). That said, most mechanisms to resolve climate presented in debates are woefully inadequate.

I am not averse to any genre of argument. Every genre has highs and lows. For example, not all kritiks are generic or have cheating alternatives, not all process counterplans are unrelated to the topic, and not all politics disadvantages are missing fundamental components but sometimes they are and you should work to avoid those deficiencies.

The folks with whom I see debate similarly:

Maggie Berthiaume

Dr. Brett Bricker

Anna Dimitrijevic

David Heidt

Fran Swanson

I am currently a medical student at the University of Miami.

• I debated at the University of Pittsburgh (2019-2022) and Glenbrook North HS (2015-2019). I qualified twice to the TOC, qualified twice to the NDT, and have cleared at the NDT.
• Assume I know nothing about the topic.
• You do you. Debate is a game but how you play it is up to you.
• I have noticed that I tend to make decisions based on the simplest way to resolve a debate. The clearer your flow, and the more you explain the implications of the arguments you are winning, the more likely an argument/claim/warrant will result in a victory.
• Please be entertaining and pretty please, do impact calculus.

Policy Paradigm

Framework and Topicality: I will happily vote on framework arguments. I have been on both sides of this debate. I think a TVA is useful but must be topical. I find myself finding the utility of TVAs mostly to filter content-based arguments about the topic. Non-traditional affirmatives must define how I ought to evaluate solvency and conversely, teams going for topicality and/or framework need to define their impacts in a tangible manner. Too common, I find myself asking about the solvency mechanisms of critical affirmatives and wanting more impact calculus in comparison to FW. Furthermore, fairness can be an impact but I find it more strategic to explain fairness as an internal link to research/argumentative refinement. I think definitions in FW debates are not the most strategic.

Kritiks: With exceptions, I generally evaluate the consequences of plan implementation versus alternative solvency unless an alternative framework for judge evaluation is won. I judge a good amount of debates about the costs/benefits of cap and tend to not prioritize framework arguments as much as other judges. A negative framework is incredibly useful as a way to evaluate links. I enjoy links that simply impact turn to the affirmative. I think more affirmative teams should impact turn links and impacts. When I vote neg, it is generally because of tricks such as impact uniqueness. When I vote aff, it is generally on an impact turn to links or impact calc. Moreover, your alt or model of debate must solve the links you go for. Please do not assume things like "heg is good" or "the game is unethical" but rather provide a reason and impact to these large claims.

Counterplans: Too many advantage counterplans link to the net benefit. I strongly believe it is useful to explain if your net benefit is a yes/no binary question or a sliding scale [ do not just say this but explain how the link to the net benefit makes this framing argument function ]. Perm "do both" means "both things at the same time". If you want it to mean more, then explain it as such.

Theory: You need a counter-interpretation that solves your offense. You need offense. You need impact calc. Please do not go for bad theory arguments if you are winning substance. If conditionality is dropped, you will lose if the argument has a claim, warrant, and implication.

Topicality: I do not like topicality debates. In short, have good evidence and explain debates under your version of the topic looks like. Limits for limits sake is not compelling. I have not judged many debates on this topic, please explain the trajectory of the topic.

Speaker Points: Please start the round on time. The email chain should be sent as soon as the round starts. It's just that easy. Be convincing, be clear, and be technical. Good luck.

Public Forum Paradigm

Please do not spread and explain your arguments as if to a lay audience. I likely have little understanding of your topic and would greatly appreciate simplicity. I do not recommend extending three million link turns to your opponents' claims as that would make the debate quite messy.

From Reed Ven Schenk's paradigm: "I'm fine with being postrounded. The debate that just happened may be static, but the ideas are not. You're allowed to be angry if I'm allowed to be cheeky - deal?"

Put me on the email chain --- reznikdeb8@gmail.com.

If you are interested in pursuing a career in science and/or medicine, I'd be happy to chat.

ashnarimal.debate@gmail.com

mehsdebate@gmail.com

Add both emails on the email chain

Assistant Coach for Maine East

Please make sure the tournament name, round number, and both team codes are in the subject of the email chain.

I am pretty familiar with the topic but that is not an excuse to leave out key information about your arguments and why they matter.

TLDR - You can run any arg in front of me, if you run it well I'll probably vote you up. Clash, line by line, and judge direction go a long way in winning my ballot. Also, send analytics. if you're good, you don't have to win because they drop things.

K Affs

I like K Affs if they are well explained.

A few things I should not be wondering about when writing my ballot:

Why is the ballot key?

Why is this round specifically key for your offense?

Do you solve for anything and how (spill up, fiat, etc.)

Neg Stuff

Counterplans

I enjoy CPs, but you have to have all the key parts (Net Benefit, Perm Answers, Solvency, etc.)

Disads

Disads are fine - I'm not particularly opinionated about them.

I think DA and Case debates are good as long as the DA scenario makes sense and the line by line is properly executed.

Please don't go for a bad ptx scenario that has no internal link.

Kritiks

If you run a K make sure you really explain it to me.

If you wanna go for the K in the 2NR you must have a strong link to the specific aff, or an alt that solves for the K and/or the impacts of the Plan.

Focus on the link debate - winning the link helps you win FW, prove why the perm won't solve, as well as support the impact.

If I don't understand your K I won't vote for it, especially if it's less commonly run. I'm familiar with most of the generic Ks, but if you pull out a more complex K, you need to understand it and explain it well. I will hold those types of Ks to a higher standard when writing my ballot.

Topicality

TOPICALITY IS A VOTER!

Contextualize your standards to the round.
Bad T debates are ones without clash.

Theory

I'm from Maine East, I like Theory debates and I'll vote on them - but I probably have higher standards for 'good theory debating'.

PICs are probably fine.

Severance Perms are probably bad, but usually not bad enough for me to write my ballot on it.

Condo is good to an extent. I probably won't vote on Condo if they run like 1-2 off, but if they run 3 or more conditional advocacies I will lean Aff.

Perf Con is bad if you can prove specific instances of in-round abuse.

Potential Abuse is not a voter. (Unless you prove to me otherwise)

In Round Abuse is a voter - If you can prove it happened.

In the end what really matters is how you extend and frame the theory debate. I will most likely vote for the team that better contextualizes their theory arg.

I'll vote on a dropped theory arg as long as it's properly extended.

Speaker Points

Under 26: you did something offensive/cheaty

27.5: Average

Above 29: Excellent - I was impressed

If you do something interesting, funny, or out of the box in the round, I'll boost your speaks.

General Comments

• I will not vote on an argument I don't understand - It's your job in the round to explain your arguments to me.

• Don't be a jerk - Respect your partner, your opponents, and the judge(s).
• Do not clip cards or cheat in any way
• I am fine with tag team CX, but don't take over you partners CX, I will dock speaks for that.
• Clarity is more important than speed - If you are spreading a huge analytics-heavy block at full speed I will not catch more than 60% of what you are saying
• Send analytics. if you're good, you don't have to win because they drop things. Plus I will be able to make sure I get all your args when you decide to spread through that 8 min K block
• Time your own Prep/CX/Speeches.

• I do not like judge intervention, I will try to avoid, or at least minimize judge intervention as much as possible. I'd much rather vote based on what you all say in the round.
• I am willing to vote for any argument as long as it is not offensive

Whitney Young ‘15

University of Kentucky ‘19

Cornell Law '23

Former WY and UK coach; Officially not coaching anymore. This means that I have less topic knowledge than normal and you should not assume I know what your aff is or will know what those acronyms you just threw out stand for. When in doubt, invest more time in explaining your argument.

Top Level

Add me to the email chain- Jacindarivas@gmail.com

My name is Jacinda (Juh-sin-duh) so call me that instead of judge.

I will reward smart teams that can effectively and efficiently communicate their arguments to me. Engaging with your opponent, having a well-thought out strategy, and demonstrating that you’re doing consistent, hard work is what this activity is about.

Please be nice. I am not very responsive to raising voices/yelling.

Clash debates

No one ENJOYS clash debates but I end up judging quite a few. I really do believe that affs should have a tie to the topic and should be in the direction of the topic. I am not the judge for an aff that has a couple cards that say a theory and then pretend to say something about the topic. I also believe that debate is an inherently good activity so indicting the entirety of the activity we participate in is not great for me. I think this matters a lot for the way some teams answer framework so be cognizant of this. The only thing that my ballot decides is the winner.

Ks

Links should be causal, specific and about the plan. They NEED to be contextualized to what the aff actually did. I have too often judged debates where a team presents a theory of the world but have not explained what the aff has done to implicate that. Explanation is key. That applies to all Ks cause if you are just spitting jargon at me and the other team, you aren’t gonna have a good time. I am not persuaded by arguments that the aff just doesn’t get fiat.

CPs/DAs

Love them. Obviously better the more specific to the aff they are. I default to judge kick unless expressly informed not to.

There can be zero risk of a DA

Theory

Conditionality is good.

Random Things

You can insert a re-highlighting of a card- you shouldn’t have to waste time re-reading a card if they suck at research

Ethics violations (ex. Clipping, a card being cut in the middle of the paragraph, etc.) should just have the debate staked on it. It is a bad form of education and should be rejected. No point in drawing it out.

Further questions- email me at jacindarivas@gmail.com

This paradigm is sorted in descending order in terms of the importance of each component as I perceive them.

djroytburg@gmail.com

I debated at New Trier and currently study Computer Science and Statistics at Emory. I am immensely grateful for the communities I found debating with these two institutions, and I aspire for my view on debate to replicate many of the values of the coaches and debaters that have supported me.

I try not to let my beliefs influence me.

I won’t entertain arguments that are facially unethical, including death good. I’ll stop flowing.

I am a big believer in decorum and procedure. Please time yourselves. Please take a shower if needed. Please send everything in one doc before you stop prep. Please do not come to the debate in your pajamas. The mass migration to the bathroom post-2NC needs to stop, or at least diffuse a little bit. Please treat your opponents and I with respect, at least until you leave the room. Your content is formed by your form.

I am an expressive judge. My face betrays my emotions, no matter how hard I try.

I believe the status quo to be a somewhat stabilized form of debate for both K and policy teams. I do not consider topicality to be unreasonable or dangerous. I do not consider K AFFs to be the reason debate is dying. I am difficult to persuade that ballots shape personal subjectivities. I believe that K teams are better-equipped to win alternative, equally impactful forms of offense.

Topicality debates against planless AFFs should rely more on delineating boundaries between interpretations. I feel that most K AFFs produce vague, unclear imperatives (“AFFs must trouble the epistemology of the resolution”) as if they are defined parameters on the topic, and everyone assumes that this makes sense. This makes it difficult to understand AFF offense beyond “this AFF is very important.” I think about topicality through models, not AFFs.

Teams defending K AFFs should be very clear about a solvent mechanism or advocacy that redresses harms outlined. The risk that you win offense is, to an extent, predicated on this question.

I have been told by every university-level debater and coach around me that “conditionality bad” is facially nonsensical, but I can’t seem to remember why.

Counterplan theory debates need to devolve to issues that are more enriching than AFF and NEG ground. Unless someone is interested in doing better comparative work to prove some definitive topic bias, I couldn’t help but care less.

Debaters generally need need higher-quality evidence, particularly on topicality. I cannot believe some the things I have read in your card docs pass as evidence.

Debaters need to substantiate their arguments much more. Debaters will spurt out any wild conjecture that comes to mind in order to answer solvency deficits. Many of these are claims that one would need a Ph.D. to prove in any serious context. Spin is for comparing or connecting substantiated arguments, not for constructing them from thin air.

You can substantiate an argument with something other than a card. Good analytics beat bad disads. Mid analytics don’t beat mid disads.

Lastly, please keep the following, little catchphrases to yourselves. I never want to hear them ever again:

“Uniqueness determines the link/the link determines uniqueness”

“No perms in a method debate”

“Sufficiency framing”

“Our impacts are linear”

“Intrinsicness”

Mamaroneck '22/Northwestern '26

vvrubin1234@gmail.com

(GBX 2023 Update)

PLEASE don't clip, especially at the varsity level. I am following along in the doc. It sucks, is unfair, and will result in a loss.

Assume that I have ZERO topic knowledge. Explain acronyms, slow down on T.

TLDR

The following are just thoughts I have, I will vote for anything obviously excluding things that are racist homophobic transphobic etc.

Tech > Truth but an argument that is less true requires less of an answer to beat it, if that makes sense. You need to have a claim/warrant/impact in order for me to consider an argument (ie. condo in the 2AC cannot be "condo--voter for aff ground" and then a minute of the 1AR)

Framework

Fairness is an impact, but the negative should not just assume I think that. Explain why, or for the aff, explain why not.

I am more persuaded by k affs that are grounded in topic literature, but if you give me a reason to think otherwise, I will evaluate it.

CP

Won't judge kick unless you tell me to

Process CP's are fine but I would prefer a well-researched strategy at least somewhat tied to the topic, smart 2ac perm texts are underutilized

DA

Politics is fine but i prefer a 1nr that does good link spin to a 1nr that card dumps bad evidence

K

You do you, neg v. policy affs I feel like the aff should get to weigh the plan and the neg should get links to reps if evenly debated, but would be persuaded by judge instruction + good impact debating by either side

Don't assume anything about my knowledge of your literature base

T

Read lots of cards

Theory

Other than conditionality, theory is usually a reason to reject the argument not the team. I am more likely to err negative if it wasn't particularly egregious.

Random

I'm generally not expressive unless I'm like, super super confused

Will adjust speaker points to the tournament/division.

email:

Isaiahsalgado24@gmail.com

About Me: I am a former Open Debater at Cal State Fullerton. I had 3 years ~ debating in college and experience as a coach at CSUF. I have vast judging and coaching experience at the High School level. I spent a lot of my Career running mostly critiques including Settler Colonial K's, Afropessimism K's, Baudrillard K's, performance K's, as well as experience running Framework.

Aside from that my cases usually involved futurisms and storytelling.

Coaches: Toya Green, Romin Rajan, Lee Thach.

Me as a judge real talk: I can understand spreading, and I'm as good as anyone at getting this down. But Imma be honest, it is hard for me to stay organized. I joined debate in college, no high school experience.

In other words, framing is super important for me. Clarity is important to me, because I want to understand how you think we/you/ I should think, view and participate in the community, in this round, at this tournament, etc. Is debate a game? is the game good? why or why not? I'd like these question answered either implicitly or explicitly. I don't inherently work with the perception that debate is (just) a "game", but if given a good argument as to why I should take on that perspective (in this round, all the time, etc) I'll take on that perspective. I prefer not to feel like a worker in the debate factory who needs to take notes and produce a ballot, but idk maybe I should function in that way-just tell me why that's true.

Evidence Reading: I will read your cards if you urge me to look at them, or if they are contested during the round. Otherwise, I am assuming they say what you tell me they say. IF you don't mention the evidence outside of the 1ac/1nc, they most likely wont stay in the forefront of my mind during the debate. This means reading the evidence will a clear voice will give you an advantage with me, because I will most likely understand the evidence better.

Impact: Proximity and likelihood> magnitude and time frame

MISC:

Clipping Cards is an auto DQ.

I really don't care what you do as far as tag teaming, changing format, playing music, using stands, seating placement, etc. Do you, just don't make the debate go longer than it needs to. Also feel free to talk to me before, after and during prep in rounds. I generally enjoy talking about debate and like helping young peeps. Just chit chat and such.

Policy- I think that a straight up policy plan is dope. MY biggest concern is the debaters ability to explain numbers to me. ITs hard for me to do the calculations and understand why specific stats are important and win you the debate. I am pretty line by line when it comes to a policy debate. Id say with me, focus on some impact calc because thats usually where my attention is mostly at. Liklihood and proximity are more important than severity, magnitude. Time-Frame is iffy but doable.

FW- Honestly, framework is pretty cool. I think its become kind of a meme at this point about my annoyance with whiney FW debaters, so make sure you are being real with your critique. Framework says that there is a structure which needs to be followed for this activity to run efficiently. This assumes that the game of debate is good, so explain why the game is good, or why your specific version of the game is good. When you run framework you are saying that the other team is debating in a way that lessens/nullifies the benefits of debate. That is a big claim, so treat it as such. If you are just using it strategically- more power to you buuuuuuut, it makes you hella less persuasive if thats how you are coming off. Also, Fairness is not inherently a terminal impact, lol. At least mention debate is a game and tell me why the games good.

K- I love k's, but they get hella sloppy. With k's, i need to know that you are solving your impacts. seems basic but im shocked at how often debaters dont explain how their "self abolishment" solves antiblackness. Acknowledging that there is a problem isn't a solution, or plan or anything. It's just a diagnosis. I need a prescription. HAving said that, Im pretty open minded when it comes to different strats. The more weird the more fun for me.

I'm way more truth than tech.

My name is pronounced loo-CHI-uh. They/ them

Email chains > speech drop. lucia.scott at barstowschool.org

Previous debating: K-State (2013-2016), Kapaun Mt. Carmel (2009-2013)

Coaching: Barstow (2018-Present), Baylor (2017-2018), Kapaun Mt. Carmel (2013-2017)

Meta things

Speaks start at 28.5 and move up or down from there. If I think you should clear, I'll give you at least a 29. 27.9 cap on speaks if any of your docs are PDFs. Like, stop. Just stop.

I have almost certainly voted on everything I say I don't like in my paradigm at some point. At the end of the day, my goal is to intervene as little as possible. Might I be grumpy if I have to judge a 10 off debate with Deleuze, a Gregorian calendar procedural, an anarchy counterplan, and whatever that omnipotent AI that's going to kill us all is called? Yes. So grumpy. Will I vote on these arguments if you win the debate? Also yes. Will it affect your speaks? No. Grumpy adults shouldn't get to determine what debaters do.

I appreciate scrappy debate. If you like to use tricks to win, fine by me. If you think an argument is silly, it shouldn't be too hard to beat.

What I don't appreciate is cowardly debate. I don't love watching rounds where the core strat seems to be defending nothing. Debate is about arguments and controversy. Embrace it. It's awesome.

Tech over truth, but the less true an argument is, the less tech you need to beat it. This is particularly true of 1NC strats the just shove a bunch of garbage non-arguments in to try to freak out the 2A.

My threshold for explanation on un-answered arguments is incredibly low. I don't think the 2A should have to spend time explaining the internal links of an advantage that has one impact d card on it, or the 2N should have to spend time explaining a dropped alt. You do, however, need to tell me what the IMPLICATION of those dropped or mostly dropped arguments is in order for me to know how to evaluate them and how they interact with other flows.

Quality over quantity; what constitutes quality is, of course, up for debate.

Questions are not arguments. I see way too many 2NRs/2ARs that say, "What does the alt/aff even do?" instead of just explaining why it wouldn't do anything.

I read cards to make sure you aren't clipping, but what they actually say doesn't factor into my decision unless there's some contestation by the debaters about the content of the evidence. Don't let a team get away with reading garbage cards that don't say anything; I'm not going to make that argument for you.

Procedurals/ Theory

I get grumpy about arbitrary interps of theoretical arguments (conditionality, ROB's, really anything). This means I do think "conditionality bad" is a better interp than "they get three conditional advocacies." Relax, I don't actually think conditionality is bad, but I also don't think there's really a difference between three vs four or four vs five or five vs six conditional advocacies.

With the exception of conditionality, I default to theoretical objections are reasons to reject the argument or reasons that justify you also doing some theoretically illegit thing, like "perm do the counterplan." This includes perf con; I don't think perf con is a reason to reject the team, I just think it's a reason they don't get links off 2AC/1AR answers to the contradictory position in question. Pef con is distinct from an actual double turn; double turns are not theory arguments y'all.

For topicality, you need impacts. You're saying this team should lose the debate. That's a pretty steep punishment. You need to win more than just a violation here. What affs would be allowed under their interp that you shouldn't have to prepare for? What off case positions do you lose access to? Why does that matter?

I think "lit checks abuse" solves 90% of policy-based limits arguments. Aff teams should also make more arguments about why whatever ground the neg loses isn't ground they should have had in the first place. I think big topics are better than small topics provided those big topics have good neg generics. Politics and the states counterplan are not good neg generics.

Reasonability, to me, means that the neg had a reasonable amount of predictable ground, not that the aff is "reasonably topical," whatever that means. I don't think that means the aff's counter interp has to be "reasonable."

Case Debate

My favorite part of debate. I frankly like to vote neg on presumption, but the work done needs to be specific. I'm more likely to assign a low or no risk of the aff if there's a compelling internal link debate than if the 1AR dropped the third impact D card that's non-specific and two lines long.

I also think a well-leveraged aff can do a lot on other sheets of paper, especially when comparative work with the neg's offense is done.

Big pet peeve of mine is treating the aff like it's just one big page if it isn't. E.g. the 1AC had an advantage and a solvency contention, but the 1N just says "case" in their roadmap. Where on case? If it doesn't matter, you're not doing very good case debate. Same thing with the 2AC order. Why did you make the 1AC more than one page if you're not going to treat the pages as separate???

Your 2AC and 1AR advantage overviews are probably a waste of time in front of me. Overviews should frame, not merely explain.

DA's

This is where "quality over quantity" and "the less true and argument is, the less tech you need to beat it" become really important. Affs can beat bad disads on defense if affs explain why that defense is more important than everything the neg is saying (same goes for the neg with bad aff advantages). In terms of impact calc, I think probability is generally the most important. Zero risk is a thing. I default to uniqueness determines the direction of the link.

CP's

On balance, I think counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive. A 2A who's good at theory can win process counterplans just go away with enough work.

I think counterplans should have solvency advocates, especially if you've added seven planks just designed to fiat out of solvency deficits.

I will not kick the counterplan unless the neg makes an actual judge kick argument.

I am willing to vote aff on zero risk of a net benefit even if the counterplan solves 100% of the aff. In that scenario, the counterplan is no longer disproves the aff.

K's

I don't have any preferences about lit bases; I'm not afraid of the big bad Baudrillard.

My threshold for a link is comparatively low. I think reps links are probably good if the aff gets to weigh their impacts.

My threshold for the alt is relatively high. Examples are good. Structural analysis with examples is better. Under no circumstances should the aff let the neg get away with fiating the alt. That's absurd.

Framework strats are also viable in front of me, e.g. I will vote on "any risk the 1AC is a settler project means you vote neg" assuming you are, in fact, winning the framework debate. I can be persuaded not to weigh the aff, but you really have to commit to this strategy.

I think most affs are best off going for extinction outweighs and the state is good; I think you're more likely to win that than a perm or link turn strategy.

The floating pik you didn't catch in the block will lose you the debate.

Aff framework arguments that compare world-views (i.e. "extinction outweighs epistemology") are far more compelling than framework arguments about procedural fairness (i.e. "the K is cheating").

K Affs

I think it's reasonable for K affs to say that all they have to do is prove their method is good; if the method is good, I should vote for the aff. I don't think they need to "spill out" or whatever. I am generally not persuaded by "winning is key to our method" arguments. Probably means you've got a bad method. Similarly, not of fan of consciousness-raising arguments. I don't know why that means I should vote for you.

I think T violations that deal with substantive parts of the resolution are better than violations about the fg. I think affs should be making the argument that any education claims about the fg are non-unique; it's part of the topic every year. I think the neg should make arguments about why policy education on this specific topic is good and explain how the aff bypasses that.

Anything can be an impact if you tell me it's an impact and explain why it outweighs your opponent's impacts. I generally think, for the neg, fairness-based impacts provide the best external offense, and education-based impacts provide the best in-roads to the aff. Both the aff and the neg should be doing some comparative work about how education, fairness, and ethics implicate one another.

On balance, I think impact turn strats are better than counter interp strats for the aff in these debates. I think ethics arguments are the best offense for the aff. Affs can also internal link turn the majority of the neg's standards if they spend the time doing it instead of extending a wreck of random disads that are all basically the same.

I think the TVA and switch side are the best defense to the aff's impacts. I conceptualize TVAs as counterplans (an alternate mechanism to solve the same impacts while avoiding the net benefit, e.g. under limiting). That means I hold a TVA to similar standards; I think it should have to solve all or most of the aff and that the TVA should have a solvency advocate. Half the TVAs I hear aren't topical; not enough aff teams make this argument.

Other things:

New word Ks in the 2AR - okay, so this is tricky. I think if you do this, I think it needs to be the whole 2AR, and I think you should be held to an exceptionally high explanation standard. I think you should have to pre-empt the 3NR the neg doesn't get.

Arguments about micro-aggressions - Fine as long as you explain the implication for this debate/ perhaps the community as a whole. Tell me what you want me to do about it and what that does about the problem. You still have to answer the trivializing arguments, but they are not an auto-loss.

Arguments that compare conditionality to structural privilege - Fine as long as you warrant them. Just saying, "This is the logic of..." isn't enough; tell me why and how the reproduces that logic in debate and what the impact to that is for debaters.

So clipping. If you have somehow misrepresented what you have read/ if there is not a way to tell from the speech doc what was read, you have clipped. If I catch clipping, I will make sure I'm sure (usually during prep time), and then stop the debate. If a debater accuses someone of clipping, the debate stops right then. If the challenger is correct, they win. If they are not correct, they lose. I will give the person who clipped a 0, but everyone else is probably going to get somewhere between a 28.5 and a 29.5 depending on how much of the debate happened.

I've had some recent judging experiences that are moving me toward clarity being a clipping issue. If I can't understand any of the words in your cards, and it seems like this is to get in more cards, that's probably clipping. I've decided this means I'll never stop clearing you no matter how tired I get of it.

LASA 2017 / MSU 2021

ezraserrins @ gmail.com for email chain.

Notes on getting old---

Please for the love of all that is good in this world: flow.

If you're not attempting to flow in a line-by-line format where you put the answers to an argument next to where the argument was made and then maintaining that structure throughout the entire debate, then we're doing a speech activity in the same room as each other and I'm effectively judging a completely different debate than the one you're having.

I recognize I've become one of those people who is grumpy and old and complains. But I also see few scenarios where anyone is happy with the outcome of a debate where I'm consistently peeved at you for making my flow a mess and then you're peeved at me for not catching your sekrit JSPEC argument because I was trying to find the right paper when you answered condo on the wrong CP and then the 1NR talked about uniqueness on the DA first even though it was 2AC #4.

More general debate thoughts:

I will do my very best to judge your debate. I will flow. I will read cards during and after the debate. I will make up for lack of knowledge by being excessively thorough.

The team that has thought through more rounds of argument-and-response on the central issue of the debate and executes on it correctly is usually the team that wins my ballot. Teams should try to shift the central question of the debate to terms that favor them. Advanced thinking about strategy - e.g. how to shift the question of the debate - and arguments - e.g. how and why you win that question - is what I reward with speaker points.

The aff gets to fiat the plan. CPs compete on the plan, not the resolution, or "position" of the 1AC. Vagueness in the plan carries strategic costs for the aff in terms of DA links and circumvention arguments. Specification avoids those DA links/circumvention args, but means CPs compete.

How the debate progresses from start to finish matters more to me than other people. My impression of the credibility of an argument forms in early speeches and has significant impacts on who I evaluate winning a given argument. Relative to another judge, reallocating prep to give a stronger 1NC to 1NR will likely have a return on investment.

Relatedly, some arguments do not pass a basic test of credibility when they're first uttered. If an argument is complete, then it requires a response, but the expectation I have for the depth, quality, and even timeliness of that response is shaped by its perceived credibility. While you can go for whatever manner of dog water nonsense you desire and I will evaluate it, your better path to the ballot likely uses a higher quality argument.

K:

If the Neg going for T wins the following argument and explains how they apply to the aff, I think it's highly likely I'd vote for them: Neg interp is key to limited and predictable topics, those topics produce greater depth of argument refinement and clash, argument refinement and clash a) produce valuable skills and b) turn the case. Aff probably needs a piece of strong defense to at least 1-2 of those claims in the 2AR in addition to some risk of external offense. "fairness" is often "for whom?" and doesn't have an impact anyways.

Framework on the K is about determining the scope of what offense the Aff can weigh and what things the Neg can get offense against. In general, I err towards the Aff being able to weigh the Aff's impacts and the Neg's scope of links being more limited.

CPs:

I'm good for the Neg on theory questions. Conditionality is good. I will always judge kick including parts of the CP. Specific-type-of-CP theory objections are not persuasive to me and are better applied as standards for your theory of competition.

I'm generally good for the Aff on competition. CPs must be functionally competitive and probably textually competitive. Any other model is a "no".

Well written advantage CPs often solve the Aff. Affs must prove why the CP isn't sufficient. This means I'm better for "X Key" Advantages than "X is sort of key to all our advantages".

T:

The resolution defines affirmative ground. Topicality arguments that speak to a predictable and precise definition of the topic, and teams that win their definition is a more literature and language supported, predictable definition of the topic will have success with me judging. These arguments carry a burden of proof only that one definition is better than the other definition.

Topicality arguments that speak to the debatability of the resolution — the "limits" or "ground" under each interpretation — carry an exceedingly high burden of proof if these topicality arguments are not also the most predictable and precise definition. Abandoning the authentic meaning of the assigned topic in order to create a "better" topic is a very tough sell.

DAs/Case:

I am bad for impact turns. I often have difficulty with a) the totalizing nature of the neg's uniqueness arg; b) the Alt working/solving Neg impacts.

I have a high standard for Neg link and Aff internal link/uniqueness evidence.

I would rather see later speeches strategically consolidate to 1-2 arguments than keep alive many threads.

Final note: there's a distinction between taking the debate and the arguments seriously (a good thing) and taking yourself too seriously (a bad thing).

Ezra

Introduction

Call me Sam, Oak Park River Forest '21 & Emory '25, coach for Pace Academy, yes email chain oprfgs@gmail.com, I know absolutely nothing about this topic...

In my mind there are two serious reasons you might be reading my paradigm: either 1. you are determining prefs before a tournament or 2. you are determining how I will respond to your strategy before the round. I have organized my paradigm accordingly.

Listed below are the things I think are most important to point out about the way I judge, and the places where I might differ from the "consensus" of the debate community. If I do not bring up a certain issue, you should assume that I adopt the general "consensus view." If there is a particularly question that is important to you that I do not mention, you should absolutely feel free to email me before a tournament or even before a round. I will not write you an essay on what arguments to go for but I will answer straightforward yes or no questions like "is inserting a card ok if it was read in cx" (yes) or "when debated equally, do you think a textually legitimate but functionally illegitimate perm is valid if both teams agree a counterplan must be textually and functionally competitive" (also yes). If you are unsure whether your question is appropriate, ask anyway.

For Prefs

General

-I like smart arguments. I like line by line. I like spreading (while being clear) and reading lots of cards and comparing evidence.

-I put substantial effort into evaluating every debate I judge to the best of my ability. That being said, the following is a ranking from most to least of my average confidence in evaluating each type of debate: DA/CP/Case Turn v Policy Aff, T v Policy Aff, K v Policy Aff, T/FW/DA v K Aff, K v K Aff.

FW/K

-Debate is a competitive research game with a winner and a loser. It is my job to determine who the winner and the loser are based on who does the better debating in the round. It is very difficult to convince me to vote for something outside of the round (however, a team responding to "out-of-round" arguments should still defend why these arguments exceed the ballot's purview).

-I have not judged many T-USFG/FW debates, so I am not sure how idiosyncratic my approach of them is compared to common community practices. However, all else being equal, I have yet to see a convincing argument for why the affirmative should not have to defend a topical plan.

For Pre- (and Post-) round

General Notes

-Do not over-adapt. Do what you do, do it well, and you will get my ballot.

-I am easily impressed by debaters who demonstrate that they command an extensive but approachable understanding of American foreign policy, the internal politics of other countries, "critical" debates in academia, etc. I am easily depressed by debaters who's knowledge of these subject is superficial or who can not describe these things in a way that is easily digestible. The best way to prove to me your quality as a speaker is to debate an important area of study both in-depth and in a way that a non-expert could understand.

-Read re-highlightings.

-Have perm texts (it's ok to insert them).

-I generally flow in-person debates on paper. If you think you are going too fast you are. If you think you are unclear you are. Please slow down when you are making a lot of non-carded arguments in constructives, especially on T/Theory/K OVs.

-Generally, after the debate ends, I will create a list of the questions I need to resolve to determine which side won. If the answers to any of these questions can clearly be determined based on my flow I will resolve them in the appropriate way. Finally, I will read the evidence presented by both teams on the more ambiguous questions on my list, and incorporate evidence, spin, and analytical arguments into evaluating them. Therefore, while good evidence is always important, evidence quality begins to matter a lot more to me if you have done less work with spin/analytics/etc, which is something you should keep in mind in how you approach your 2nr/2ar.

-Online: I highly encourage you to turn on your video if you are able to do so. Debate is a communicative activity and seeing you speak significantly helps me understand you on a psychological level.

T

-If the most precise reading of the resolution results in a bad topic, that's a gripe for the topic comity, not a justification for trying to re-define the topic (on either the aff or the neg). Is it possible to win my ballot on debatability? Yes. Does it require a lot of impact work? Also yes.

-Instead of focusing on only winning I should look at debatiability, predictability, or any of their component parts, consider how I will evaluate the round after it ends. Often times both teams have offered multiple lenses that modify one or more of these categories and how they interact. The teams that win T debates in front of me are usually the ones who come closest to identifying all the impacts and framing devices in the debate and explaining how they resolve.

DAs

-I love the politics DA. However, politics DAs require a story. The words "strong-arming moderates" in your uq ev + an "aff requires PC" card do not a story make. I will give good points for (decent) innovative politics strategies because I think they get at the heart of what makes debate fun and the ambiguities that fiat creates.

-There is a direct, positive, linear relationship between the amount of impact calc you do and how likely I am to vote for you. I know that's a cliché and I'm still including it here which should clue you in to how important this is. This also means that I am not a fan of framing contentions, and I only think they are useful in so far as you impact out and do impact calc with the applicable arguments on the appropriate DA or counterplan page. This is not to say I will throw out framing contentions; I will still try to adjudicate the debate as fairly as possible, just know that all else being equal I lean negative on theses issues and if you are running a framing contention you are better off convincing me the neg's impacts are securitized and bad then you are convincing me that DAs are fake.

CPs

-I default to counterplans needing to be functionally and textually competitive. However, the way the affirmative determines if the CP meets that burden is the permutation. Therefore, when debated equally, a textually legitimate but functionally illegitimate perm is valid.

-I am sympathetic to being time pressed in the 2AC and think the threshold for a sufficient explanation for a perm or solvency deficit in the 2AC is that I am able to reasonably predict the subsequent 1AR explanation. However, I am a lot less sympathetic to perms and solvency deficits (especially impacts to solvency deficits) that sound substantially different in the 2AR then they do in the 1AR (or that barely feature in the 1AR but feature prominently in the 2AR). While this is opposite to your strategic incentives, the earlier you explain your arguments the better for me as a judge, and perms or solvency deficits that are explained thoroughly in the 2AC require less time investment to explain in the 1AR, so there is a cost/benefit calculus you have to take on.

-In my mind, perms are a yes/no question. My default way to evaluate perms is to look at each one, see if it clearly establishes that the counterplan is not an opportunity cost the the plan, and depending on if the answer is yes or no discard the counterplan or move on to other arguments respectively. One implication of this is that I am generally unsympathetic to "any risk of a link to the net benefit" answers to the perm. Nevertheless, my stance on perms as a yes/no question is somewhat malleable if debaters make explicit arguments for why I should understand the perm in a different way.

-I view CPs through the lens of negation theory. The negative is, first and foremost, responsible for giving me a reason the aff is bad (not just a reason the aff is less good than it could be). That means all counterplans must have offensive net benefits. I will never vote for a counterplan whose net benefit is better aff solvency. Even if the counterplan solves the aff better, and is mutually exclusive with the aff, it has not provided a reason the aff is bad.

-By default neg leaning on theory. The two most important things to my ballot on a theory argument: 1. Win topic side bias AND/OR how this theory argument implicates this topic specifically AND explain the implications of this. 2. Do impact calc. These debates often get messy, so being simple and formulaic is to your benefit.

-If judge kick is not brought up in the debate, I will kick the CP for you if it has been clearly designated as conditional/dispositional. Otherwise, I will evaluate the arguments for/against judge kick presented in the debate. If the counterplan has not been clearly designated as conditional I will not kick it.

Ks

-If neither team forwards a "middle ground" fw interpretation, like "weigh the advantage but also weigh reps links," I will not intervene and make one for you. I will only decide between the fw interpretations forwarded by either side, but a team can make arguments that modifying its fw interpretation in later speeches to attempt to take the "middle of the road" and capture the other team's offense.

-I am uncomfortable adjudicating anything other than the debating that took place within the round I am assigned. If there is harassment within the round, I hold the appropriate course of action to be stopping the debate and going to tab, where I am happy to argue that the team doing the harassment should be expelled from the tournament and talk to the team's coaches about the debaters facing repercussions. If there is harassment outside the round, talk to me and/or send me an email and we can go to tab and/or try to determine an appropriate course of action.

Final thoughts

-I think debate is no fun when everyone is up-tight and being a little fun and/or silly is a good thing. However, this should never come at the expense of debating well.

-I am probably a better judge for arguments like death good than the rest of this paradigm makes it seem.

-If you feel unsafe during a round for any reason, send me an email.

-I am still paying attention even I am staring off into the distance, especially if I am flowing on my computer.

Leland '22 Michigan '26

conner.shih.debate@gmail.com

Judging should be all tech, no truth. The only thing that factors into my decision is what has been said by the debaters. I don't care what arguments you go for or how many off you read in the 1NC.

K in high school, policy in college. Do the better debating and you will win.

You can insert rehighlightings as long as its implication is explained. Recuttings of parts of the article not originally present in the card should be read.

The caveat to all tech is I will not vote on events that occurred outside of the round or personal callouts. Additionally, using author indicts as case negs is terrible for the activity and will not be evaluated. Epistemological indicts are obviously fair game, but 'X was problematic on twitter' is not.

Condo is good. Yes judgekick. Yes plan text in a vacuum.

Fairness is good. It is an independent impact.

Big fan of the perm double bind. Not a fan of Kant.

Link uniqueness is important. You should read cards.

She/Her

Email: annemarie.smith2003@gmail.com

UT Austin 2026 | Shawnee Mission South 2022

*Glenbrooks: I don't have extensive topic knowledge this year (didn't work at camp last summer)- just make sure to explain acronyms; I'd appreciate a little more explanation with generics than other judges who've judged more on this topic*

General Stuff

• I'm primarily a policy oriented judge
• Don't steal prep and try to be quick about sending the doc
• Email chain is best
• Wiki/Disclosure is good
• Be organized with your flow
• Slow down in the rebuttals

DA

• Existential impacts are fine, but I think that the aff can and should make a probability push
• Case turns and outweighs is good

CP

• Affs should always read a perm, but you don't have to go for it
• Perms you go for should be functionally and textually competitive, but it's up to you to make that argument
• Internal net benefits are fun and good
• I like theory on CPs (50 state fiat, process CPs, etc.), but it probably won't write the ballot
• Tell me to judge kick things

T

• I'm not the best judge for a high-level T debate.
• With that being said, if a team is obviously not T, and that's the best argument to go for, go for it.

FW

• I think you should read it and it's a good strategy for K affs in front of me
• You should not make arguments that K affs don't belong in debate; I think it's more persuasive to read DAs on the T flow or argue that debate isn't a healthy space to discuss specific issues

K (Neg)

• Read them, but make sure to explain anything that's uncommon
• A good alt explanation when compared to the aff plan is convincing- especially in the rebuttals
• The aff gets to weigh the plan

K (Aff)

• I have no experience reading K affs and some experience answering them, but I'm normally just taking FW (on the negative)
• I can flow, but probably require more judge instruction when it comes to the rebuttals
• The aff should probably have some relation to the resolution; if it doesn't, I think there should be an explanation as to why

Condo/Theory

• I dislike evaluating theory debates
• I default that you should get to kick positions, but there is such thing as too many off case positions (9+?)
• I think that 6+ off- case positions justifies condo in the 2AR, but if it were impacted out I would vote for it either way

LD

• 3 years of high school LD experience
• I did very traditional LD in high school
• I still think my policy experience makes me able to evaluate mostly all types of LD (just be sure to explain anything odd)
• Please don't do tricks. I will not like them or understand them
• You're welcome to read DAs, CPs, and Ks- explain anything that isn't common

He/him/his. wsoper03@gmail.com

I am the debate coach at Manhattan High School. I did NDT/CEDA debate for four years at the University of Kansas. I worked at both the Michigan and Kansas debate camps this summer and I've judged dozens of debates on the topic.

I am a better judge for topic-specific, evidence-based arguments. ASPEC, counterplans that compete off of certainty and immediacy, and impact turns which argue large portions of the population should die are not persuasive to me.

Clarity. Clarity is very important to me. I do not have the speech document pulled up when the debate is happening. If I don't understand you, I will not vote for your argument.

Evidence matters a lot. Debaters should strive to connect the claims and warrants they make to pieces of qualified evidence. If one team is reading qualified evidence on an issue and the other team is not, I'll almost certainly conclude the team reading evidence is correct. I care about author qualifications/funding/bias more than most judges and I'm willing to disregard evidence if a team raises valid criticisms of it. The best final rebuttals mention the author names of key pieces of evidence and spend time comparing the evidence both teams have on crucial issues.

Presumption/Vagueness. I am willing to (and have) voted negative on vagueness and that the affirmative has not met its stock issues burdens. Similarly, if the negative is reading a CP with an internal net benefit and doesn't have evidence demonstrating that the inclusion of the plan prevents the net benefit, I am willing to vote on "perm do both" even if the aff doesn't have a deficit to the CP. I am willing to dismiss advantage CP planks which are overly vague or not describing a policy.

Plan text in a vacuum. I think there are two ways the negative can demonstrate a topicality violation. 1. Explaining why the affirmative's plan text does not meet the specific requirement set by the interpretation or 2. referencing a CX where the affirmative clearly committed to a mandate of their plan.
The plan text is the focus of the debate. If you think the affirmative's solvency advocate or advantages describe something other than their plan text, that is a solvency argument, not a topicality argument.

Biggest issues in my decisions on the IP topic.
1. If you are going for a kritik, you need to contest the case OR overwhelmingly win an explicit framework argument that tells me the consequences of the plan shouldn't matter.

Contesting the case doesn't necessarily mean reading impact defense or traditional solvency arguments, but you should explain why winning your link arguments disprove or turn aff advantages. For example, if you read a China threat K with links about the plan's China war advantage, your 2NR should also include some defense to the aff's other advantage(s), provided the aff extended any of those.

Neg framework interpretations which tell me to totally ignore the consequences of the plan are an uphill battle in front of me. You are almost always better off telling me why the aff's advantages are incorrect and arguing that your impacts of the kritik outweigh, rather than telling me to ignore the aff.

2. This topic seems very big and every aff seems very confusing. I will reward specific strategies and case debating with higher speaker points.

3. I am not a great judge for planless affirmatives. If you plan on reading a planless affirmative, I should be lower on your pref sheet. It's not that I hate them, I just really struggle to understand the aff's answers topicality, presumption, or even "why should we negate your affirmative"-style arguments. In every debate I judge, I will attempt to make a decision based on the arguments in the debate and provide educational feedback, regardless of the type of affirmative you read.

Things which will make your speaker points higher: exceptional clarity, numbering your arguments, good cross-x moments which make it into a speech, specific and well-researched strategies, developing and improving arguments over the course of a season, slowing down and making a connection with me to emphasize an important argument, not being a jerk to a team with much less skill/experience than you. I decide speaker points.

You're welcome to post-round or email me if you have questions or concerns about my decision.

I keep lowballing people on points, in the future, I will adjust upward! My apologies!

Debate and me

Epictetus says: "If you undertake some role beyond your capacity, you both disgrace yourself by taking it and also thereby neglect the role that you were unable to take."

Well, that ship has sailed, and I will be judging you. Here is my email: sposito@umich.edu

More seriously: I would prefer to judge debates squarely in the mainstream, where we all have more or less shared presuppositions about how things work, and a shared way of talking about those presuppositions. I think trying to extrapolate our reasoning outside of the bounds from which it must have come can lead to superficially compelling but ultimately shallow and in fact ridiculous chains of reasoning (here I think there's a horseshoe convergence between K stuff and long-termism and many "procedurals" in their misuse of language). Hundreds of debates into my judging career I think I have discovered, almost comically belatedly, what people liked in straight-up policy debate, a format in which in which I almost never competed (I concerned myself mostly with tricks and sophistry, which despite this paragraph remain sorely underrated, especially in college) and consequently didn't really appreciate. I guess I will still vote on intrinsicness, or dropped condo in a 1 off K debate, and in fact nothing about my belief in the importance of content-neutral evaluation of argument has changed (well I look at cards more and am more willing to say an argument wasn't made completely in the first place, but even for the latter I feel like I have a more permissive standard than many) but somehow the thing in me that instinctively and mischievously resonated with "villainy, and things generally hated" has been weakened, and now competes with the opposite instinct....

T

Plan text in a vacuum is both intuitive and desirable upon reflection. That said, T doesn't really bother me and offense-defense is how I think about it, but that includes me thinking that the aff starts with some offense because of the risk of substance crowdout. I don't know what's topical or not and so I advise trying to trick me (and guarding against the other side's tricks). I am a sort of credulous and unassuming person, and very sincere.

But: for ordinary, practical reasoning, there is a "best" way to read a statement in context, and I care immensely about that "best" reading for the resolution. So I care about "precision" and would prefer to keep any normative ("debatability") considerations at a distance unless the result is a total pragmatic disaster. In fact what I would prefer teams advocate might be that a relatively high "precision" standard needs to be met, as a gateway issue, before I even begin to evaluate the normative content.

Competing interpretations

Any time a reference is made to the round at hand in a debate that is properly about one interpretation or the other, I basically ignore it. Even more than offense-defense, this way of thinking is ground deep into me....

Counterplans

Limitless conditionality is not so bad, neither is process. "Functional only" is probably best but it's a debate. Judgekick is fine and the default. Theory is sometimes necessary because competition can't exclude everything (or shouldn't be made to), but the counterplans for which this is true are already broadly disreputable and thus not likely to be read in the first place.

Sufficiency framing feels like a logical consequence of offense-defense, and so I don't really know what could unconvince me of it....

I think that there are meaningful distinctions to be made between process counterplans and others (for theory, e.g. the butterfly effect resulting in the plan is not the same as something which was clearly intended, as obvious from its construction, to result in the plan resulting in the plan. Some consequences are more "natural" than others), and in fact the pushy dialectic that proceeds by uncooperatively nitpicking any kind of proposed definition by running to edge-cases is something I regard as literally the height of epistemic folly, antithetical to both thought and language. That said, that isn't enough for me to be good for theory overall, because I think the neg needs generics and think that process are the least bad ones, and in fact have some benefits to debating them. But it does make me less sympathetic to that style of reply to theory--I would prefer to simply conclude that they are basically fair and perhaps educational, not that I am so skeptical of what the aff is getting at that I can't help but conclude that it's OK despite my misgivings....

Text vagueness

For both plans and counterplans, this seems under-theorized. Is it really all just "normal means"? It doesn't bother me morally when texts are vague, not to say that there's no strategic cost.

DAs

I don't mind riders or links to fiat, really, but you need to answer the objections as usual. Politics is fine.

Elections is very, very good right now and the link turns that I've seen are usually bad, with I guess some exceptions. Honestly my personal judgment is that it's more likely that Trump is good (for Russia, for NATO, for some innovation thing) than that acarbon tax gains more votes than it costs. It seems like wishful thinking, or like I'm living in some alternate reality powered by Pod Save America agitprop. Obviously the aff has to say something (and there are things they can say) but I feel like even across decent skill disparities the neg is favored on link versus link turn....

What do you want me to do with black swans? Unless you tie it to the argument that random events favor one side or the other, or substantiate that the election is so uncertain that I should just ignore the DA (seems pricey), then what?

The K

I am probably no longer workable for the K... I don't know why I am not automatically, jurisdictionally neg unless the aff can provide a textual counter-interp for every word and phrase in the resolution. Somehow after all this time I have been returned to the most naive, novice-level confusion about why the aff is allowed to be about something that isn't even plausibly near the topic. A similar thing on the neg, though less devastating: What is the answer to the perm double bind if the neg doesn't win framework? But if the neg is going for framework, what arguments do they seriously, sustainably have if the aff survives the 1AR extending boilerplate arguments about fairness?

Even for the cap K, if it doesn't boil down to "do central planning and vaguely and with an unqualified advocate," what am I voting for? And if it's that, then why should I vote for it?

Generics

Whether or not an argument is reusable between topics is logically unrelated to if it refutes the plan... I don't have any distaste or annoyance at generics. In fact the sentiment, if it's anything, is positive, like that toward old friends. And sunsets.

Risk

"Any risk" logic breaks down somewhere, for reasons of Pascal's mugging or the St. Petersburg paradox or others. Whether or not that logic is apt for risks of the size we discuss in debate rounds is an open question. "Tags start at 100%" seems like a bad norm, but it is our bad norm.

The will to win

I don't think it's advisable to send analytics....

In general, I admire confidence and feel sympathy for (not to say "I like") the fact that the will to win can sometimes result in unfriendliness.

I won't be offended if you think it's in your best interest to do unusual things with cross-ex, speaker positions, paper, et cetera.

Newnesss

The 2NC gets wholly new arguments, including counterplans. (The "C" stands for constructive even though it is preceded by a "2.") Neither the 1NR nor 1AR do without justification, although justifications are easy to make or come by. One implication of this is that the 1NC can't "drop" things that were in the 1AC, at least in an irreversible or threatening sense, because the 2NC can "newly" (but crucially, permissibly) answer them.

If an issue isn't disputed when it should be, the bare declaration that the other team has lost the right to dispute it is enough. You don't need to hedge and answer it anyway unless you think you may be wrong and it's not new after all.

Weird moves in the 2AR will be ignored: I don't want to adjudicate an edge case.

Something is new if I couldn't understand it from the earlier speech--I feel like that's intuitive, no?

Echoing

If, during your speech, your partner says a few words, you don't need to repeat them. Please don't push the line and ruin it for everyone.

LD

I know speech times are broken, and so I will be a little more forgiving of aff theory arguments, but my background is still policy and my attitude still laissez fare. That said, I love philosophy and think its reasonable deployment could be interesting--but I don't judge or coach LD and in consequence don't know what you all are saying or how credible I would find it.

https://debate.msu.edu/about-msu-debate/

Pronouns: she/her

Yes, put me on the chain: jasminestidham@gmail.com

Please let me know if there are any accessibility requirements before the round so I can do my part.

Updated for 2023-24

I currently coach full-time at Michigan State University. Previously, I coached at Dartmouth for five years from 2018-2023. I debated at the University of Central Oklahoma for four years and graduated in 2018. I also used to coach at Harvard-Westlake, Kinkaid, and Heritage Hall.

LD skip down to the bottom.

January 2024 Update -- College

The state of wikis for most college teams is atrocious this year. The amount of wikis that have nothing or very little posted is bonkers. I don't know who needs to hear this, but please go update your wiki. If you benefit from other teams posting their docs/cites (you know you do), then return the favor by doing the same. It's not hard. This grumpiness does not apply to novice and JV teams.

At the CSULB tournament, I will reward teams with an extra .1 speaker point boost if you tell me to look at your wiki after the round and it looks mostly complete. I will not penalize any team for having a bad wiki (you do you), but will modestly reward teams who take the time to do their part for a communal good.

October 2023 Musings

I don't mean to sound like a curmudgeon, but what happened to flowing and line-by-line? Stop. flowing. off the doc. Flowing is fundamental and you need to actually do it. Please stop over-scripting your speeches. I promise you will sound so much better when you debate off the flow.

I could not agree more with Tracy McFarland here: 'Clash - it's good - which means you need to flow and not script your speeches. LBL with some clear references to where you're at = good. Line by line isn't answer the previous speech in order - it's about grounding the debate in the 2ac on off case, 1nc on case.'

In most of the college rounds I've judged so far this year, I have noticed that debaters are overly reliant on reading a wall of cards to substitute for actual debating. I don't know who hurt you, but you don't need to read 10 cards in the 1AR. Reading cards is easy and anyone can do it. I want to see you debate.

Tldr; Flexibility

No judge will ever like all of the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate them fairly. I appreciate judges who are willing to listen to positions from every angle, so I try to be one of those judges. I have coached strictly policy teams, strictly K teams, and everything in between because I love all aspects of the game. I would be profoundly bored if I only judged certain teams or arguments. At most tournaments I find myself judging a little bit of everything: a round where the 1NC is 10 off and the letter 'K' is never mentioned, a round where the affirmative does not read a plan and the neg suggests they should, a round where the neg impact turns everything under the sun, a round where the affirmative offers a robust defense of hegemony vs a critique, etc. I enjoy judging a variety of teams with different approaches to the topic.

Debate should be fun and you should debate in the way that makes it valuable for you, not me.

My predispositions about debate are not so much ideological as much as they are systematic, i.e. I don't care which set of arguments you go for, but I believe every argument must have a claim, warrant, impact, and a distinct application.

If I had to choose another judge I mostly closely identify with, it would be John Cameron Turner but without the legal pads.

I don't mind being post-rounded or answering a lot of questions. I did plenty of post-rounding as a debater and I recognize it doesn't always stem from anger or disrespect. That being said, don't be a butthead. I appreciate passionate debaters who care about their arguments and I am always willing to meet you halfway in the RFD.

I am excited to judge your debate. Even if I look tired or grumpy, I promise I care a lot and will always work hard to evaluate your arguments fairly and help you improve.

What really matters to me

Evidence quality matters a lot to me, probably more than other judges. Stop reading cards that don't have a complete sentence and get off my lawn. I can't emphasize enough how much I care about evidence comparison. This includes author quals, context, recency, (re)highlighting, data/statistics, concrete examples, empirics, etc. You are better off taking a 'less is more' approach when debating in front of me. For example, I much rather see you read five, high quality uniqueness cards that have actual warrants highlighted than ten 'just okay' cards that sound like word salad.

This also applies to your overall strategies. For example, I am growing increasingly annoyed at teams who try to proliferate as many incomplete arguments as possible in the 1NC. If your strategy is to read 5 disads in the 1NC that are missing uniqueness or internal links, I will give the aff almost infinite leeway in the 1AR to answer your inevitable sandbagging. I would much rather see well-highlighted, complete positions than the poor excuse of neg arguments that I'm seeing lately. To be clear, I am totally down with 'big 1NCs' -- but I get a little annoyed when teams proliferate incomplete positions.

Case debate matters oh so much to me.Please, please debate the case, like a lot. It does not matter what kind of round it is -- I want to see detailed, in-depth case debate. A 2NC that is just case? Be still, my heart. Your speaker points will get a significant boost if you dedicate significant time to debating the case in the neg block. By "debating the case" I do not mean just reading a wall of cards and calling it a day -- that's not case debate, it's just reading.

I expect you to treat your partner and opponents with basic respect. This is non-negotiable. Some of y'all genuinely need to chill out. You can generate ethos without treating your opponents like your mortal enemy. Pettiness, sarcasm, and humor are all appreciated, but recognize there is a line and you shouldn't cross it. Punching down is cringe behavior. You should never, ever make any jokes about someone else's appearance or how they sound.

Impact framing and judge instruction will get you far. In nearly every RFD I give, I heavily emphasize judge instruction and often vote for the team who does superior judge instruction because I strive to be as non-interventionist as possible.

Cowardice is annoying. Stop running away from debate. Don't shy away from controversy just because you don't like linking to things. This also applies to shady disclosure practices. If you don't like defending your arguments, or explaining what your argument actually means, please consider joining the marching band. Be clear and direct.

Plan texts matter. Most plan texts nowadays are written in a way that avoids clash and specificity. Affirmative teams should know that I am not going to give you much leeway when it comes to recharacterizing what the plan text actually means. If the plan says virtually nothing because you're scared of linking to negative arguments, just know that I will hold you to the words in the plan and won't automatically grant the most generous interpretation. You do not get infinite spin here. Ideally, the affirmative will read a plan text that accurately reflects a specific solvency advocate.

I am not a fan of extreme or reductionist characterizations of different approaches to debate. For example, it will be difficult to persuade me that all policy arguments are evil, worthless, or violent. Critical teams should not go for 'policy debate=Karl Rove' because this is simply a bad, reductionist argument. On the flip side, it would be unpersuasive to argue that all critiques are stupid or meaningless.

I appreciate and reward teams who make an effort to adapt.Unlike many judges, I am always open to being persuaded and am willing to change my mind. I am rigid about certain things, but am movable on many issues. This usually just requires meeting me in the middle; if you adapt to me in some way, I will make a reciprocal effort.

Online debate

Camera policy: I strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but there are valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.

Tech glitches: it is your responsibility to record your speeches as a failsafe. I encourage you to record your speeches on your phone/laptop in the event of a tech glitch. If a glitch happens, we will try to resolve it as quickly as possible, and I will follow the tournament's guidelines.

Slow down a bit in the era of e-sports debate. I'll reward you for it with points. No, you don't have to speak at a turtle's pace, but maybe we don't need to read 10-off?

Miscellaneous specifics

I care more about solvency advocates than most judges. This does not mean I automatically vote against a counterplan without a solvency advocate. Rather, this is a 'heads up' for neg teams so they're aware that I am generally persuaded by affirmative arguments in this area. It would behoove neg teams to read a solvency advocate of some kind, even if it's just a recutting of affirmative evidence.

I will only judge kick if told to do so, assuming the aff hasn't made any theoretical objections.

I am not interested in judging or evaluating call-outs, or adjacent arguments of this variety. I care deeply about safety and inclusion in this activity and I will do everything I can to support you. But, I do not believe that a round should be staked on these issues and I am not comfortable giving any judge that kind of power.

Please do not waste your breath asking for a 30. I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen.

Generally speaking, profanity should be avoided. In most cases, it does not make your arguments or performance more persuasive. Excessive profanity is extremely annoying and may result in lower speaks. If you are in high school, I absolutely do not want to hear you swear in your speeches. I am an adult, and you are a teenager -- I know it feels like you're having a big ethos moment when you drop an F-bomb in the 2NC but I promise it is just awkward/cringe.

Evidence ethics

If you clip, you will lose the round and receive 0 speaker points. I will vote against you for clipping EVEN IF the other team does not call you on it. I know what clipping is and feel 100% comfortable calling it. Mark your cards and have a marked copy available.

If you cite or cut a card improperly, I evaluate these issues on a sliding scale. For example, a novice accidentally reading a card that doesn't have a complete citation is obviously different from a senior varsity debater cutting a card in the middle of a sentence or paragraph. Unethical evidence practices can be reasons to reject the team and/or a reason to reject the evidence itself, depending on the unique situation.

At the college level, I expect ya'll to handle these issues like adults. If you make an evidence ethics accusation, I am going to ask if you want to stop the round to proceed with the challenge.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LD Specific

Updated March 2024 before TFA to reflect a few changes.

Conflicts: Harvard-Westlake (assistant director of debate 2018-2022), and Strake Jesuit (current affiliation).

My background is in policy debate, but I am very fluent in LD. I co-direct NSD Flagship and follow LD topics as they evolve. I assist Strake in LD and policy.

If you are asking questions about what was read or skipped in the speechdoc, that counts as CX time. If you are simply asking where a specific card was marked, that is okay and does not count as CX time. If you want your opponent to send out a speechdoc that includes only the things they read, that counts as your CX time or prep time -- it is your responsibility to flow.

You need to be on time. I cannot stress this enough. LDers consistently run late and it drives me bonkers. Your speaks will be impacted if you are excessively late without a reasonable excuse.

I realize my LD paradigm sounds a little grumpy. I am only grumpy about certain arguments/styles, such as frivolous theory. I do my best to not come off as a policy elitist because I do genuinely enjoy LD and am excited to judge your debate.

FAQ:

Q:I primarily read policy (or LARP) arguments, should I pref you?

A: Yes.

Q: I read a bunch of tricks/meta-theory/a prioris/paradoxes, should I pref you?

A: No thank you.

Q: I read phil, should I pref you?

A: I'm not ideologically opposed to phil arguments like I am with tricks. I do not judge many phil debates because most of the time tricks are involved, but I don't have anything against philosophical positions. I would be happy to judge a good phil debate. You may need to do some policy translation so I understand exactly what you're saying.

Q: I really like Nebel T, should I pref you?

A: No, you shouldn't. He's a very nice and smart guy, but cutting evidence from debate blogs is such a meme. If you'd like to make a similar argument, just find non-Nebel articles and you'll be fine. This applies to most debate coach evidence read in LD. To be clear, you can read T:whole rez in front of me, just not Nebel blog cards.

Q: I like to make theory arguments like 'must spec status' or 'must include round reports for every debate' or 'new affs bad,' should I pref you?

A: Not if those arguments are your idea of a round-winning strategy. Can you throw them in the 1NC/1AR? Sure, that's fine. Will I be persuaded by new affs bad? No.

Q: Will you ever vote for an RVI?

A: Nope. Never. I don't flow them.

Q: Will you vote for any theory arguments?

A: Of course. I am good for more policy-oriented theory arguments like condo good/bad, PICs good/bad, process CPs good/bad, etc.

Q: Will you vote for Ks?

A: Of course. Love em.


Any other questions can be asked before the round or email me.

Put me on the email chain (WayneTang@aol.com). (my debaters made me do this, I generally don't read evidence in round)

General Background:
Former HS debater in the stone ages (1980s) HS coach for over many years at Maine East (1992-2016) and now at Northside College Prep (2016 to present). I coach on the north shore of Chicago. I typically attend and judge around 15-18 tournaments a season and generally see a decent percentage of high level debates. However, I am not a professional teacher/debate coach, I am a patent attorney in my real (non-debate) life and thus do not learn anything about the topic (other than institutes are overpriced) over the summer. I like to think I make up for that by being a quick study and through coaching and judging past topics, knowing many recycled arguments.

DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
Intelligent story telling with good evidence and analysis is something I like to hear. I generally will vote for teams that have better comparative impact analysis (i.e. they take into account their opponents’ arguments in their analysis). It is a hard road, but I think it is possible to reduce risk to zero or close enough to it based on defensive arguments.

TOPICALITY
I vote on T relatively frequently over the years. I believe it is the negative burden to establish the plan is not topical. Case lists and arguments on what various interpretations would allow/not allow are very important. I have found that the limits/predictability/ground debate has been more persuasive to me, although I will consider other standards debates. Obviously, it is also important how such standards operate once a team convinces me of their standard. I will also look at why T should be voting issue. I will not automatically vote negative if there is no counter-interpretation extended, although usually this is a pretty deep hole for the aff. to dig out of. For example, if the aff. has no counter-interpretation but the neg interpretation is proven to be unworkable i.e. no cases are topical then I would probably vote aff. As with most issues, in depth analysis and explanation on a few arguments will outweigh many 3 word tag lines.

COUNTERPLANS
Case specific CPs are preferable that integrate well (i.e., do not flatly contradict) with other negative positions. Clever wording of CPs to solve the Aff and use Aff solvency sources are also something I give the neg. credit for. It is an uphill battle for the Aff on theory unless the CP/strategy centered around the CP does something really abusive. The aff has the burden of telling me how a permutation proves the CP non-competitive.

KRITIKS
Not a fan, but I have voted on them numerous times (despite what many in the high school community may believe). I will never be better than mediocre at evaluating these arguments because unlike law, politics, history and trashy novels, I don’t read philosophy for entertainment nor have any interest in it. Further (sorry to my past assistants who have chosen this as their academic career), I consider most of the writers in this field to be sorely needing a dose of the real world (I was an engineer in undergrad, I guess I have been brainwashed in techno-strategic discourse/liking solutions that actually accomplish something). In order to win, the negative must establish a clear story about 1) what the K is; 2) how it links; 3) what the impact is at either the policy level or: 4) pre-fiat (to the extent it exists) outweighs policy arguments or other affirmative impacts. Don’t just assume I will vote to reject their evil discourse, advocacy, lack of ontology, support of biopolitics, etc. Without an explanation I will assume a K is a very bad non-unique Disad in the policy realm. As such it will probably receive very little weight if challenged by the aff. You must be able to distill long boring philosophical cards read at hyperspeed to an explanation that I can comprehend. I have no fear of saying I don’t understand what the heck you are saying and I will absolutely not vote for issues I don’t understand. (I don’t have to impress anyone with my intelligence or lack thereof and in any case am probably incapable of it) If you make me read said cards with no explanation, I will almost guarantee that I will not understand the five syllable (often foreign) philosophical words in the card and you will go down in flames. I do appreciate, if not require specific analysis on the link and impact to either the aff. plan, rhetoric, evidence or assumptions depending on what floats your boat. In other words, if you can make specific applications (in contrast to they use the state vote negative), or better yet, read specific critical evidence to the substance of the affirmative, I will be much more likely to vote for you.

PERFORMANCE BASED ARGUMENTS
Also not a fan, but I have voted on these arguments in the past. I am generally not highly preferred by teams that run such arguments, so I don't see enough of these types of debates to be an expert. However, for whatever reason, I get to judge some high level performance teams each year and have some background in such arguments from these rounds. I will try to evaluate the arguments in such rounds and will not hesitate to vote against framework if the team advocating non-traditional debate wins sufficient warrants why I should reject the policy/topic framework. However, if a team engages the non-traditional positions, the team advocating such positions need to answer any such arguments in order to win. In other words, I will evaluate these debates like I try to evaluate any other issues, I will see what arguments clash and evaluate that clash, rewarding a team that can frame issues, compare and explain impacts. I have spent 20 plus years coaching a relatively resource deprived school trying to compete against very well resourced debate schools, so I am not unsympathetic to arguments based on inequities in policy debates. On the other hand I have also spent 20 plus years involved in non-debate activities and am not entirely convinced that the strategies urged by non-traditional debates work. Take both points for whatever you think they are worth in such debates.

POINTS

In varsity debate, I believe you have to minimally be able to clash with the other teams arguments, if you can’t do this, you won’t get over a 27.5. Anything between 28.8 and 29.2 means you are probably among the top 5% of debaters I have seen. I will check my points periodically against tournament averages and have adjusted upward in the past to stay within community norms. I think that if you are in the middle my points are pretty consistent. Unfortunately for those who are consistently in the top 5% of many tournaments, I have judged a lot of the best high school debaters over the years and it is difficult to impress me (e.g., above a 29). Michael Klinger, Stephen Weil, Ellis Allen, Matt Fisher and Stephanie Spies didn’t get 30s from me (and they were among my favorites of all time), so don’t feel bad if you don’t either.

OTHER STUFF
I dislike evaluating theory debates but if you make me I will do it and complain a lot about it later. No real predispositions on theory other than I would prefer to avoid dealing with it.

Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex.

I do not count general tech screw ups as prep time and quite frankly am not really a fascist about this kind of thing as some other judges, just don’t abuse my leniency on this.

Speed is fine (this is of course a danger sign because no one would admit that they can’t handle speed). If you are going too fast or are unclear, I will let you know. Ignore such warnings at your own peril, like with Kritiks, I am singularly unafraid to admit I didn’t get an answer and therefore will not vote on it.

I will read evidence if it is challenged by a team. Otherwise, if you say a piece of evidence says X and the other team doesn’t say anything, I probably won’t call for it and assume it says X. However, in the unfortunate (but fairly frequent) occurrence where both teams just read cards, I will call for cards and use my arbitrary and capricious analytical skills to piece together what I, in my paranoid delusional (and probably medicated) state, perceive is going on.

I generally will vote on anything that is set forth on the round. Don’t be deterred from going for an argument because I am laughing at it, reading the newspaper, checking espn.com on my laptop, throwing something at you etc. Debate is a game and judges must often vote for arguments they find ludicrous, however, I can and will still make fun of the argument. I will, and have, voted on many arguments I think are squarely in the realm of lunacy i.e. [INSERT LETTER] spec, rights malthus, Sun-Ra, the quotations and acronyms counterplan (OK I didn’t vote on either, even I have my limits), scaler collapse (twice), world government etc. (the likelihood of winning such arguments, however, is a separate matter). I will not hesitate to vote against teams for socially unacceptable behavior i.e. evidence fabrication, racist or sexist slurs etc., thankfully I have had to do that less than double digits time in my 35+ years of judging.

Updated - 1/4/24

Background: I debated in high school at Minneapolis South and in college at the University of Minnesota '17. I've coached policy debate for 10 years, and am currently the Head Coach of Minneapolis South high school.

If you have any questions about my paradigm/rfd/comments, feel free to email me at: tauringtraxler@gmail.com & also use this to put me on email chains, please and thank you.

I will enforce the tournament rules (speech times/prep/winner and loser, etc.), but the content of the round as well as how I evaluate the content is up to the debaters. Judge instruction is important -- my role is to decide who did the better debating, what determines that is up to you.

I'm comfortable with anything you want to do in debate as long as you're respectful of others. I give a lot of nonverbal feedback.

Quarry Lane, CA | 6-12 Speech/Debate Director | 2019-present
Harker, CA | 6-8 Speech/Debate Director | 2016-18
Loyola, CA | 9-12 Policy Coach | 2013-2016
Texas | Assistant Policy Coach 2014-2015
Texas | Policy Debater | 2003-2008 (2x NDT elims and 2x top 20 speaker)
Samuel Clemens, TX | Policy Debater | 1999-2003 (1x TOC qual)

Big picture:
- I don't read/flow off the doc.
- no evidence inserting. I read what you read.
- I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author/date + claim + warrant + data + impact" model) over breadth (the "author + claim + impact" model) any day.
- Ideas communicated per minute > words per minute. I'm old, I don't care to do a time trial of flowing half-warrants and playing "connect the dots" for impacts. 3/4 of debaters have terrible online practices, so this empirically applies even more so for online debates.
- I minimize the amount of evidence I read post-round to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). Don't let the evidence do the debating for you.
- I care a lot about data/method and do view risk as "everyone starts from zero and it goes up from there". This primarily lets me discount even conceded claims, apply a semi-laugh test to ridiculous arguments, and find a predictable tiebreaker when both sides hand me a stack of 40 cards.
- I'm fairly flexible in argument strategy, and either ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some highlights: wipeout, foucault k, the cp, regression framework, reg neg cp, consult china, cap k, deleuze k, china nano race, WTO good, indigenous standpoint epistemology, impact turns galore, biz con da, nearly every politics da flavor imaginable, this list goes on and on.
- I am hard to offend (though not impossible) and reward humor.
- You must physically mark cards.
- I think infinite world condo has gotten out of hand. A good rule of thumb as a proxy (taking from Shunta): 4-6 offcase okay, 7 pushing, if you are reading 8 or more, your win percentage and points go down exponentially. Also, I will never judge kick - make a decision in 2NR.
- 1NC args need to be complete, else I will likely buy new answers on the entire sheet. A DA without U or IL isn't complete. A CP without a card likely isn't complete. A K with just a "theory of power" but no links isn't complete. A T arg without a definition card isn't complete. Cards without any warrants/data highlighted (e.g. PF) are not arguments.
- I personally believe in open disclosure practices, and think we should as a community share one single evidence set of all cards previously read in a single easily accessible/searchable database. I am willing to use my ballot to nudge us closer.
-IP topic stuff - I have a law degree and am a tech geek, so anything that absolutely butchers the law will probably stay at zero even if dropped.

Topicality
-I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.
-I'm extremely unlikely to vote for a dropped hidden aspec or similar and extremely likely to tank your points for trying.
-We meet is yes/no question. You don't get to weigh standards and risk of.
-Aff Strategy: counter-interp + offense + weigh + defense or all in on we meet or no case meets = best path to ballot.

Framework against K aff
-in a tie, I vote to exclude. I think "logically" both sides framework arguments are largely empty and circular - the degree of actual fairness loss or education gain is probably statistically insignificant in any particular round. But its a game and you do you.
-I prefer the clash route + TVA. Can vote for fairness only, but harder sell.
-Very tough sell on presumption / zero subject formation args. Degree ballot shapes beliefs/research is between 0 and 1 with neither extreme being true, comparative claims on who shapes more is usually the better debate pivot.
-if have decent k or case strat against k aff, usually much easier path to victory because k affs just seem to know how to answer framework.
-Aff Strategy: Very tough sell for debate bad, personalized ballot pleas, or fairness net-bad. Lots of defense to predict/limits plus aff edu > is a much easier path to win.

Framework against neg K
-I default to (1) yes aff fiat (2) yes links to 1AC speech act (3) yes actual alt / framework isn't an alt (4) no you link you lose.
-Debaters can debate out (1) and (2), can sometimes persuade me to flip on (3), but will pretty much never convince me to flip on (4).

Case Debate
-I enjoy large complex case debates about the topic.
-Depth in explanation and impacting over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant or card comparison will do far more damage to the 1AR than 3 new cards that likely say same warrant as original card.

Disads
-Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments less so.

Counterplans
-I think literature should guide both plan solvency deficit and CP competition ground.
-For theory debates (safe to suspect): adv cps = uniqueness cps > plan specific PIC > topic area specific PIC > textual word PIK = domestic agent CP > ban plan then do "plan" cp = certainty CPs = delay CPs > foreign agent CP > plan minus penny PICs > private actor/utopian/other blatant cheating CP
-Much better for perm do cp (with severance justified because of THEORY) than perm other issues (with intrinsicness justified because TEXT/FUNCT COMP english games). I don't really believe in text+funct comp (just eliminates "bad" theory debaters, not actually "bad" counterplans, e.g. replace "should" with "ought").
-perms and theory are tests of competition and not a voter.
-debatable perms are - perm do both, do cp/alt, do plan and part of CP/alt. Probably okay for combo perms against multi-conditional plank cps. Only get 1 inserted perm text per perm flowed.
-Aff strategy: good for logical solvency deficits, solvency advocate theory, and high level theory debating. Won't presume CP solves when CP lacks any supporting literature.

Critiques
-I view Ks as a usually linear disad and the alt as a CP.
-Much better for a traditional alt (vote neg -> subject formation -> spills out) than utopian fiated alts, floating piks, movements alts, or framework is my second alt.
-Link turn case (circumvention) and/or impact turns case (root/prox cause) is very important.
-I naturally am a quantitative poststructuralist. Don't think I've ever willingly voted on an ontology argument or a "zero subject formation" argument. Very open to circumvention oriented link and state contingency link turn args.
-Role of ballot is usually just a fancy term for "didn't do impact calculus".
-No perms for method Ks is the first sign you don't really understand what method is.
-Aff strategy: (impact turn a link + o/w other links + alt fails) = (case spills up + case o/w + link defense + alt fails) > (fiat immediate + case o/w + alt too slow) > (perm double bind) > (ks are cheating).
-perms generally check clearly noncompetitive alt jive, but don't normally work against traditional alts if the neg has any link.

Lincoln Douglas
-no trix, phil, friv theory, offcase spam, or T args written by coaches.
-treat it like a policy round that ends in the 1AR and we'll both be happy.

Public Forum
-no paraphrasing, yes email chain, yes share speech doc prior to speech. In TOC varsity, points capped at 27.5 if violate as minimum penalty.
-if paraphrase, it's not evidence and counts as an analytic, and cards usually beat analytics.
-I think the ideal PF debate is a 2 advantage vs 2 disadvantage semi-slow whole rez policy debate, where the 2nd rebuttal collapses onto 1 and the 1st summary collapses onto 1 as well. Line by line, proper, complete argument extensions, weighing, and card comparisons are a must.
-Good for non-frivilous theory and proper policy style K. TOC level debaters usually good at theory but still atrocious executing the K, so probably don't go for a PF style K in front of me.
-prefer some civility and cross not devolve into lord of the flies.

Aaron Timmons

Director of Debate – Greenhill School

Former Coach USA Debate Team - Coach World Champions 2023

Curriculum Director Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshops

Updated – April 2024

Please put me on the email chain – timmonsa@greenhill.org

Contact me with questions.

General Musings

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is a critic of argument (if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label as a judge). I will evaluate your performance in as objective a method as possible. Unlike many adjudicators claim to be, I am not a blank slate. I will intervene if I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round. I WILL do my best to objectively evaluate your arguments, but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode (even hear) arguments is not true (nor true for anyone.)

I have coached multiple National and/or State Champions in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and World Schools Debate (in addition to interpretation/speech events). I still actively coach and I am involved in the strategy and argument creation of my students who compete for my school. Given the demands on my time, I do not cut as many cards as I once did for Policy and Lincoln Douglas. That said, I am more than aware of the arguments and positions being run in both of these formats week in and week out.

General thoughts on how I decide debates:

1 – Debate is a communication activity – I will flow what you say in speeches as opposed to flowing off of the speech documents (for the events that share documents). If I need to read cards to resolve an issue, I will do so but until ethos and pathos (re)gain status as equal partners with logos in the persuasion triangle, we will continue to have debates decided only on what is “in the speech doc.” Speech > speech doc.

2 – Be mindful of your “maximum rate of efficiency” – aka, you may be trying to go faster than you are capable of speaking in a comprehensible way. The rate of speed Is not a problem in many contemporary debates, the lack of clarity is an increasing concern. Unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together do not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think they might. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable. This does NOT mean you have to be slow; it does mean you need to be clear.

3 – Evidence is important - In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues and warrants (particularly empirical ones), are important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, but I am also likely to prefer your argument if the comparisons are done well.

4 – Online Debating – We have had two years to figure this out. My camera will be on. I expect that your camera is on as well unless there is a technical issue that cannot/has not been resolved in our time online. If there is an equity/home issue that necessitates that your camera is off, I understand that and will defer to your desire to it be off if that is the case. A simple, “I would prefer for my camera to be off” will suffice to inform me of your request.

5 – Disclosure is good (on balance) – I feel that debaters/teams should disclose on the wiki. I have been an advocate of disclosure for decades. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate. While I do think things like full source and/or round reports are good educational practices, I am not interested in hearing debates about those issues. ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.

6 – Zero risk is a possibility – There is a possibility of zero risks of an advantage or a disadvantage.

7 – My role as a judge - I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence after the debate that was not done by the students.

8 – Debate the case – It is a forgotten art. Your points will increase, and it expands the options for you to win the debate in the final negative rebuttal.

9 – Good “judge instructions” will make my job easier – While I am happy to make my judgments and comparisons between competing claims, I feel that students making those comparisons, laying out the order of operations, articulating “even/if” considerations, telling me how to weigh and then CHOOSING in the final rebuttals, will serve debaters well (and reduce frustrations on both our parts0.

10 – Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.

11 - Flowing is a prerequisite to good debating (and judging) - You should flow. I will be flowing your speech not from the doc, but your actual speech..

Policy Debate

I enjoy policy debate and given my time in the activity I have judged, coached, and seen some amazing students over the years.

A few thoughts on how I view judging policy debate:

Topicality vs Conventional Affs:

Traditional concepts of competing interpretations can be mundane and sometimes result in silly debates. Limiting out one affirmative will not save/protect limits or negative ground. Likewise, reasonability in a vacuum without there being a metric on what that means and how it informs my interpretation vis a vis the resolution lacks nuance as well. Topicality debaters who can frame what the topic should look like based on the topic, and preferably evidence to support why interpretation makes sense will be rewarded. The next step is saying why a more limiting (juxtaposed to the most limiting) topic makes sense helps to frame the way I would think about that version of the topic. A case list of what would be topical under your interpretation would help as would a list of core negative arguments that are excluded if we accept the affirmative interpretation or model of debate.

Topicality/FW vs critical affirmatives:

First – The affirmative needs to do something (and be willing to defend what that is). The negative needs to win that performance is net bad/worse than an alternative (be it the status quo, a counterplan, or a K alternative).

Second – The negative should have access to ground, but they do not get to predetermine what that is. Just because your generic da or counterplan does not apply to the affirmative does not mean the affirmative cannot be tested.

Conditionality

Conditionality is good but only in a limited sense. I do not think the negative gets unlimited options (even against a new affirmative). While the negative can have multiple counter plans, the affirmative will get leeway to creatively (re)explain permutations if the negative kicks (or attempts to add) planks to the counterplan(s), the 1ar will get some flexibility to respond to this negative move.

Counterplans and Disads:

Counterplans are your friend. Counterplans need a net benefit (reasons the affirmative is a bad/less than desirable idea. Knowing the difference between an advantage to the counterplan and a real net benefit seems to be a low bar. Process counterplans are harder to defend as competitive and I am sympathetic to affirmative permutations. I have a higher standard for many on permutations as I believe that in the 2AC “perm do the counterplan” and/or “perm do the alternative” do nothing to explain what that world looks like. If the affirmative takes another few moments to explain these arguments, that increases the pressure on the 2nr to be more precise in responding to these arguments.

Disadvantages that are specific to the advocacy of the affirmative will get you high points.

Lincoln Douglas

I have had students succeed at the highest levels of Lincoln Douglas Debate including multiple champions of NSDA, NDCA, the Tournament of Champions, as well as the Texas Forensic Association State Championships.

Theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex;” it cannot be unlimited. The negative does not need to run more than four off-case arguments

Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.

I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other team’s arguments. At its foundation, the debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.

I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.

I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.

Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seem silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card does not mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clashes are a necessary component of the debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of the clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. Any argument that says the other side cannot answer your position is fast-tracking to an L (with burnt cheese and marinara on top).

It takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Cross apply much of the policy section as well as the general musings on debate.

World Schools

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes. Countless times.

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

How would you describe World Schools Debate to someone else?

World Schools is modeled after parliament having argumentation presented in a way that is conversational, yet argumentatively rigorous. Debates are balanced between motions that are prepared, while some are impromptu. Points of Information (POIs) are a unique component of the format as speakers can be interrupted by their opponent by them asking a question or making a statement.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate? (required)

I keep a rigorous flow throughout the debate.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

These should be prioritized and compared by the students in the round. I do not have an ideological preference between principled or practical arguments.

The World Schools Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

Strategy (simply put) is how they utilize the content that has been introduced in the debate.

World Schools Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker were going too fast?

Style.

World Schools Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

Students are required to use analysis, examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side then make comparative claims about the superiority of their position.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Model quibbles are not fully developed arguments if they are only questions that are not fully developed or have an articulated impact.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I utilize the approach of comparative worlds to evaluate competing methods for resolving mutual problems/harms. The proposition must defend its model as being comparatively advantageous over a given alternative posed by the opposition. While many feel in World Schools a countermodel must be mutually exclusive. While that certainly is one method of assessing if a countermodel truly ‘forces a choice,” a feel a better stand is that of net benefits. The question should be if it is desirable to do both the propositions model and the opposition countermodel at the same time. If it is possible to do both without any undesirable outcomes, the negative has failed to prove the desirability of their countermodel. The opposition should explain why doing both would be a bad idea. The proposition should advance an argument as to why doing both is better than adopting the countermodel alone.

-Director of Debate at Little Rock Central High School
-Yes, email chain and sure, questions. Please put BOTH of these on chains: rosalia.n.valdez@gmail.com and lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com.

Virtual Debate Updates:

I am almost always using two computers so I can watch you speak and flow/look at docs. I would prefer that you debate with your camera on so that I can watch you speak, but PLEASE do feel free to turn it off if doing so stabilizes your audio.

Do NOT start at top speed. You should start a little slower anyway to allow judges to get acclimated to your speaking style, but I think this is especially important in virtual debate.

Do I understand why you don't want to flash theory/overviews/analytics? Of course. Do you have to do it? No. Will I be mad at you if you don't? Of course not. Would it help me flow better in many virtual debates? YES.

TL;DR

Do what you do and do it well. I will vote for who wins. Over-adaptation is exhausting and I can smell your soft-left add-ons a mile away. My voting record is a pretty clear indication that I judge a wide variety of debates. Who/what I coach(ed) are generally good indications of what I am about. Update: I've found myself recently in some seven off rounds. I really hate to say I am bad for any kind of debate, but I am bad for these rounds. Late-breaking debates make me tired and grumpy, and I find myself having to do way too much work in these debates to resolve them. If seven off is your thing, and I am your judge, do what you do I guess, but know this is probably the only explicit "don't pref me" in this whole paradigm.

Evidence/Argumentation/General

I care a lot about quality of evidence. I would much rather hear you read a few well-warranted cards than a wave of under-highlighted evidence. Same goes for redundant evidence; if you need six cards that “prove” your claim with the same words interchanged in the tag, your claim is probably pretty weak. Evidence does not (alone) a (winning) argument make.

I think I flow pretty throughly. I often flow in direct quotes. I do this for me, but I feel like it helps teams understand my decision as we talk after a round. I reward organized speakers and meaningful overviews. I am easily frustrated by a messy card doc.

I listen closely to cross-ex.

Ks

Neg teams lose when they don’t demonstrate how their arguments interact with the 1AC. Winning that the affirmative is “flawed” or “problematic” does not guarantee a neg ballot. In my mind, there are two ways to win the k versus a policy aff: either win that the effects of the plan make the world significantly worse OR win framework and go for epistemology/ontology links. Know when framework is important and when it’s not. Give analysis as to how your links implicate the world of the aff. This is where case mitigation and offense on why voting affirmative is undesirable is helpful. These debates are significantly lacking in impact calculus. Also - the alt needs to solve the links, not the aff - but if it does, great! If you win framework, this burden is lessened. Don’t spread through link explanations. I am seeing more debates where teams kick the alt and go for the links as disads to the aff. This is fine, but be wary of this strategy when the alt is what provides uniqueness to the link debate.

Conversely, affs typically lose these debates when there is little press on what the alternative does and little analysis of perm functions. However, some teams focus on the alt too much and leave much to be desired on the link debate (especially important for soft-left affs). Defend your reps. Your framework shell should also include a robust defense of policymaking, not just procedural fairness. The 1AR should actually answer the block’s framework answers. More impact turning rather than defensive, no-link arguments.

Also, running to the middle will not save you. Some Ks are going to get a link no matter what, and tacking on a structural impact to your otherwise straight policy aff will likely only supercharge the link. So. Read the aff you'd read in front of anybody in front of me. You're probably better at that version anyway.

K Affs vs. FW

For affs: I’m good for these although I do think that oftentimes the method is very poorly explained. Neg teams should really press on this and even consider going for presumption. Side note: I absolutely do not think that critical affs should have to win that the ballot is key for their method. Against framework, I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. The best aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good. I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than k tricks.

For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.

I feel similarly about theory debates in that they should focus on good/undesirable pedagogical practices. Arguments that explain the role of the ballot should not be self-serving and completely inaccessible by a particular team.

Topicality

Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my jam. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.

Arkansas Circuit

1. I’m not going to bump your speaks for thanking me and taking forever to start the round because you’re asking “opponent ready? judge ready? partner ready? observers ready?” for the first 20 minutes.
2. If you do not take notes during my RFD, I will leave.
3. Don’t clip. Why do debaters in Arkansas clip so much? Answer: Because I don’t judge very much in Arkansas.
4. Keep your own time.

jvt.debate@gmail.com - add to thread, please. COLLEGE ONLY - debatedocs@googlegroups.com

---

I did Policy Debate for 8 years at Solorio HS in Chicago (2016-2020) and at Dartmouth College (2020-2024).

I am at my best in debates where the Affirmative has presented a topical plan and the Negative strategy involves a counterplan and/or disadvantage.

Debate is a research-based communicative activity. Arguments that are divorced from external scholarship are not persuasive to me.

Answer arguments in the order presented.

Criticisms are A-OK, but if your speeches sound like they could be about any affirmative, I am unlikely to vote for you. Framework is ultimately an attempt to assign roles for proof/rejoinder. Debaters often forget to explain the implications of winning their interpretation on the scope of competition for the debate.

In Topicality debates I am more persuaded by arguments about limits than ground. With planless affirmatives, the biggest issue that must be resolved is what the desired role of the negative is and what kind of debates would be had under an alternative vision of the topic. I believe that this explanation should go beyond "the Neg gets the Cap K."

Basically ZERO patience for debate shenanigans. This is especially true of egregious Negative practices of conditionality.

---

ONLINE DEBATE:

If my camera is off, please assume that I am not at my computer and do not start speaking.

Bellarmine ‘19, Dartmouth ‘23

Email: tvergho@gmail.com – put me on the chain.

Last Updated: April 2024

Topic Knowledge: I coach for Bellarmine and Dartmouth, but am not deeply involved in topic research. Explain your arguments accordingly.

I have read and voted for all types of arguments. I really don’t care what you say. I appreciate debaters who engage the line-by-line, advance smart and well-researched arguments, and generally seem like they want to be there. The best debaters answer and reference arguments in the order they were presented, crystallize the debate into a few central issues in the final rebuttals, and frame the decision they want me to give by resolving those issues.

Tech over truth, but conceded arguments only have the implications you say they do. Nothing you say will convince me to stop flowing or abandon the line-by-line. Otherwise, any of my predispositions can be easily reversed by out-debating the other team.

The one exception to this is: post-TOC, I will no longer vote on "new affs bad" or a similar theory argument if newly read in the block. The standard I will enforce is that theory arguments that could feasibly have been introduced in the 1NC must be. Hiding cheap shots is not debating; debate as if you are grown.

Debaters should presume good-faith engagement by their opponents. If your strategy primarily relies on ad hominems, references to out-of-round events, screenshots, or accusations that could have been resolved by emailing your opponents or their coaches before the round, you should strike me.

Affs should probably be topical. I don’t have a strong ideological bias against planless affs, but evenly debated I’m skeptical of most common aff responses to framework. Procedural fairness is not automatically an impact.

Conditionality is fine. Anything else is a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

I default to judge kick. If equally debated, I’ll likely err negative as the logical extension of conditionality.

Objections to counterplans are generally better expressed through competition than theory.

You can insert re-highlightings as evidence indicts, provided that the re-highlighting actually comes from the card your opponent read. If it comes three paragraphs later, you actually have to read the part where the author concludes the other way. I will treat this as the equivalent of an evidence indict with added context. Advancing some extrinsic argument always requires reading the card.

Asking for a 30 = auto 25.

For a description of my procedure on evaluating in-round ethics and conduct issues, see here. (Largely stolen from Truf's paradigm.)

Jon Voss

Johns Creek

I've been around for a long time. Debate is not my full-time job anymore – I mostly sell vintage Pokemon cards – so with the unique exception of literature related to the Tiffany decision and the intricacies of running a small business on eBay/Mercari/Whatnot, my topic knowledge is limited to what I know about IPR from coursework completed earning my MBA and the years I spent in debate. I don't cut a ton of cards, I'm not really up on what teams are reading, I don't know what topicality norms were established over the summer, and I certainly don't know who is supposed to be good. I can still flow just as well as I used to, which is to say "barely."

Yes email chain: consult.australia at gmail. Please CC your coach if you are contacting me for feedback about a debate or something. Please also consider contacting someone with a better grasp on contemporary debate trends; my takes were last hot during the Obama years if they were ever hot at all.

> 95% of high school debates are not so close that my argument preferences would matter a whole lot. Your ability to identify the argument made by your opponent in the order they made the argument and respond to it in the next speech in the order the argument was presented ("tech") is the only thing that matters except at the margins and maybe not even then. The better team will win most rounds regardless of the judge, the arguments selected, etc. There are a handful of things that may matter to you though, especially if you are reading this anticipating that the debate I'm about to hear is going to be relatively evenly matched or otherwise fly off the rails.

-- I don't read along during the debate, ever. I won't even open the doc unless I think you're clipping. I want the doc so that I can begin my decision-making process immediately after the debate ends. This is important for how you debate -- using the speech doc instead of your flow as a guide is to your detriment.

-- I won't vote on arguments that call students' character into question based on behaviors outside of the specific debate I am judging. That includes introducing evidence that undermines a person's character as an argument during the debate itself. Judges who feel differently should grow tf up. Adults who coach students to leverage screenshots and personal attacks to win debates should leave the activity. Things said or done inside of a debate I'm judging are different: you can certainly make an argument that, for example, a team should lose the debate because they used gendered language. I'll stop the debate myself and let my esteemed colleagues in the tabroom handle it if it's egregious...I've had to do it twice, ever, against ~1500 rounds judged, but I'm not afraid.

-- Limited decision times and time wasting norms from the COVID years makes it more important than ever that the 2XR prioritize the easiest path to victory. I don't want to have to resolve any more issues than I absolutely have to. You want the same thing - left to my own devices, my reading comprehension and argument resolution skills will shock and dismay some of you.

-- If I can understand > 90% of the words you say (including the text of your evidence), the floor for speaker points is 29. If I cannot understand > 50% of the words you say (including the text of your evidence), the ceiling for speaker points is a 27 and you're almost certain to lose because I missed at least half of your arguments. If you debate close to conversationally and win the debate while demonstrating exemplary command of the relevant issues, I might even start throwing some 30s around. Just speak more slowly and clearly. You will debate better. I will understand your argument better. Judges who understand your argument with more clarity than your opponent's argument are likely to side with you.

-- a note on plan texts: say what you mean, mean what you say, and have an advocate that supports it. If the AFF's plan is resolutional word salad, will be unapologetically rooting for NEG exploitation in the way of cplan competition, DA links, and/or presumption-style takeouts. I guess the flip side of this is that I have never heard a persuasive explanation of a way to evaluate topicality arguments outside of the words in the plan text, so as long as the AFF goes for some sort of "we meet" argument, I'm basically unwilling to vote NEG on T assuming reasonable 2AR execution. "The plan text says most or all of the resolution (and another word or three) but their solvency evidence describes something very different," is an extremely persuasive line of argument, but I think it's a solvency argument.

-- Rehighlighting - you've gotta read it and explain what you believe to be the implication of whatever portion of their evidence you read. I'm somewhat sympathetic to allowing insertion as a check against (aggressively) declining evidence quality in debate, but debate is first and foremost a communicative activity.

-- In favor of fewer, better-developed 1NC arguments. I don't have a specific number that I think is best: I've seen 1NC's that include three totally unwinnable offcase arguments and 1NC's that include six or seven viable ones. But generally I think the law of diminishing marginal returns applies. Burden of proof is a precondition of the requirement that the affirmative answer the argument, and less ev/fewer highlighted words in the name of more offcase positions seems to make it less likely that the neg will fulfill the aforementioned burden of proof.

-- Highlighting, or lack thereof, has completely jumped the shark. Read more words.

-- I am generally bad for broad-strokes “framing” arguments that ask the judge to presume that the risk of <> is especially low. Indicts of mini-max risk assessment make sense in the abstract, but it is the affirmative’s responsibility to apply these broad theories to whatever objections the negative has advanced. “The aff said each link exponentially reduces the probability of the DA, and the DA has links, so you lose” is a weak ballot and one that I am unexcited to write.

-- I am often way less interested in "impact defense" than "link defense." This is equally true of my thoughts toward negative disadvantages and affirmative advantages. For example, if the aff wins with certainty that they stop a US-China war, I'm highly unlikely to vote neg and place my faith in our ability to the big red telephone at the White House to dampen the conflict. Similarly, if the neg wins that your plan absolutely crashes the economy by disrupting the market or causing some agenda item to fail, I will mostly be unconcerned that there are some other historical explanations for great power wars than "resource scarcity." The higher up the link "chain" you can indict your opponent's argument, the better.

-- Don't clip cards. If you're accusing a team of it, you need to be able to present me with a quality recording to review. Burden of proof lies with the accusing team, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is my standard for conviction. If you advance any sort of ethics challenge, the debate ends and is decided on the grounds of that ethics challenge alone.

-- Yes judge kick unless one team explicitly makes an argument that convinces me to conceive differently of presumption. Speaking of, presumption is "least amount of change" no matter what. This could mean that presumption *still* lies with the neg even if the aff wins the status quo is no longer something the judge can endorse (but only if the CP is less change than the plan).

-- Fairly liberal with the appropriate scope of negative fiat as it relates to counterplans. Fairly aff-leaning regarding counterplan competition, at least in theory -- but evidence matters more than general pleas to protect affirmative competitive equity. I could be convinced otherwise, but my default has always been that the neg advocate must be as good as whatever the aff is working with. This could mean that an “advocate-less” counterplan that presses an internal link is fair game if the aff is unable to prove that they…uh…have an internal link.

-- T-USFG: Debate is no longer my full-time job, so I think I have a little less skin in the game on this issue. But I'm probably at best a risky bet for affirmatives hoping to beat a solid 2NR on T-USFG. If you do have me in this type of debate:

**Affirmative teams should probably just impact turn everything the neg says and hope the 2N hasn't had their coffee yet. I am likely to be persuaded by the stock negative responses to those impact turns, but at least then it's just an impact comparison debate. And while that road to victory is still treacherous with me, "where there is a link there is a way."

**Affirmatives would be well served to prioritize the link between defending a particular state action and broader observations about the flaws of the state.

**Procedural fairness is most important. The ballot can rectify fairness violations much more effectively than it can change anything else, and I am interested in endorsing a vision of debate that is procedurally fair. This is both the single strongest internal link to every other thing debate can do for a student and a standalone impact. I am worse for the “portable skills” impacts about information processing, decision-making, etc.

**It is helpful, but not imperative, that the negative prove that the affirmative's literature could have been introduced in support of a topical advocacy and/or when debating as the negative team.

This is moved to the bottom because it was written during the 23-24 topic, but it's still instructive about how you might approach a deep impact/impact-turn debate if I'm judging:

-- Broadly, unless you can't avoid it, don't. This isn't an argument preference or literature thing; I just very authentically (and, I think, correctly) believe I am much worse at judging these debates than those that involve more external interactions between arguments. I'll give it my best shot no matter what...but you've been warned.

-- Almost every debate I've seen so far this year has collapsed into a very-hard-to-resolve "growth good"/"degrowth good" debate. These have been late-breaking and I spent the bulk of my decision time wading through ev that didn't get me any closer to an answer I found satisfactory. In each instance, I was unhappy with amount of intervention and lack of depth involved in my decision. In that regard:

*if there's a winning final rebuttal that does not require you to wade into these waters, give that speech instead. I am willing (and maybe even eager) to grab onto something external and use that as a cudgel to decide that the growth debate was difficult to resolve and vote on . I think I would be receptive, too, to arguments about how I should react in a debate that you think might be difficult to resolve, but this is just a hunch.

*you would almost certainly be better-served debating evidence that's already been read instead of reading more cards. This is especially true if the 1ac/1nc/both included a bunch of evidence on this issue...your fourth, "yes mindset shift" card is unlikely to win you the debate (or even the specific argument in question) but debating the issue in greater detail than the other team might.

*debated equally, I'm meaningfully better for the standard defenses of growth, especially as it relates to successfully achieving the changes that would be necessary to create a sustainable model of degrowth.

Updated 1/7/23 for clipping/ethics challenge policy (at bottom)

2011-2014 in Kansas in high school, 2014-2018 at Baylor University, 2018-2024 GTA for KU, now work and coach there.

Add me to the email chain please: aewalberg@gmail.com and rockchalkdebate@gmail.com (college only)

Top Level

Do what you do best, I will do my best to be unbiased when evaluating arguments. I tend to take a long time making decisions regardless of the round, so don't read into it.

Judge instruction/telling me how to write my ballot is really important, points will be higher and you'll be more likely to win if you put the pieces together in the 2NR/2AR, are honest about the parts of the debate you're winning and losing, actually make decisions about what to go for, etc.

As I continue to judge, I find myself prioritizing tech over truth more and more, exception being when arguments/debates are violent, unsafe, etc. This means that you might think an argument is totally nonsensical, nonresponsive, etc. and I might agree, but you have to make those arguments in a speech in order for me to consider them when making my decision. If you want me to evaluate the debate through a lens other than tech, you should say that and explain what that means/why that mode of evaluation is better.

I think you should probably have to read re-highlighted ev, not just insert it. Open to persuasion but debates where both teams are inserting re-highlightings without analysis or explanation are negative persuasive to me.

I am generally open to whatever arguments you want to run, the substantive exception is wipeout. More critical arguments about death are fine, but I am not particularly interested in listening to or voting on suffering outweighs any potential for pleasure/we are primed to be afraid afraid of death but should die anyway.

I will read along with you in the doc while you are reading cards but I will not read along with the analytics you send, that's not a substitute for clarity or slowing down to give pen time (I flow on paper). I also don't generally re-read a ton of evidence at the end of the debate unless told to, your analysis/explanation in round is much more important to me. If I'm in a position at the end of the debate where I have to put things together myself by sorting through a lot of evidence that received very little explanation, neither of us will probably be particularly happy with the decision.

Pet peeves: talking over each other in CX excessively---I cannot hear or understand anyone when this happens especially online, asking what cards were/weren't read in a speech if it's not prep time or cx, not having the email chain ready or sent when round start time hits, stealing prep (if it's not speech, cx, or prep time you shouldn't be typing/talking), calling me by my first name when we don't know each other. They're small things and old grumpy judge complaints, but they'll give you a sizable speaker point boost.

Online Debate

Slow down, be clearer. Make sure you can hear judges/other people in the round so you don't miss people telling you to pause or repeat an order.

Theory

I will vote on it if you win it, but that probably means you need more than one sentence on it in the 2AC. Slow down on these debates. I lean condo being the only reason to reject the team.

T

Slow down some. Impact it out in the 2NR. Don't forget to explain what winning competing interps or reasonability actually means for you.

DAs and CPs

I don't do a lot of topic research, so it'll be helpful for both of us if you do a little more explanation on topic specific things like link stories/solvency mechanisms/etc.

Good analytics can definitely beat a crappy DA. Winning terminal defense/zero percent risk is possible.

Ks

Explain why winning framework matters for you and how you still win the debate even if you lose framework.

You don't necessarily need a material alt to win if you go for framework.

2ACs should explicitly answer each of the link arguments even if it's just by explaining that it's a link to the status quo, a block that can impact out a dropped link argument well is likely to get my ballot as long as they are somewhat ahead on the framework or impact framing debate.

K Affs

Good. I do think it is possible to vote neg on presumption, so specific analysis about aff solvency or method is important. I find myself voting overwhelmingly aff in debates where the negative concedes the aff in the 2NR, so I strongly recommend extending your best 1 or 2 case arguments regardless of what else you're going for.

Framework

Neg: Best neg args are usually about models but can be persuaded it's about this round. Explain why fairness, clash, etc. is an impact and how your model accesses the aff's impacts. A well-developed TVA is great. These debates are pretty hard to win in front of me if you fully concede case.

Aff: Explain what debate looks like under your counter interp or counter model of debate or explain why you don't need a counter model. I am not a huge fan of the 2AC strategy of saying as many disads to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out, two well-developed disads are more powerful than seven one-line ones.

Debate Ethics

If I cannot follow along in the evidence as you're reading it due to clarity issues or I can see you're skipping words as I'm following along, I will clear you once. If you continue skipping words or clipping and the other team does not call it out, I will let the debate continue and give feedback for educational purposes but will drop the team clipping. If you're clipping and the other team does call it out and issues an ethics challenge or otherwise ends the debate, I will end the debate, drop the team clipping, and give feedback based on the debate thus far.

If there is an ethics challenge issued and the debate is stopped, the team who is correct (about the clipping, miscut evidence, citation problem, etc.) wins the debate. Arguments about evidence ethics can be made absent an ethics challenge and without stopping the debate; for example, when connected to a citational politics argument. However, if one team says to stop the round because something is an ethics challenge, the round will stop and the team who is correct about the issue will win.

Arguments that are racist, transphobic or queerphobic, sexist, or that otherwise make the debate violent or unsafe will result in contacting your adults/coaches and a response proportional to/appropriate given what is said.

About Me:

Georgetown LW

Homestead MW

Put me on the chain: zidao.debate@gmail.com.

Conflicts: Westwood, Northside, GBS, Woodward.

Top Level:

Debate is a competitive activity that emphasizes research and persuasion. The best debaters possess skills regarding both.

Great debaters make strategic choices backed up with well warranted arguments and well researched evidence. I love seeing confident debaters demonstrating the culmination of a year's worth of research through the arguments they make, whether that's an innovative new counterplan or a topic specific K.

I don't think I have any major anomalies as a judge that should heavily impact the way you debate. I am open to judging and deciding any argument.

My biases will only come into play at the absolute margins. All can be overcome with technical debating.

I have three non-negotiables:

1 - Debate should not be about issues that occurred outside the round. If something has occurred outside the debate that threatens the well-being of any of the debaters, I will end the round and go to tab.

2 - Everyone must follow speech times, speech orders, prep time, there will be one winner and loser, etc.

3 - No asking for speaks or crowd participation.

Decision-making:

Tech over truth. However, truth significantly helps your ability to win the argument. Unwarranted or ridiculous arguments can be easily dismissed, but you must answer them.

Zero risk is possible, but my threshold is higher than some other judges. For example, if the 2NR drops "fiat solves the link to the politics DA" and it was well-warranted in the 1AR, I would likely assign the DA zero risk.

Try or die does exist. It is when either in the world of the DA or the case, there is no defense to the claim that extinction is inevitable (Ex: 2NR goes for only alt causes to climate change). However, I can be persuaded to discount that frame by either team.

Author quals matter. Cards written by undergrads, etc. should not be given much weight.

Clarity and ease of communication > extremely fast/unclear subpoints that are impossible to flow. Nine times out of ten you are better off slowing down and emphasizing strong moments of connection.

I am not a robot. Debate is a communicative activity. Sounding like you're winning will help.

You can insert re-highlightings if it's within the text of the card that was already read, but you must give it context and explain the implication. If you're inserting something 3 paragraphs after the original card, you have to read it.

If your evidence is extremely under-highlighted, you will have a tough time selling me in a close debate.

Theory:

On the Aff, everything seems to be a reason to reject the argument except condo (but you have to say it).

I will judge condo like any other debate. However, I am intuitively more persuaded by Neg flex than most Aff objections.

The less intuitive the CP is, the more likely I am to be skeptical of it absent evidence. I am a harder sell for solvency advocate theory.

T vs Plans:

Topicality says this debate should not have occurred because the Aff was not within the bounds of the agreed upon resolution. Therefore, it asks me to forego evaluating a debate about the topic in favor of punishing the Aff.

I default to offense/defense in lieu of a reasonability argument. However, an offensively framed reasonability argument can be persuasive to me in light of my above thoughts. This must be grounded in predictable and qualified counter-interp evidence. Additionally, the Aff must win a significant amount of defense to Neg standards.

I don’t view reasonability as a gut check or a decision based on “vibes.” A successful reasonability argument still requires the Aff to win offense for why viewing the difference between two interps through the lens of offense/defense is a bad frame. It is also grounded in the reasonable doubt burden of proof in criminal law.

I am most likely to vote Neg when they are winning a large link to limits, doing concrete impact calculus, and explaining why they have an inroads to predictability/why Neg ground outweighs.

DAs:

DA turns case/solves case can be high impact. The earlier this debate gets started the better. It's also far more persuasive if you can get it higher up the link chain (ie: link turns solvency > nuke war turns warming).

I care a lot about the story-telling component of DAs. In other words, don't debate the parts of the DAs like a bunch of disaggregated pieces without a clear vision. Focus on the core narrative of the DA and ensure that your line by line supports that narrative. Ultimately, I need to be able to articulate in a few sentences the thrust of the scenario the Neg is trying to sell me. Similarly, the Aff needs to explain why the Neg's story is inaccurate.

Impact turns can be great debates, but the closer they get to spark/wipeout the more they start feeling like bad debates.

CPs:

Explanation is crucial. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates and what internal links or impacts the Negative is claiming it solves. This necessity is magnified by vague 1NC planks without solvency advocates.

Compare what the counterplan does to the 1AC internal links/impacts. Explicit comparison of these warrants can be a great help when evaluating the "sufficiency" of counterplan planks.

Not the greatest for process stuff that is not about the plan. If you have a net benefit that is a reason the plan is bad or even genuinely mutually exclusive with the 1AC, then I will be extremely receptive on competition. However, most consult and process backfiles are not competitive given equal debating. Best route to an Aff ballot vs these CPs are perms. This preference, like all other preferences, will not come into play unless the debate is extremely close.

If two teams are advancing different visions of competition in the final rebuttals, I will strictly evaluate the offense and defense for each interpretation.

PICs are fine if they result in something different than the Aff. Not the best for word PICs that do the entire plan. If you have good evidence that the inclusion of a certain topic word affects the plan implementation, then I am much easier to sell on your word PIC. This needs to be grounded in an argument about what constitutes a function.

Ks:

The more your K is secretly a counterplan and a DA, the better I am for it. If your K does not exclude weighing the plan, I find it important for there to be an associated framework argument that checks back against an otherwise relatively persuasive 2AR on perm double bind.

I'm not willing to split the middle ground on framework arbitrarily. If the Aff is saying "No Ks" and the Neg is saying "Only Reps Matter" in the final rebuttals, I will decide on one or the other. However, either team can advocate for a middle ground during the debate and I will be receptive. If you are doing this, make sure to clearly explain what your interpretation looks like and how I should make decisions based on that framework.

I am worse than average for Ks that entirely moot the plan. If equally debated, I find fairness and clash objections to these relatively persuasive. I evaluate these type of Ks similarly to how I would evaluate competition for a Process CP. To win, Affs need to be technically sufficient and answer all tricks/checklist items.

The best 2NRs make clear strategic choices on the K. I find myself voting Aff most consistently when the 2NR fails to collapse the debate down to a core set of issues. (Ex: Going for too many links, trying to both win fiat Ks and links to the plan, not developing your core theory of power enough). Similarly, most 2ARs against the K have to win a few core issues, and the rest usually falls into place.

K Affs:

I will flow and listen to any 1AC. You do not have to read a plan. All you need to do is out tech the other team. If you can’t do this, I am likely to be persuaded by T.

Against T, I am equally fine for an Aff that defends a counter-interp and an Aff that just impact turns. If the Aff wins that topically itself is violent, then a lot of objections about "models" or "ballet solvency" seem to go away. However, I find most objections to the reading of topicality unpersuasive.

I have no experience adjudicating K v K debates. I don't find "no perms" persuasive, but am entirely open to other things besides the advocacy statement being a basis for philosophical competition.

I am also good for impact turns. Does the 1AC say "attempting to control other states" is bad? Sounds like NPT Good is offense. Did the 2AC say reject "all instances of American imperialism?" Sounds like you can say Heg Good. My biggest comment about going for these sort of impact turn 2NRs is that teams need to do explicit judge instruction about what should be a "win condition" for the Neg. This will help hedge back against a 2AR that says it's only a debate about debate. Similarly for the Aff, I think defending your epistemic commitments, either through substantive answers/cross-apps from case or Ks of the impacts, is more persuasive than no linking everything.

If the Aff reads a plan but says it's good for a deontological reason like Kant or Buddhism, I think T is basically unwinnable.

Ethics/Decorum:

Assertiveness and humor is great and will boost your speaks. Have fun! I love debate and love to see people enjoying the activity.

Minimizing dead time in debates will not only allow me to make better and more helpful decisions (by giving me more decision time), but will also help your speaks.

Clipping= L + 0. This needs to be multiple lines, not a couple words. Any team may initiate an ethics challenge about clipping or other procedural violations (there must be recorded evidence). If I conclude the team is incorrect, they will lose the round and receive a 25. I will also self police this.

Overt sexism, racism, homophobia, etc = L+0. I am an educator that is responsible for the well-being of minors during the duration of the round. Threats of physical or psychological violence will never be acceptable. I will decide where to draw the line, but it would behoove you to ensure that you are FAR away from that line as possible with your decorum. I will not hesitate to instantly end the round, give you an L+0, and escalate the situation to tab.

Speaker points:

If you opensource (every card you've read) and let me know before the RFD, you will get .2 extra speaks.

If you give the final rebuttal without the use of a laptop, you will get .2 extra speaks (inspired by DKP).

uiuc '25 economics and political science

Glenbrook South '21

Nedwdebate@gmail.com

Top level:

-I did debate for three years and primarily ran policy arguments

-I don't care what arguments you run as long as it isn't racist/sexist/homophobic/harmful towards your opponents

-Like everyone, I think carded evidence and the quality of evidence is really important. However, bad evidence or analytical assertions still need be answered. If unanswered, I will presume the analytical assertion or bad evidence to be true.

-I know nothing about the topic this year

-I won't vote on stuff that happened outside of round.

-below are a few biases that I hold that I doubt will ever factor into a decision unless the debate is super close

T

I find myself more persuaded by limits internal links as opposed to ground ones. I think I am probably a better judge for reasonability than most if impacted out correctly.

DAs/CPs

nothing to say here

Theory

I am open to voting for pretty much any theory argument if argued well. However some theory args (condo bad, object fiat bad, international fiat bad, multiactor, etc.) are better than others (new affs bad, Ks bad, no negative fiat, etc.) You are also probably better off arguing for theory as a reason to reject the argument but do whatever you think gives you the best chance at winning. I default to judge kicking the CP, if no arguments are raised about it.

K things

I probably lean aff on questions of weighing the aff, but I am pretty easily convinced of the other side. I am also pretty middle of the road on Framework v K affs.

Impact framing

It is very odd to me that some judges put in their paradigms that util and consequentialism are not up for debate. Consequentialism versus deontology is a massive debate in ethics. It is still a bit of an uphill battle for soft left affs because policy analysis lends itself to consequentialist framing and because most of the arguments the aff chooses to make in these debate are not persuasive to me. However, this is all to say that I am more open to non-consequentialist impact assessment after not doing policy debate for nearly two years.

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

add me to the email chain: whit211@gmail.com

Do not utter the phrase "plan text in a vacuum" or any other clever euphemism for it. It's not an argument, I won't vote on it, and you'll lose speaker points for advancing it. You should defend your plan, and I should be able to tell what the plan does by reading it.

Inserting things into the debate isn't a thing. If you want me to evaluate evidence, you should read it in the debate.

Cross-ex time is cross-ex time, not prep time. Ask questions or use your prep time, unless the tournament has an official "alt use" time rule.

You should debate line by line. That means case arguments should be responded to in the 1NC order and off case arguments should be responded to in the 2AC order. I continue to grow frustrated with teams that do not flow. If I suspect you are not flowing (I visibly see you not doing it; you answer arguments that were not made in the previous speech but were in the speech doc; you answer arguments in speech doc order instead of speech order), you will receive no higher than a 28. This includes teams that like to "group" the 2ac into sections and just read blocks in the 2NC/1NR. Also, read cards. I don't want to hear a block with no cards. This is a research activity.

Debate the round in a manner that you would like and defend it. I consistently vote for arguments that I don’t agree with and positions that I don’t necessarily think are good for debate. I have some pretty deeply held beliefs about debate, but I’m not so conceited that I think I have it all figured out. I still try to be as objective as possible in deciding rounds. All that being said, the following can be used to determine what I will most likely be persuaded by in close calls:

If I had my druthers, every 2nr would be a counterplan/disad or disad/case.

In the battle between truth and tech, I think I fall slightly on side of truth. That doesn’t mean that you can go around dropping arguments and then point out some fatal flaw in their logic in the 2AR. It does mean that some arguments are so poor as to necessitate only one response, and, as long as we are on the same page about what that argument is, it is ok if the explanation of that argument is shallow for most of the debate. True arguments aren’t always supported by evidence, but it certainly helps.

I think research is the most important aspect of debate. I make an effort to reward teams that work hard and do quality research on the topic, and arguments about preserving and improving topic specific education carry a lot of weight with me. However, it is not enough to read a wreck of good cards and tell me to read them. Teams that have actually worked hard tend to not only read quality evidence, but also execute and explain the arguments in the evidence well. I think there is an under-highlighting epidemic in debates, but I am willing to give debaters who know their evidence well enough to reference unhighlighted portions in the debate some leeway when comparing evidence after the round.

I think the affirmative should have a plan. I think the plan should be topical. I think topicality is a voting issue. I think teams that make a choice to not be topical are actively attempting to exclude the negative team from the debate (not the other way around). If you are not going to read a plan or be topical, you are more likely to persuade me that what you are doing is ‘ok’ if you at least attempt to relate to or talk about the topic. Being a close parallel (advocating something that would result in something similar to the resolution) is much better than being tangentially related or directly opposed to the resolution. I don’t think negative teams go for framework enough. Fairness is an impact, not a internal link. Procedural fairness is a thing and the only real impact to framework. If you go for "policy debate is key to skills and education," you are likely to lose. Winning that procedural fairness outweighs is not a given. You still need to defend against the other team's skills, education and exclusion arguments.

I don’t think making a permutation is ever a reason to reject the affirmative. I don’t believe the affirmative should be allowed to sever any part of the plan, but I believe the affirmative is only responsible for the mandates of the plan. Other extraneous questions, like immediacy and certainty, can be assumed only in the absence of a counterplan that manipulates the answers to those questions. I think there are limited instances when intrinsicness perms can be justified. This usually happens when the perm is technically intrinsic, but is in the same spirit as an action the CP takes This obviously has implications for whether or not I feel some counterplans are ultimately competitive.

Because I think topic literature should drive debates (see above), I feel that both plans and counterplans should have solvency advocates. There is some gray area about what constitutes a solvency advocate, but I don’t think it is an arbitrary issue. Two cards about some obscure aspect of the plan that might not be the most desirable does not a pic make. Also, it doesn’t sit well with me when negative teams manipulate the unlimited power of negative fiat to get around literature based arguments against their counterplan (i.e. – there is a healthy debate about federal uniformity vs state innovation that you should engage if you are reading the states cp). Because I see this action as comparable to an affirmative intrinsicness answer, I am more likely to give the affirmative leeway on those arguments if the negative has a counterplan that fiats out of the best responses.

My personal belief is probably slightly affirmative on many theory questions, but I don’t think I have voted affirmative on a (non-dropped) theory argument in years. Most affirmatives are awful at debating theory. Conditionality is conditionality is conditionality. If you have won that conditionality is good, there is no need make some arbitrary interpretation that what you did in the 1NC is the upper limit of what should be allowed. On a related note, I think affirmatives that make interpretations like ‘one conditional cp is ok’ have not staked out a very strategic position in the debate and have instead ceded their best offense. Appeals to reciprocity make a lot sense to me. ‘Argument, not team’ makes sense for most theory arguments that are unrelated to the disposition of a counterplan or kritik, but I can be persuaded that time investment required for an affirmative team to win theory necessitates that it be a voting issue.

Critical teams that make arguments that are grounded in and specific to the topic are more successful in front of me than those that do not. It is even better if your arguments are highly specific to the affirmative in question. I enjoy it when you paint a picture for me with stories about why the plans harms wouldn’t actually happen or why the plan wouldn’t solve. I like to see critical teams make link arguments based on claims or evidence read by the affirmative. These link arguments don’t always have to be made with evidence, but it is beneficial if you can tie the specific analytical link to an evidence based claim. I think alternative solvency is usually the weakest aspect of the kritik. Affirmatives would be well served to spend cross-x and speech time addressing this issue. ‘Our authors have degrees/work at a think tank’ is not a response to an epistemological indict of your affirmative. Intelligent, well-articulated analytic arguments are often the most persuasive answers to a kritik. 'Fiat' isn't a link. If your only links are 'you read a plan' or 'you use the state,' or if your block consistently has zero cards (or so few that find yourself regularly sending out the 2nc in the body rather than speech doc) then you shouldn't be preffing me.

LD Specific Business:

I am primarily a policy coach with very little LD experience. Have a little patience with me when it comes to LD specific jargon or arguments. It would behoove you to do a little more explanation than you would give to a seasoned adjudicator in the back of the room. I will most likely judge LD rounds in the same way I judge policy rounds. Hopefully my policy philosophy below will give you some insight into how I view debate. I have little tolerance and a high threshold for voting on unwarranted theory arguments. I'm not likely to care that they dropped your 'g' subpoint, if it wasn't very good. RVI's aren't a thing, and I won't vote on them.

Live Laugh Love Debate

zwillingham04@gmail.com

Washburn Rural '22

University of Kansas '26

Assistant for Washburn Rural

General Thoughts

I’m studying math and environmental engineering. I don’t know much about intellectual property.

Debate is a technical game of strategy. If you debate more technically and more strategically, you will likely win. Read whatever and however you like. Any style or argument can win if executed well enough or if answered poorly enough. I don’t believe judges should have any predetermined biases for any argument. Dropped arguments are true.

I am operating under the assumption that you have put in considerable effort to be here and you want to win. I will try to put reciprocal effort into making an objective decision unless you have done something to indicate those assumptions are incorrect.

Nothing you say or do will offend me, but lack of respect for your opponents will not be tolerated.

My background is very policy-oriented. I strategically chose to talk about cyber-security instead of criminal justice and water resources. The best argument is always the one that wins. Do what you are best at.

My favorite part about debate is the way different arguments interact with each other across different pages. The way to beat faster and more technical teams is to make smart cross-applications and concessions.

Except for the 2AR, what is "new" is up for debate. Point out your opponent's new arguments and explain why they are not justified.

Evidence is very important. I only read cards after the debate if the issue has been contested. A dropped card is still dropped even if it is trash. Quality > Quantity. I do not see any strategic utility in reading multiple the cards that say the same thing. Card dumping is effective when each card has unique warrants.

Cross-ex is very important. Use it to set up your strategy, not to clarify what cards were skipped. I appreciate it when the final rebuttals quote lines from cross-ex/earlier speeches. Cross ex about things that will be relevant to the 2NR and 2AR.

I do not want to hear a prepped out ethics violation. Tell the team before the round.

I do not want to hear an argument about something that happened outside of the round.

Rehighlightings can be inserted as long as you explain what the rehighlighting says. I see it as more specific evidence comparison.

Argument Specific

Topicality:

Your interpretation is the tag of your definition. If there is any discrepancy between the tag and the body of the card, that is a precision indict but not a reason the aff meets.

Counterplans:

I enjoy quality competition debates. I like tricky perms. Put the text in the doc.

"Links less" makes sense to me for certain disads, but makes it harder for the net benefit to outweigh the deficit. Perm do both is probabilistic. Perm do the counterplan is binary.

If a perm has not been extended, solvency automatically becomes a net benefit.

Most theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I will not reject the team even on a dropped theory argument unless there is a coherent warrant for why it would not be enough to only reject the argument.

I will only judge kick (without being told) if it has been established that conditionality is good.

Advantages/Disadvantages:

Most scenarios are very construed. Logical analytical arguments can substantially mitigate them. I do not like it when the case debate in the 1NC is only impact defense.

Punish teams for reading new impacts in the 2AC and block.

Extinction means the end of the species. Most impacts do not rise to this threshold. Point it out.

"Try or die" or similar impact framing is very persuasive when executed properly. If the negative doesn't extend a counterplan or impact defense, they are likely to lose.

Zero risk is possible if your opponent has entirely dropped an argument and the implication of that argument is that the scenario is 0. However, I can be convinced that many arguments, even when dropped, do not rise to that level.

Kritiks v Policy Affs:

I will determine which framework interpretation is better and use that to evaluate the round. I will not adopt a middle ground combination of both interpretations unless someone has convinced me that is the best option (which it usually is).

Make it very explicit what the win condition is for you if you win framework. Only saying "The 1AC is an object of research" does not tell me how I determine the winner.

If the K is just one of many off case positions and the block reads a bunch of new cards, the 1AR probably gets to say any new thing they want.

Perm double bind makes a lot of sense to me. The negative needs a reason why the plan and alt are mutually exclusive, a reason why the inclusion of the plan makes the alt insolvent, or framework offense the perm can’t resolve (this is your best bet).

Planless Affs:

All affirmatives should endorse a departure from the status quo.

I do not like it when the 1AC says X is bad, the 1NC says X is good, and the 2AC says no link.

Things to boost speaks, but won't affect wins and losses

Give final rebuttals off paper.

Number/subpoint arguments.

Impact turn whenever you can. Straight turn every disad if you're brave. I love chaos, but the final rebuttals better be resolving things.

Good wiki and disclosure practices.

Don't read arguments that can be recycled every year.

Stand up for cross-ex right when the timer ends. Send docs quickly. Preferably in the last few seconds of their speech.

Make jokes. Have fun. Respect your opponents. Good-natured insults can be funny but read the room.

Pretty speech docs. I will subconsciously judge you need for bad formatting.

Debate with integrity. Boo cheapshots. It is better to lose with honor, than win by fraud.

LD

I’ve never had the privilege of sitting through an entire LD round so if there is specific vocabulary I am not in the loop. Assume I have minimal topic knowledge.

Tell me why you access their offense, why it is the most important thing, and why they don’t access their offense. Be strategic.

Answer your opponent’s arguments explicitly. I want to hear “They say x, but y because z”.

I'd like to be added to the email chain mwoodcock692@gmail.com

(he/him)

email chain >> speech drop

Experience:

Debating:

I debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

Debated two years at KU (alliances and antitrust)

Coaching:

Lansing (2020-2022)

Shawnee Mission South (current) :)

Top Level -

1. Tech over truth, the only scenario in which I may look towards truth rather than tech is as a means to break a tie in portions of debates that are extremely difficult to resolve (i.e. lack of clash)

2. Don’t let anything said in this paradigm discourage you from reading/going for any argument, the best debates are ones where people have devoted ample time in researching the argumentative positions they read. I enjoy debate and will put my best effort into my decision because of the ample work that debaters put into the activity should be seen and rewarded as such, which I believe requires judges to do the same.

3. If any arguments that are homophobic, racist, and etc. are presented you will lose the debate and be rewarded the least amount of speaks as possible. This also includes any other way that you may make the debate space less safe for people.

4. Taking CX as prep will be rewarded with lower speaks.

5. JUDGE INSTRUCTION! If you think that a portion of the debate should be the deciding factor, then tell me why that is and how I should evaluate it. The more judge instruction that you do, then the more happy you are to be with the decision I give.

Topicality -

I default to competing interpretations, if you believe I should evaluate this differently, then tell me to do so. Some big things that matter to me here is that I think both teams should have a robust explanation of what they think the topic should look like. I find limits to be more compelling than a loss of ground as internal links to the impacts that you are going for.

Impact comparison is still important here, like why does fairness outweigh education or the impacts that your opponents are going for. If the debate takes the course where both teams are going for fairness, then this should be done at the internal link level, but regardless there needs to be more impact comparison in topicality.

I think that I am pretty relaxed with my biases as to what aff's are topical and I like to think that I reward teams who invest research into these arguments and think that teams who read aff's that are perceived to be regarded as topical to the community should be punished for lazy debating on whether their aff is topical or not.

Critical Affs –

I prefer aff's have some relationship with the topic, I also want you to tell me what and how this relationship is established. I feel pretty comfortable adjudicating these debates but also believe that the more judge instruction you give me, the happier you will be. I also think that the more offense that you generate on the fw page, then the better position you put yourself in. I think if you are reading a version of an anti-cap lit based aff, then generating this offense can be more difficult, but not impossible. The ones that I have seen on this topic feel pretty defensive on fw and I think you should invest time into creating this offense.

For the neg --- I believe there is a trend where teams are choosing to read definitions that stop at Ericson, and/or some sort of evidence that is similar to it. I don't think this puts you in a position to win your limits offense and my threshold for aff defense and offense is increasingly more compelling. So, if this is your strategy, then you need to invest time into creating a vision of the topic that is actually limiting.

The 2nr should have some discussion of case, or tell me how fw interacts with the case page and give me ample judge instruction on why it should come first. Reading positions other than just framework are more enjoyable debate to watch, but fw debates can be equally as interesting as long as there is time devoted to it and your strategy.

Disads -

Not much to say here...

I think there has been a trend towards reading the least number of cards as possible, while there may be SOME cases where those cards make all the arguments needed, I will be sympathetic to new 1ar arguments should they be extended into the block.

Link specificity and spin are what I look for and reward if it is being done. Obviously, the more specific the link the better, but good spin can go a long way.

I like and reward aff strategies that straight turn disads and/or other offense generating strategies.

Counterplans –

Counterplans can make for interesting debates. I tend to side with the neg on pics and agent counterplans. I think other competition questions are typically decided on whichever team has invested more time in their strategy revolving around competition. Furthermore, I am more than happy and comfortable in adjudicating these debates, again judge instruction is important here.

With theory debates I think I am most compelled to reject the team only in context with condo but can be persuaded with other theory arguments if you are able to impact them out well enough. I enjoy watching aff teams double-down on condo and I don’t think there is a certain number of off that makes me more/less likely to vote on the argument, just win your interpretation if this is what the debate boils down to.

Kritiks –

The more specific of a link I think the better (this goes very any argument though) whether or not this is a link to the plan or the aff's performance, link spin can also go a long way. Pulling lines from evidence and contextualizing them to your link analysis is good. I do not think there must be an alternative in order to win the debate, just make sure you are wining other arguments that justify you doing this (i.e. framework). With these debates telling me what and why x matters are very important in framing my ballot.

With permutations I think the neg has to do more than just say, “all links are disads to the perm,” make sure to explain how they operate as such, and if you are going for the perm being intrinsic and/or severance make sure to explain why and tie an impact to it. On the flip side, I think that aff teams need to do a better job at answering each individual piece of offense to win a permutation (i.e. each link, disad, or solvency question) with a net benefit.

Case -

Don’t neglect case, it never hurts to extend some sort of defense or offense no matter how miniscule it may be. I think neg teams going for k’s sometimes get away with not going to the case page, if this happens make sure to use your aff.

I don’t understand the use of framing pages. They are often things that don’t matter if the neg just wins the disad or kritik that they are going for. I think the best examples of framing pages were affs written on the immigration topic and have since not seen one that was inherently offensive rather than defensive. The same goes for pre-empts. This is not to say don’t have a fed key warrant, but rather don’t just read a bunch of thumper cards or random pieces of impact defense. In this instance you should just read another advantage.

Pronouns: He/ Him. Will respect whatever your preferred pronouns are.

Role/ Experience: Director of Debate @ Archbishop Mitty High School in San Jose, CA. Formerly debated circuit Policy & coached @ Logan, & Parli @ UC Davis.

Evidence: Put me on the chain: mwoodhead@mitty.com, mittypolicydocs@gmail.com . However, I try to avoid reading speech docs for substantive issues- you have to make the arguments, interps, weighing clear to me in your verbalized speech. I will try to intervene/ "do work" for the debater as little as possible, so don't expect that I will buy all of the "fire analysis" of your card if you aren't extending or explaining any of it. Prep stops when you send out the doc. Don't burgle. Don't clip cards. Mark your docs if you end early.

Decorum: Be respectful of all in the round. Ad hominem attacks (about a person's immutable identity/ characteristics/ background) are never OK and will cost you speaker points at the very least. If you cross the line, expect the L and a talk with your coach. Attack arguments and their justifications, not the person.

Policy:

• Open to any argument. I would say that I default policymaker but am completely open to K arguments/ affirmatives. If going for the K, please overcome my general skepticism by clearly explaining the role of the ballot and demonstrating some level of competitive fairness in your framework. I want to know what exactly I am voting for, not simply that the other side was thoroughly confused.
• Speed is fine, but slow down on tags, blippy analytics, interps, alts, and CP and perm texts. Pause after cites. Introduce acronyms. I'll yell clear if necessary. Avoid other distracting behaviors like loud tapping, pen-dropping, and super-double breadths. Non-speaking teams should limit their decibel level and overt facial indignation.
• T, theory, Ks, etc. are fine. But, as with any argument, if you would like for me to vote for these, you need to give me a clear reason. I am not as well-versed in some K Affs or high theory Ks, but am certainly open to evaluating them if you can make them make sense. I am more comfortable adjudicating T, CP, DA/ case debates, but I am open to voting for arguments of all types (Ks, K Affs, etc...). I will vote for non-conventional argument forms (songs, dance & poetry, etc...), but will be very acutely focused on the education and fairness implications of these alternative styles. I will give you more leeway on unconventional arguments (on the aff) if they bear some relation to the topic. Topic education is valuable. But, other things matter too.
• I leave my assessment of the round largely in the hands of the team that presents me with the best explanation of how to frame the major issues in the round, and why that favors their side. If that work is done thoughtfully and clearly, then my decision about which way the round should go becomes much easier. Oh yeah, it typically helps when you win the actual arguments too (warrants, evidence, links, impacts, & all that micro stuff).
• On theory, I usually will only pull the trigger if I can see demonstrable abuse or unfairness. The "potential for abuse argument" alone doesn't usually cut it with me (unless it's cold-conceded). Show me what specific limitations their interp caused and why that's bad for debate. Condo bad may be a good time trade-off for the aff, but probably won't convince me without some demonstrable in-round fairness/ education loss.
• I appreciate strategy, creativity, and maybe a little humor. Speaks typically range from 27-29.5. I am not impressed by shouting, bullying or obstruction- these will cost you points!! Most importantly, have fun! If you have questions, you can ask me before the round.

LD:

(Please see my policy paradigm above as this is where I draw most of my experience and perspective from. You can also find my thought on speed/ evidence/ speaks there. The gist is that I default as a policymaker, but this can be upended if you convince me your framework/ ethical system is good or preferable)

Cross: Speaking over or past your opponent goes nowhere fast. If you ask a question, allow them an answer. If you want to move on, kindly ask to move on, don't shout them down.

Plans: I love them since they impart a clearer sense of your advocacy and one concrete comparative world. Still, you will be held to that plan. Shifting advocacies, vagueness on key functions of the plan, inserting extra-topical provisions to deck case neg offense are likely to get you in trouble. Spec args and funding questions need to be reasonable. Aff can, and probably should, defend normal means in these instances, but clarify what that probably looks like.

Whole Res: This style of debate is fine, but it makes affs vulnerable to a large set of topical, but terrible, ideas. It is each debater's job to weigh for me the preponderance of the evidence. So, even if you prove one idea is the res could cause nuke war, I need to weigh that eventuality's probability versus the rest of the aff's probabilities of doing good. This is a daunting task given the limited speech times, so make your examples as clearly defined, relevant, and probable. I am often persuaded by the most salient example.

Theory: I am far more receptive to theory arguments that pertain to choices by the opponent. Attacking structural differences of the aff/ neg in LD as a justification for some unfair strategy choice is not likely to persuade me and often ends up as a wash. Tell me what arguments their interp specifically limits and why that's bad in this round or for debate in general.

Other things: I do not favor whimsical theory arguments that avoid debating the topic or avoid normative questions of public policy in general. So, save your font size theory for another judge.

Parli:

Plans are cool/ extra-topical planks are not. Evidence is cool, but warranted and empirically supported reasoning is best. DO NOT take 45 seconds between speeches. DO ASK POIs! Please take at least 2 POIs in constructive for the sake of clarity and education.


PF:

Years Judging Public Forum: 9

Speed of Delivery: moderately fast, I would say full speed, but since people throw 8 "cards" up in 20 seconds in PF, you're better off at like 70% of full speed.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Line by line with some framing/ voters if it helps to clarify the round.

Role of the Final Focus: Establish voters, demonstrate offense, and weighing.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: do it, please don't shadow extend everything, I won't do the work for you.

Topicality: cool
Plans: fine/ unless impossibly narrow
Kritiks: if it links, sure
Flowing/note-taking: Do it, I will.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Arguments matter more. But, as a member of the human species, style and conviction impact the level to which I am persuaded. Still, I prefer a style that oriented to a calm and reasoned discussion of the real facts and issues, so I think they go hand in hand.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Typically, yes, especially in the summary. The rebuttal may not necessarily have to extend defensive elements of the case.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Opponents case only; though, you won't get back the time later to explain and frame your best responses, so I'd try to cover responses to case too.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Not unless something unique prompted the response for the first time in the immediately prior speech/ grand-cross.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. Be civil, succinct, and provide plenty of examples (either common knowledge or your evidence).

As a debater: 4 years HS debate in Missouri, 4 years NDT-CEDA debate at the University of Georgia

Since then: coached at the University of Southern California (NDT-CEDA), coached at the University of Wyoming (NDT-CEDA), worked full-time at the Chicago UDL, coached (and taught math) at Solorio HS in the Chicago UDL

Now: Math teacher and debate coach at Von Steuben in the Chicago UDL, lab leader at the Michigan Classic Camp over the summer

HS Email Chains, please use: vayonter@cps.edu

College Email Chains: victoriayonter@gmail.com

General Thoughts:

1. Clarity > speed: Clarity helps everyone. Please slow down for online debate. You should not speak as fast as you did in person. Much like video is transmitted through frames rather than continuous like in real life, sound is transmitted through tiny segments. These segments are not engineered for spreading.

2. Neg positions: I find myself voting more often on the "top part" of any neg position. Explain how the plan causes the DA, how the CP solves the case (and how it works!), and how the K links to the aff and how the world of the alt functions. Similarly, I prefer CPs with solvency advocates (and without a single card they are probably unpredictable). I love when the K or DA turns the case and solves X impact. If you don't explain the link to the case and how you get to the impact, it doesn't matter if you're winning impact calculus.

3. K affs: Despite my tendency to read plans as a debater, if you win the warrants of why it needs to be part of debate/debate topic, then I'll vote on it. As a coach and judge, I read far more critical literature now than I did as a debater. My extensive Tabroom voting history is on here. Do with that what you will.

4. Lying: Lying is bad. If your "troll" or "strat skew" involves blatant lying about out of round actions, don't do it. Weaponizing blatant lies about your opponent's actions as a strategy to try to win debates make this space makes this space exclusionary and problematic. This is different than my stance on truth vs tech. I vote off the flow. I'll vote on all sorts of arguments that don't pass the truth test (I will, however, make faces. But those faces neither impact my decision nor my speaker points so it's fine). I think the only thing I haven't voted on is death good/wipeout. Everything that is an argument is fair game. Knowingly lying about what your opponent did or didn't do is deplorable and where I draw the line.

5. Warrants: Don't highlight to a point where your card has no warrants. Extend warrants, not just tags. If you keep referring to a specific piece of evidence or say "read this card," I will hold you to what it says, good or bad. Hopefully it makes the claims you tell me it does.

6. Cross-x: Don't be rude in cross-x. If your opponent is not answering your questions well in cross-x either they are trying to be obnoxious or you are not asking good questions. Too often, it's the latter.Questions about what your opponent read belong in cross-x or prep time. You should be flowing.

7. Equity: I care a lot about equity in this activity. As a debater, I was a disabled woman from a disadvantaged circuit. As a HS coach, I've spent my whole career at Title-I urban debate league schools. Try to recognize your privilege and be kind to all. Feel free to ask me questions about this or for ideas about how to support equity in debate.

8. Random Conversation: While we are waiting for speech docs to appear in our inboxes, I will often fill this time with random conversation for 3 reasons:

i. To prevent prep stealing (stop typing during dead time! Typing = prep. Only buttons required to send and receive an email, and download and open a speech doc are allowed during dead time);

ii. To get a baseline of everyone's speaking voice to appropriately assign speaker points and to appropriately yell "clear" (if you have a speech impediment, accent, or other reason for a lack of clarity to my ears, understanding your baseline helps me give fair speaker points);

iii. To make debate rounds less hostile (we're people, not robots).

High School LD Specific:

Values: I competed in a very traditional form of LD in high school (as well as nearly every speech and debate event that existed back then). I view values and value criterions similarly to framing arguments in policy debate. If you win how I should evaluate the debate and that you do the best job of winning under that interpretation, then I'll happily vote for you.

Ballot Writing: LD speeches are short, but doing a little bit of "ballot writing" (what you want me to say in my reason for decision) would go a long way.

Public Forum Specific:

I strongly believe that Public Forum should be a public forum. This is not the format for spreading or policy debate jargon. My policy background as a judge does not negate the purpose of public forum.

Bottom line: I'm a tabula rasa judge. Run whatever you would like to run, and tell me how you would like me to evaluate the round.

Email: jasoncxdebate@gmail.com

Experience:

I debated CX on the national circuit for 4 years in high school, did not debate in college. I've been coaching CX at Garfield HS since 2014. I judge ~50 rounds a year, split between the local and national circuit. We took a team to the TOC in 2021. My day job is as a social science researcher who does a lot of applied research with Indigenous, Black, and BIPOC communities. This keeps me pretty engaged with philosophical and critical theoretical literature, and very attendant to questions of power and equity. I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual male who was educated and socialized within a Western context, which undoubtedly shapes my epistemic view of the world.

Feelings about specific things:

T/FW: Excellent. Specific and creative violations are more fun to judge than generic ones
DA: Great.
CP: Awesome. Highly specific CP strategies (such as PICs) tend to produce more interesting debates than generic CPs, but they certainly both have their place.
Ks: Excellent. Especially if you can articulate specific links to the aff

Policy affs: Great
K affs: Awesome. I find that K vs K debates are often more interesting than K vs FW debates, but that isn't always the case

Theory: Good. If you want to win on theory, make it more substantive than a few warrantless blips
Disclosure Theory: Not very convincing for me. I think that the open source/disclosure movement within debate has been somewhat uncritically embraced in a way that doesn't fully consider how the open sourcing of knowledge reproduces new forms of inequity (often along neoliberal/service economy lines, wherein better resourced teams are better able to take advantage of the open knowledge economy).
New arguments in the rebuttals: Generally not a good idea. Completely new arguments should not be made in the rebuttals. I will strongly protect the negative team from new arguments in the 2AR.
Judge Kicking: Nope. Don't expect me to judge kick things for you. Make a strategic choice for yourself.
Overviews and impact calculus: Yes, please. Clearly frame my choice for me at the end of the round, and you are much more likely to get my ballot. Also, 'even if' statements can be super persuasive in the final rebuttals.
Backing up Claims with Warrants: Super important.
Impact Calculus and Overviews: Also super important - I like being told how I should vote, and why you think I should vote that way.
Clipping: Don't do it, I will vote you down for cheating.
Speaking: Please be clear! If you're clear, then I am fine with speed. Clarity is especially important in the online debate format.
Dropped arguments: These flow through as 'true' for the team making them.
Voting: I will vote for one team over the other. Don't ask for a double win (or loss).

At the end of the day, I believe that debate should be about the debaters and not about me. My job is to create a safe and educational space, and to do my best to decide the round based on the arguments rather than on my own beliefs. If you clearly tell me how you think I should be judging, then there shouldn't be any big surprises.

TOP LEVEL -

I'm a first year out. I don't debate in college. Glenbrooks is my first(and maybe only) tournament of this year, so I don't really know much about the topic specifically, but I still remember a decent amount from my years of highschool debate and will probably be able to piece the round together(just don't assume I know anything since I'm a bit rusty). I haven't updated my paradigm in a while, so a decent amount is in the context of novice debate.

This is my inspiration, everything he says applies. He probably does a better job explaining everything so...

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=connor&search_last=kiefer

TL/DR:

I'll vote for anything

do impact calc and judge instruction

Tech required is proportional to how true the argument is

explain stuff (I'm not smart)

I'm ok with open CX

I like funny debaters, but not mean debaters.

I debated for 4 years debating for Glenbrook South (North of Chicago). I do not debate in college. I was a kritial policy debater(just so you know). I am absolutely not big brain, and will probably be the dumbest one in the room.

General Stuff

I am tech over truth most of the time if warrants are provided. Although I used to prefer evidence over analytics, recently I have started to think of well warranted and contextualized analytics as being the same if not better than cards. If you are extending evidence tell me why I should prefer your evidence (and don't just say "well it's more recent" or something like that, tell me why recency matters). MAKE SURE TO DO IMPACT CALC; as a 2a, I rarely do enough of this (don't be like me). I also like judge directions(please tell me how to evaluate rounds, I would like to do as little work as possible). Try to be respectful, but I understand if you have light hearted banter or make jokes.

Order of arguments(favorite - least favorite) this isn't an order of how I vote, just my favorites

1.Kritiks

2. CPs(the cheatier the better)

3. Normal Arguments(Case/DA)

4.misc. theory violations

5.Topicality

Theory

In my eyes, there are no clear rules to debate. If someone drops your stuff, and they are winning sandbagging good, I might still weigh it. If you want a 3nr, go up there and spend most of the time on theory(actually, probably not. Tournaments have speech times. If it's the last round, then I might be receptive). With persuasive theory, I will allow almost anything. TECH OVER TRUTH DOES NOT ALWAYS APPLY HERE. Using a previous answer, if you want a 3nr, you better have some damn good theory arguments. but generally I will vote on theory arguments if they drop it. I generally believe that the neg has the most ground, but am willing to be persuaded. Theory debates should not exclusively be blocks, extend your offense and then do line by line on their defense.

Here's the order of voters I find persuasive

1. Education

2. Fairness

3. Strategy

4. aff/neg Ground

5.miscellaneous

Kritiks

Ks are pretty epic ngl. I have the most experience with Moten, Afropess, Cap, Setcol, but I am willing to listen to any K(as long as you explain this well and aren't too buzz word heavy[I am probably the least familiar with PoMo]). Because of this, I would like to believe that I can be a competent K judge, but I still think that a good K team doesn't go off big words, but instead explains their theory like I have never heard of who Deleuz is. I believe that the affirmative should have to defend the impact of the plan and their representations, but can be convinced otherwise. I think that framing out the aff/k tricks are interesting. I have sympathy for the aff wanting to weigh their impact, but I think this becomes more persuasive when you defend your reps are good or read scenario planning cards. I also think that if the K team does not attempt to moot the aff, they should either have in-depth impact framing or case debating. I believe that in debate, utilitarianism is the most predictable impact framing, and will default to this. That being said, I can very easily be convinced another way.

Counter-Plans

I think counterplans are strategic. That being said, I am very willing to vote on perms, and probably will. IF YOU ARE AFF, NEVER DROP PERM DO THE CP(THIS IS YOUR BEST CHANCE OF WINNING). Also, try to attack solvency and the net ben. I find counterplan debates fun, and went for a process CP almost every neg round novice year.

CX

I am Ok with open CX, but if you keep taking questions from your partner, then you will lose speaks. I understand if you think your partner will cost you the round, but in general, have some trust. Same thing for asking questions. I like teams that are dominant in CX, without being overly aggressive.

Racism/Misogyny/Bigotry

I typically have a pretty high bar for what I would consider to be in this category, like if you mess up a util argument, I won't completely flame you. TECH OVER TRUTH DOES NOT APPLY HERE. If you read a racist argument, I will not evaluate it, and I will yell at you in the RFD. Even subtle things, can be racist if it's a clear dog whistle. I will try not to outright vote you down if you are clearly winning, but if it's competitive, you will lose.

Topicality

I personally do not think a lot of T arguments are legitimate(clearly some are). That being said, I will vote for them(even if they aren't completely dropped). The T ASPEC at the bottom of another T violation is a legitimate strategy, just please be very clear if it isn't in the speech doc.

General Decorum

I am fine, with some light hearted bashing, IF the other team is alright with it. pls no bullying.

If I see you not flowing then you are probably going to lose speaks, as it kinda shows me you don't care. That being said I'm ok with you prepping speeches, just please don't look at the ceiling or look at "cringe compilation #154"

I will shout clear. I probably won't do this a bunch, especially if you send speech docs.

Northwestern Debate '26
Mamaroneck High School '22
juliazimmerman118@gmail.com

She/Her

I'm a tabula rasa judge. I leave my personal beliefs out of the round. I have limited topic knowledge, so please explain acronyms. I am a policy-oriented debater, but I will vote for anything that is explained well.
Tech > Truth
Claim - Warrant - Impact
Have fun
Be polite

Topicality: Love a good T-debate. Fewer high-quality cards are better than more low-quality cards. Give me a vision of what the topic looks like under your interp.

Ks: Not well-versed in most K lit. I'm comfortable judging like cap, set col, security, antiblackness, etc., but I have extremely limited knowledge for high theory Ks. I dislike long overviews. Generally believe that Affs should get to weigh plan. I prefer links to the plan. I like alts that do more than rethinking.

K Affs/FW: I have much more experience debating neg v. k affs than aff v. fw. For affs, once again, limited familiarity with lit. For neg, on FW I prefer listening to fairness/clash impacts.

Counterplans: Functional and textual competition. Tell me to judge-kick. Love aff-specific PICs

DAs: Great. Well-explained case-turns make me happy

Theory: I like theory debates. I generally think condo is good.

For Novices: +.1 speaks if you show me your flows

LD Specific (Glenbrooks)
Good for LARP and passable for K. Unfamiliar with Phil. Not a huge tricks fan, but you do you.
Let's limit the RVIs to things that actually matter... Not familiar with topic, so keep that in mind regarding acronyms.