Email Chain: neocaidebate@gmail.com

School Affiliations: Interlake '21, Dartmouth '25

Refer to me as Neo (He/Him)

Top:

Be nice and have fun!

Argument preferences:

K-Affs: I default aff should be topical. Fairness! Smart K-Affs should have a strong internal link/internal link turn to impact turn fairness and clash - Good T arguments should treat them as such. No fanciness. Just predictable limits and fairness.

T: Inclined to start with limits, generally err predictability over debatability. Arbitary definitions should be a reason why competing interpretations is bad. Reasonability is offense the aff should use.

CP: Good for process counterplans and counterplan competition debates. No preference for limited intrinsicness - that is up for debate. Condo is great, going for condo is still fun. Counterinterpretations like x number of condo or pre-round make little sense. Quantify aff deficits to CPs in relation to DA risk.

DA: DA debates should be nuanced, describe a unique internal link story. Impact calc. Will not appreciate a barely highlighted 1NC shell that's missing many many internal links or uniqueness. Will reward a 2AC or CX that points out incomplete DAs.

K: Not good for Baudrillard/Batalie. Yes aff specific link analysis - that means highlighting language of the aff and good cx. Buzzword dependency is bad. I am not likely to buy Ks should not be weighed. I am fine for kicking the alt and going for framework. If the 2AR wants to go for a perm it needs to have offense against the alt not just no link/link turn analysis.

Debating Preferences:

1. Clarity over speed

3. Game should recognize Game - the best 2NRs and 2ARs should have that round vision

4. Inf condo is good, 1AR pop quizing is fun tho

5. Do impact calc

6. You WILL lose speaks for hiding Aspec under T because you are a coward, you will also lose speaks for not flowing it

7. I will match your energy, I dislike mean, arrogant people - knowing where you are wrong is just as important as convincing me you are right. If you are going to be mean, you better back it up...

Speaks:

Be smart and be clear. I will stop flowing if u aren't clear. Don't go into a debater mode and yell a bunch at people, let people talk in cx, ad homs will be rewarded with less speaks. Look at judge when cx happens.

Don't forget to have fun! Debate is so cool

Dartmouth, Interlake. She/Her.

Email chain:

noracai52@gmail.com, interlakescouting@googlegroups.com

Please include the tournament, round number, & teams in the subject line.

Online:

Do not start a speech before receiving verbal or visual confirmation from all debaters & me. If my video is off assume I am away.

T/L:

I have no topic knowledge, please limit your use of acronyms & over-explain!

Tech over truth, but the "tech" necessary to win untrue arguments is always higher.

I am possibly more opposed to cheaty, non-educational strategies than most. My evaluation of line-by-line is premised on the requirement that an argument requires a claim and a warrant. Anything less than that (cardless con-con) should be quickly addressed and dismissed. When it does become an argument, new answers are permitted.

Flowability, especially online, is extremely important. I do not judge with the documents open.

I will read evidence after the round if debaters compare evidence in their speeches (they should) or if evaluating the flow alone is insufficient to render a decision.

Hiding ASPEC = 25.

I default to offense-defense but can be convinced otherwise. Examples:

- I default to competing interps but will invert that given a well-executed 2AR about predictability & reasonability.

- Zero-risk of a DA is possible, but I must be told why a zero-risk frame is justifiable.

CPs:

Advantage CPs that simply... "induce" are non-starters. Planks need to depart from the status quo and propose substantive solutions. That requires more granular problem definition than [here is the AFF's impact which we think is a problem and we shall now declare we will fix this].

I am capable of adjudicating competition debates but go slow. I am not ideological about voting for/against particular theory arguments.

Ks:

Ks on the NEG - Good for Ks that critique core assumptions of the 1AC. Bad for Ks of tangential card rhetoric. You link you lose is an uphill battle. My knowledge of critical literature diminishes the further the K strays away from identity/ecology.

Ks on the AFF - I am more capable of adjudicating AFFs that present defense to T impacts and offense solved by a counter-interp than AFFs that impact-turn topicality. While I will technically adjudicate these debates to the best of my ability, note that I have exclusively read plans throughout my debate career and may have subconscious biases. If you are AFF, you should raise the threshold for explaination of DAs to T. If you are NEG, fairness and clash are both terminal and independent impacts. Internal links should be explained through the lens of predictable limits.

Speaker points

- Rewarded for cutting well-researched, specific strategies over the NGA CP, evidence comparison, persuasive ethos, well-executed CX, strategic vision.

- Tanked for shenanigans, being disrespectful (check yourself if you are a white cis-het male).

he/him Lewis and Clark '21 Western Washington 25' (taking time off right now but I've debated CX for 6yrs in high school and college)

General

Please title email chains with this information: "[Tournament][Round #][Your Team Code and School] (aff) vs [Opponent Team Code and School]"

jonathan.dodge.crowley@gmail.com

I have some old fashioned tendencies: I flow on paper, I think lots of theory violations are good reasons to vote, judge kick needs to be in the neg block, and you could probably get a presumption ballot out of me if you have evidence and explain why that kind of ballot is good.

I have the most experience with guerilla debate tactics like process counterplans, complex topicality debates, and kritiks from high-theory and political science perspectives. I am disproportionately good (on both sides) for debates about capitalism, morals, the value of life, and information-based persuasion/politics.

Framework is a good choice in more types of debates than you may think (like against the politics DA) but you need reasons to prefer your concept of fairness and education. Ultimately it's a question of what debate can do and why that's valuable.

I am serious about equity and inclusion in education. I want debaters to take the time to consider the way they promote positive learning experiences for themselves and their competitors. I'm not a good judge for strategic vitriol. I will not adjudicate out-of-round behavior but I will absolutely be your advocate with tabroom and other institutions if anyone is putting you in dangerous/harmful situations.

That's what I have to say. I like debate and care deeply about debaters. I don't want to over-promise or get too specific because the debate belongs to you and I'm reserving the right to change my mind and grow. That being said, I am always flattered to answer your questions :^)!

Yay debate!

LD

I've competed in most events but never LD for some reason. I respect the format a lot and I'm excited to hear your arguments. My CX experience means I'll likely be more comfortable with progressive debate. That said, I think values debates are honorable and I'm not necessarily a utilitarian or even a consequentialist. I would recommend taking extra time to explain how the value debate filters how I evaluate (especially the other debater's) arguments.

This format pressures 1ARs like no other and I willingly vote for aff theory in other formats already. Still, I find it hard to respect "reverse voting issues." Try not to go for these arguments. If you must, lay it on thick and prove that it made this 1AR impossible. Even when you're desperate, Conditionality vs T is a much cooler debate.

Former high school policy debater.

First time judging in over a decade.

Flow judge, I like clash.

Please do not run arguments you do not understand.

I’ll vote on what you tell me to vote on, weigh the impacts.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM (Policy Paradigm Below)

I AM A FLOW JUDGE. The Flow will Decide all things.

I was a policy debater in high school.
I have judged both policy debate and public forum debate at multiple tournaments.

Feel free to ask me anything before the round. I am open to all speaking styles and open minded about arguments. I try to keep my own bias out as much as possible.

Cross-X
I do not have strong opinions about cross.
This is a chance to clarify, question, and have direct interaction with your opponents.
I do not flow cross-X, but I do listen. Anything stated in cross-x only becomes binding if it's brought into the round via a speech.

If you are going to be jumping around it helps to tell me where to flow your arguments. Example "now go to their card/argument about x and my responses are as follows" I am also fine with off time road maps and sign posting as you go.

Make as many arguments as you like. I am not afraid of a bit of speed/spreading. However, keep it within reason. I feel most PF debate rounds would benefit from fewer arguments, replaced with better analysis and more clash. The more depth, the better.

Timeframe arguments and frameworks.

This keeps coming up. Please do not tell me to vote on timeframe unless your impacts come first and are more likely. If your impact is extinction, that is fine, but if it is an uncertain future impact, you really want me to weigh on something else, probably Magnitude.

Unless you tell me how to weigh arguments, I default to weighing Impacts on magnitude and scope above other considerations.

I take source and date into consideration when choosing between cards. Good analysis helps.

I won't call for cards unless there is significant disagreement on what the card says, and it factors into voting. NSDA evidence rules require authors' last name and the date (minimum) so you should do that if you want me to accept evidence as "legally presented"

Your evidence should agree with your tags. Mis-tagging, or power tagging makes me grumpy as a flow judge. I have seen a fair amount of this lately, though often it is unintentional.
Just remember, A good tag is taken from what the card actually says.

I prefer clash, but if your opponent refuses to address your arguments, please extend them. Tell me to pull arguments across. note why they matter and point out when they are dropped. If both teams completely drop arguments in rebuttal, I am less likely to resurrect them onto the flow in final focus.

Important for Public Forum, I am not keen on running Kritik's or other theory arguments. Those do not fit well in PF. Please save those for other formats like Policy, or L.D.






POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM

General Note.
If you run your arguments in order down the flow top to bottom in the same order as they were originally presented, you do not need to sign post. Please Warn me with a road map if you are going to jump all over.

When you are refuting a specific argument or card from your opponent, I prefer you call it out as you go.
I don't want to make the mistake of flowing arguments unlinked or in the wrong place.

Prima Facie Stock Issues. If Aff meets their prima facie burden and avoids or defeats outweighing Dis-Ads, Counterplans, etc. Then Aff wins the ballot.

Neg needs to attack the Aff position with some real menace. I like on-case arguments from the Neg, but it is not mandatory to win. A single off case argument that links well to the Aff case and has heavy impacts can be enough to outweigh and win.

I will pull off case Neg arguments that are dropped by Aff and weigh them as voting issues if prompted. Aff - I need at least a blurb in defense for each off-case position, even if it is only summary. If neg claims your plan causes teddy bears to explode, thus impairing children while yelling "wont someone please think of the children!", spend the 10 seconds it takes to tell me there is no demonstrable link, or evidence for this. If you do not, I am automatically weighing explosive bears as an impact for the Neg.

Aff - Pull your Solvency and Impacts through to rebuttals. If something is clean dropped by Neg, I am happy to weigh it for you in voting so long as you tell me to. Please do not assume that I am going to weigh every piece of evidence presented in the 1AC if I never hear about it after that.

NEG - Beware of overly abusing the Neg block. I allow new argument and evidence in the 2NC. However, I prefer not to see 8 minutes of completely new evidence in the 2NC followed by 5-minutes of extensions in the 1NR.
If there is no way the 1AR can address the amount of bomb you drop on them in the Neg block, then there is no way I am going to punish them for it and will take it into account when voting.
AFF - if this happens, just cry abuse, point out the new stuff and then address what you have time for the best you can.

TOPICALITY Warning, I have big feels about T.

Neg - Do not run topicality arguments on clearly topical cases. I allow some flexibility for Aff in meeting the resolution.
If you run T for 30 seconds and then spend 7.5 minutes running through dozens of case-specific and off-case cards, you clearly have sufficient ground.
If I suspect this is simply a time suck mechanism that you just kick out of after being refuted, I'll be grumpy about it and will consider a Reverse Voting Issue argument from Aff.

Always run T on non-topical cases.
If a case is non-topical, commit to your topicality argument and give it some real care. I want to hear the contempt you hold for an Aff refusal to debate the resolution properly. You showed up ready to debate against the resolution and the Aff wants to talk about clowns on unicycles instead. Blast-em.
I like when you provide definitions for and underline words in the resolution you feel the Aff has neglected specifically.

K & THOERY

Everything is on the table. If you run an argument about how sock puppets help improve the educational side of debate and provide sock puppets for everyone to use while speaking, I am fine with it.

Two words of warning on K & Theory.

1. Please do not turn the entire debate into theory only. Let's at least have an attempt by both sides to debate the resolution.

2. Please do not run arguments about how debate is bad. We all showed up for just that purpose. It is tiresome to argue that the activity we are all engaged in voluntarily is somehow inappropriate. I do not like it, will not flow it, and will not vote on it.

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

Please do not assume that I'm reading along in the doc with you. Debate's meant to be about oral communication, and only stuff that's actually said in round makes it into my flow. If I request the doc, it's purely for verification needs in case there's a challenge.

Finally, I have low tolerance for tech issues. I've been doing this since laptops first came onto the debate scene, and I've never seen computers crash or "crash" more consistently than at debate tournaments in the middle of a round. If there are persistent issues relating to files being ready or shareable, I may offer you a flash drive if I have one for a manual transfer, but I also reserve the right to factor that into my decision if it's a severe issue and extending the round beyond a reasonable point.


LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. Do not treat this like Policy Lite. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread. If I hear a plan text, it's likely that I'll be signing my ballot right there and then.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. I voted down a team in Triple Octafinals at 2018 Nationals for it.

Tabula rasa.

nakul.kade@gmail.com

Hello! I'm Nakul and I'm a sophomore at Interlake High School. I've been debating in policy for one year. I will vote on any type of argument as long as it is explained clearly. I've gone for all types of arguments so don't be afraid to break out new stuff. I defer to tech over truth but I would prefer if you read true/non-quirky arguments. Spread if you want but make sure you're clear (I'll tell you if you aren't).

Since this is most you all's first tournament, please take it easy and try to have fun. Most of the fun in debate tournaments come from taking it easy and having a good time with your friends, you're debate career will not be destroyed if you don't win your first local tournament. It's completely okay and expected to make mistakes so use this tournament as mainly a learning experience. I will also provide a ton of feedback!

How to win!:

1. The last two speeches should include judge instruction; pretend you are writing my ballot for me. When writing my RFD, I will think about the debate through "win conditions." What arguments does the AFF need to win at minimum vs. what does the NEG need to win? How much have those conditions been met by either side? If you do that analysis for me I will be very impressed.

2. Don't drop things (loosing a debate because you dropped something is really cringe), have good line-by-line (this means answering every argument on each flow), and make sure you flow well so you can give good speeches!

3. Impact calculus, explain why your impact outweighs their on magnitude, time frame, and probability. (Pro tip: choose one and explain why that criteria is the most important). Make sure you explain why you turn their impact and why your impact is the most important.

4. Collapse! Don't go in the 2AR/2NR with 50 off case positions. Condense down to one or two that you can actually win and cover them in depth, don't just throw stuff against the wall and hope it sticks.

If you want good speaks:

1. Show me your flows, if they're good and extend throughout the whole debate you'll get great speaks! If you flow online (you are disgusting) or if the flows are really bad, I'll slightly dock your speaks.

2. Drop down and give me 5 burpees!! (not pushups) This will prove that you read the paradigm which is a good habit to have! (Like flowing). Use this tournament as an opportunity to build good habits.

3. Speak clearly and argue coherently, also don't be a meanie and don't bully people in cross ex or call their arguments dumb. (no personal attacks and don't be mean)

4. Collaborate with your team member and interact with them during the round. You are a team not two individuals so help each other out and have cohesive arguments.

5. Incorporate the term skibidi into your speeches and I will give you full speaks ????????????

Be confident because everyone is too focused on themselves to care if you mess up, and make sure to have lots of fun!!

I’m the head coach of the Mount Vernon HS Debate Team (WA).

I did policy debate in HS very, very long ago - but I’m not a traditionalist. (Bring on the progressive LD arguments-- I will listen to them, unlike my daughter, Peri, who is such a traditional LD'er.)

Add me to the email chain: kkirkpatrick@mvsd320.org

Please don’t be racist, homophobic, etc. I like sassy, aggressive debaters who enjoy what they do but dislike sullen, mean students who don't really care-- an unpleasant attitude will damage your speaker points.

Generally,

Speed: Speed hasn't been a problem but I don't tell you if I need you to be more clear-- I feel it's your job to adapt. If you don't see me typing, you probably want to slow down. I work in tabroom in WA state an awful lot, so my flowing has slowed. Please take that into consideration.

Tech = Truth: I’ll probably end up leaning more tech, but I won’t vote for weak arguments that are just blatantly untrue in the round whether or not your opponents call it out.

Arguments:

I prefer a strong, developed NEG strategy instead of running a myriad of random positions.

I love it when debaters run unique arguments that they truly believe and offer really high speaker points for this. (I'm not inclined to give high speaks, though.)

Any arguments that aren’t on here, assume neutrality.

Do like and will vote on:

T - I love a well-developed T battle but rarely hear one. I don't like reasonability as a standard-- it's lazy, do the work.

Ks - I like debaters who truly believe in the positions they’re running. I like critical argumentation but if you choose to run an alt of "embrace poetry" or "reject all written text", you had better fully embrace it. I’m in touch with most literature, but I need a lot of explanation from either side as to why you should win it in the final rebuttals.

Don’t like but will vote on if won:

“Debate Bad” - I DO NOT LIKE "Debate is Futile" arguments. Please don't tell me what we are doing has no point. I will listen to your analysis. I may even have to vote for it once in a while. But, it is not my preference. Want a happy judge? Don't tell me that how we are spending another weekend of our lives is wasting our time.

Very, very, very... VERY traditional LD - if you are reading an essay case, I am not the judge for you.

Not a huge fan of disclosure theory-- best to skip this.

Don’t like and won’t vote on:

Tricks.

Trent Kuykendoll (he/him)

Bellingham High School/Sehome High School/Squalicum High School

Add me to the chain: trentkuykendoll@gmail.com

For Puget Sound Nat Quals:

Considering I'll be seeing most if not all of you multiple times throughout this tournament, please make it interesting for me. This is a great opportunity to start breaking fun new strats for state/other end of year tournaments. I'll lower speaks based on lack of creativity. Rest of paradigm remains the same.

Update:

If there is a significant skill-mismatch between teams, the better team has an obligation to make the round accessible in my opinion. I'm tired of seeing way more experienced teams just beating up on newer teams, so from here on out I'm going to give low-speaks if I see that. Same situation if you're running tricks.

Top

I’m a TAB/flow judge. Tech > truth, however, will intervene (specifically in impact weighing) if those arguments go unaddressed by both teams. Also, I do judge kick if you're condo or uncontested. Anyone who needs you to spec judge kick is an LD nerd. Here is a pref cheat-sheet before we go into the weeds:

Speed Clarity ---------------------x------- Spread

Depth More args ---------------------X------- More development

Topicality Non-voter --------X-------------------- #1 Issue

Inherency Non-voter --X-------------------------- #1 Issue

K Debate Maybe Cap ------------------------X---- Try your craziest strat.

Impacts Magnitude -------------------X--------- Probability

K Affs Nah ----------------------X------ Yeehaw

Performance Nah ---------------------------X- Yeehaw

Fairness I/L ------X---------------------- Independent Voter

Education I/L ---------------------------X- Independent Voter

Theory Vios DTA --------X-------------------- DTD

Condo Bad -------------------X--------- Good

PICs Bad ---------X------------------- Good

Agent CPs Bad ----------------------X------ Good

Adv. CPs Bad ------X---------------------- Good

Int. Fiat Bad -------------------X--------- Good

Stock Issues

I have no loyalties to stock issues and winning a stock issue on the neg will not win the round. I need a reason to vote against a team that is un-topical, has no inherency, etc. I often have a hard time buying half-baked T arguments. If you’re going for topicality, you should probably collapse to T in the 2NR. The other stock issue I have my gripes with is inherency. Full disclosure, I almost never buy that a lack of a barrier to the plan is coherent argument, (however if you can win a round on inherency alone for a plan that has not been implemented already, I’ll give that team perfect speaks… good luck). As far as other stocks go, explain why they’re relevant to the ballot and please, for my sanity, don’t say “harms”.

Theory

A 2-hour round is non-negotiable as are -isms. Outside of these, the rules are for you and your opponents to agree upon and if there is something in round that you don’t agree with, run theory on it (this includes Flex prep, tag-team, etc.). <-Read my paradigm on this portion and stop asking. If it does not require the round to be stopped, I will not intervene and I will tell you as much if asked (this means I don’t have any opinions on tag-teaming, flex prep, clipping, altered speech times, etc. unless brought up as a theory argument). I tend to be more willing to drop specific arguments or err one way on evidence or during ties. This being said, I am more likely to drop the team if the round is collapsed to that theory argument in rebuttal. I have no problem with Affs kicking case and going for theory.

I enjoy well developed (emphasis on well developed) theory rounds. I tend to skew condo good, unless the neg is running 3+ conditional counter-advocacies. I have a much lower threshold to buy DTA than DTD/DTT. If you go for drop the debater, I will expect the abuse, real and potential, to rise to the level at which only dropping the team is a sufficient sanction. For this reason, if you want me to buy a DTD argument, I would recommend going for that alone in the second rebuttal, regardless aff or neg.

If you have further questions, ask pre-round.

I have been increasingly judging LD and occasionally judging Policy, but the comments below apply equally to both forms of debate. Please include me on Email chains. My Email is livill@hotmail.com

As I frequently tell LD debaters, "My paradigm as an LD judge is that I'm a Policy judge." Ha, ha! I am a Policy judge in the sense that I enjoy debating policy issues, but I have become increasingly more enamored with how LD deals with them as opposed to Policy. I enjoy a good framework debate, especially in LD.

A creative, thoughtful V/C really gets my attention. By that, I mean things other than morality/util. If you’re using FW, it’s especially important to relate your case and your opponent's case back to your V/C to show me the best way to frame the argument. A really great debater can demonstrate that their case better meets both their V/C and their opponent’s VC and does so more effectively than their opponent. I am fine with plans and counterplans, but if you're going to run a CP, make sure you understand how to do so. I am fine with theory debates as long as you relate them back to some actual argument. But, beware: I am more interested in arguments dealing with the topic than arguments dealing with the theory of debate.

Whether we’re debating a prospective policy in LD or in Policy, I believe that if we recognize something is a problem, we need to resolve it, which requires a solution. For me, that means stock issues and some kind of resolution of the harms the Aff delineates. You can rarely, if ever, go wrong, by arguing appropriate stock issues. For me, the two primary stock issues are solvency, which is key to evaluating the effectiveness of a policy and inherency, which few teams understand or argue effectively, but, which real, live, adult policy makers use every day to determine responses to problems. I vote for presumption the way any good policy maker would in the public sector – if it hasn’t been proven to be broken, don’t fix it.

I like a good T debate, but, not on cases when virtually any rational person would agree that a case is topical. I am far more likely to buy that a case is “reasonably” topical than I am to agreeing that it must meet some arcane Neg definition of a term like “it” or “is.” Also, this absurd argument that everyone should disclose their case before the round begins will gain no traction with me. One of the benefits of debate is learning how to respond quickly and effectively to new ideas and information on your feet. If you’re not prepared to debate the topic, stay home. There are other reasons to reject most Affs that involve arguments on actual issues, so use those issues instead of whining that you’ve never heard this case before.

I’m generally not a fan of K affs but sadly (for me) I will listen to anything and judge it as neutrally as possible. If you’re going to run a K aff, please be sure it has some dim unique link to the topic. Ditto for Ks run on the Neg. Also, and this is particularly for K Affs, please don’t take the tack that because you got up and read a speech or performed in front of me that I am legally, morally and ethically required to vote for you.

I am also a “policy” judge; after over 25 years as a Foreign Service Officer in the United States Department of State, I know what a coherent policy looks like and how, in the real world, policies are developed and implemented. Cases that don't offer a real policy with at least some nebulous solution to the problem, i.e. cases that offer some ephemeral philosophy that a judge is supposed to implement through "in-round solvency ballot-signing" are relatively unattractive to me. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but only when the Neg won't make the most minimal effort to argue the case in context of stock issues or policy-making.

I also look at who won which issues: who won the most important stock issues and which policy solved the problem more effectively with the fewest disadvantages and made the better sense, so, ultimately, it's about persuasion as well. I will vote for cases I don't like and don't think are topical or inherent, for example, if the Neg either fails to respond effectively or simply can't win the argument. I will not make your arguments for you or infer what you meant to say.

THINGS THAT LESSEN YOUR CHANCES OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND WINNING MY BALLOT: Really long, long, long taglines, especially ones that contain large amounts of philo/psychobabble gobbledegook. If your tag line is longer than the piece of evidence you cite, that’s a problem. Debaters who don't pause between taglines and the evidence will lose me. Stock DAs with no unique link to the current Aff being debated will bore me and it’s hard to take them seriously. Poor refutation organization is a killer - if you don't tell me where you're going, it's hard to follow you and you significantly decrease your chances of me putting the argument where YOU want it. Please understand that I flow arguments, not authors. When you extend an author whose name I have not flowed, I don’t know where to put the extension. Anyway, you’re not extending evidence as much as you’re extending an ARGUMENT. When you extend your argument, tell me which specific contention, advantage, argument or subpoint you’re refuting. Line by line is good! I really, really HATE debates that become primarily about the theory of how we're debating the issue than about the issue itself. In terms of speed, less is more. I like to be persuaded and if I can't understand what you're saying, then, you're not very persuasive. Please speak up and speak clearly, especially if it’s an online tournament.

Top Level:

Interlake 24'

Pronouns are He/Him

Call me "Rohan" not judge or else I'm going to die inside - add me to the chain: rohanwa666@gmail.com

Pay attention to the word "reason" in RFD, this is relevant throughout this paradigm. Give me a REASON to vote for you.

Tech > Truth. I generally dislike doing some work on the flow for some teams so do your best on the line-by-line and this will easily help prevent bad decisions.

I like to think of myself as a "games" judge. I believe debate is a competitive game and the resolution is an important aspect that maintains clash and fairness. Pick the strategy that's best going to help you win the game.

Anything on this paradigm isn't perfect and my opinions aren't strong, so read with a grain of salt.

I'll make it a priority to help you feel safe in this space. Let me know what I can do for you!

If you do anything offensive or problematic, in-round consequences and perhaps out-round consequences will be up to my discretion. This includes impact turns of oppression, death good, extinction good, racism/racial profiling good, etc.

Please if you read an aff, off case, or argument in general that may be uncomfortable for some people to debate about has please put a trigger warning behind it before reading it. Especially goes for planless affirmatives with traumatic impacts.

Arguments need a claim, a warrant, and an impact.

I know this paradigm isn't well written don't bully me.

TLDR at the bottom.

I'm not very expressive, sorry :(

Novices:

1 - If you're varsity, scroll past this section

2 - Read a plan. Make sure you know your case as much as possible, and make thorough arguments.

3 - Off-Case: Run what you are comfortable with. Do not steal your varsity's blocks (this never ends well, I promise)

4 - Clarity > Speed. ALWAYS

5 - Skip the rest of this paradigm

6 - I am excited you chose debate!! Have fun!

Case Debate:

1 - The affirmative should be "topical".

2 - I'm looking for knowledge the affirmative team has beyond their 1AC and 2AC cards to evaluate case. I love a good case debate where both teams have good impact calculus, knowledge about their case arguments, and good framing contentions if it comes down to that (I dislike exhaustive framing contentions however). This also plays a part in topic knowledge that can be limited or plentiful in some cases, though you can do whatever you want with topic-specific knowledge that is relevant, I'm confident I'll understand by reading your evidence and flowing you.

3 - Recuts on aff and neg can be really powerful, but don't get ridiculous. Good recuts will earn you higher speaks. You have to read recuts of evidence do not just insert them in the document.

4 - Make sure your affirmative has solid internal link evidence, this is the glue of your case and if the negative team answers internal link evidence well and extends it throughout the debate, then the neg is highly likely to win. Also a note for the negative team as well.

5 - I think that good case debate (on the negative side) beyond the 2AC and 2NC is underrated, contesting your opponent on their case arguments really minimizes aff offense on anything else you may be trying to win on.

6 - I like smart 2AC answers on case that are either really fleshed-out blocks to a frequent case answer, good cards that respond to less case-specific stuff but still relate to case, and high-level off the flow answers.

7 - Status quo solves is underrated, that's all I'm going to say

8 - You do not need evidence to make a good argument. With that being said, I've seen certain advantages totally nullified or amplified through smart analytical arguments. Like I said, beyond your cards. In fact, I do encourage novices, if you're reading this, to try and make arguments by just knowing your 1AC, no cards. You'll learn a ton!

Kritikal Affirmatives and Framework:

1 - Framework: My belief is that the state is capable of doing a policy action in a single instance that is good for a certain amount of people without being a defense of the abhorrent things the state has done to certain people. I really like these debates and these are very fun to judge. On the negative, I'm persuaded more so by skills/testing impacts, smart TVAs, and switch-side debate. On the affirmative I'm looking for impact turns to the game of debate itself, why is fairness not an intrinsic good. Aff needs develop key offense on framework, do good line-by-line, and have solid impact calculus in the final 2 speeches (impact calculus goes for both teams because it's where I do most of the evaluating). Impact out certain statements and standards, don't just say "no clash", explain why clash is needed afterwards. I typically will vote on which model of debate is best for debate in the future.

2 - Case debate against k-affs is underrated. Contest the aff on their theory of power and don't just say "they don't do anything". However, presumption claims make no sense if a k-aff claims it solves for something outside of the round (a part of debate that's bad).

3 - On K vs K debates, I like it when both the aff and neg can find problems in each others' philosophies. It comes down to which theory of power and mechanism of change is most concisely explained and argued. But I have little to no experience with this so I may not be able to give as detailed of an explanation as I do on other things but it's fine.

4 - Topic DAs against k-affs are good. I'm not a fan of politics DAs being ran against k-affs but whatever you seek fit works.

Disadvantages:

1 - Impact comparison and framing are key parts to any DA debate, and this is where I do most of the evaluating.

2 - I love really, really unique DAs that are specific to the aff and I'm less fond of something generic like a politics DA. However, I'll buy it if your links are concise and can be specified to the aff beyond the 1NC. I said above that impact framing and comparison is where I do most of the evaluating, however the link and uniqueness debate are influential to the impact debate and a low/high risk of a link or a non-unique argument can be used as offense on impact framing.

3 - Please, PLEASE do not just throw a bunch of cards my way in the negative block and expect me to put together a DA story myself. Like I said on case debate, you do not NEED evidence to make good arguments. What I like to see is a bunch of evidence comparison, impact calculus, framing debate, and uniqueness arguments using the affirmative evidence. Just because you have more evidence does not mean you win the debate on the DA. One smart analytic from the aff that lasts 10-30 seconds could destroy 5 minutes worth of just reading cards.

4 - I love straight turns!

Counterplans:

1 - No CPs are "cheating" unless the aff wins on the flow that they are.

2 - Generic CPs are fine as long as they're supported with clear reasoning and maybe a few aff-specific claims in the 2NR about the solvency of the CP vs the aff.

3 - I will not default to judge kick except if the 2AR drops it after the 2NR has mentioned it.

4 - 2NC CPs and 2NC changes to 1NC CPs are just fine, however 1AR gets new answers.

5 - I lean neg on most CP theory arguments (except Lopez, I lean strongly aff on that) however go for theory if the neg makes really unconcise arguments against it.

6 - Limited intrinsicness is up for debate.

7 - PICs that take advantage of lackluster plan writing are always amazing.

8 - Condo is good but within certain bounds. I generally believe the neg should get 2 CPs and a K but if you want more advocacies by all means go for it!

9 - I like generic CPs (especially process) that are well-argued with good warrants and aff-specific parts. However, I am much more likely to buy very aff-specific CPs that are well-researched, strategically planned, and have solid evidence.

10 - Solvency deficits to the CPs are personally more convincing to vote on than conventional perms but don't let this discourage you from going for a perm in the 2AR.

11 - Clever perms on the aff are a joy to observe!

Kritiks:

1 - Not the best judge for postmodernism.

2 - I'm familiar with afropessimism, capitalism, D&G, queerness, settler colonialism, feminism, and more but too exhaustive to list every single thing here. Whatever you want to run should be fine.

3 - PLEASE do not read Ks without knowing the literature base just to be edgy. It's painful to watch and it becomes obvious in CX.

4 - I like good explanations and contextualization of your alternative however it does not have to solve everything.

5 - I'm good with you kicking the alternative as long as you can garner offense off of links and framework.

6 - 2NC Line-By-Line > a 6 minute long overview that gives me redundant information that I can just look at your 1NC for. If you ignore the line-by-line, you'll most definitely lose.

7 - Good aff specific link analysis is a threshold for voting on the K.

8 - Buzzwords are meaningless unless you can use them efficiently and in the right places.

9 - If you make the argument that your K should not be weighed against the aff, I'm not going to buy it.

10 - Perms should have offense against all parts of the K.

Topicality/Theory:

1 - Theory is fun, but really painful when theory gets arbitrary and trivial.

2 - What "topical" means is up for debate.

3 - I have a slight tendency to vote on untruthful T violations if argued in a way the aff doesn't explicitly point out what's untrue about the violation.

4 - I'm not persuaded by reasonability as much as some other judges are.

5 - The primary focus of topicality is about functional limits and predictability. Arbitrariness should be a reason why competing interpretations is bad. I err neg on over-limiting, and even if the neg overlimits under-limiting is worse.

6 - T is like the equalizer of debate in my opinion.

Speaker Points:

1 - I generally start from 30 and move down (30s will almost never be given out unless I can make a decision in less than 2.5 mins).

2 - Clarity > Speed, you DO NOT need to be robot fast in order to be good. But speed is totally fine if you're clear.

3 - Death good = lowest amount of speaks possible.

4 - I typically don't sit well with the following phrases: "Try or die", "Reinvent the wheel", "I don't get a 3NR" (this one by far being the most annoying), "We have more evidence", "Our argument is uniquely better", "They don't do anything", and "Starting on [my/your] first word".

5 - I dislike generally saying the same exact thing for an entire minute of your rebuttal.

6 - A substantial (what this means is up to me) instance of judge intervention = -1

7 - Subscribing to the Interlake CX Debate Channel = +0.1

8 - Jokes about literally anyone I know in debate = +0.1

9 - If you make me laugh at least once = +0.2

Ethics/Procedure:

1 - Clipping cards = automatic loss and lowest speaks (you'll need to record the speech to prove).

2 - Hateful/problematic language was above.

3 - If a team accuses another team of an ethics violation I will stop the round and allow both teams to defend their postion.

4 - Aggressive postrounding will result in me docking your speaks, and I will add I am firm on my decision.

5 - I'll time your prep and only my time matters.

6 - Debate involves a communication aspect and people sometimes forget this. I'll do my very best to understand your arguments but it is very important that you make sure I know what you're saying.

TLDR: I vote for the team that I think won the debate.

GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN DEBATING!

I am newbie to judging. Please speak slowly and explain your arguments clearly.

My focus will be more on evidence, reasoning, logic, substances of the presentation or argument etc. and less about physical traits such as loudness, speed, body language, etc.

My email is mingtianni@gmail.com. Please send the doc trails. It helps me evaluate better. Thank you.

My background is primarily Policy and Public Forum Debate. I am rapidly gaining experience in LD.

FOR LD DEBATE

I am not a fan of speed. I hate listening to spreading and my brain borderline shuts down if you speak too fast. If I can't understand you because you're going too fast, I'm probably not flowing and probably not really tracking your arguments at all. I like to judge primarily on my flow, so you should probably slow down a bit.

I won't vote on tricks.

My background is primarily CX and PF, so you may have to briefly explain the purpose of some of the very LD specific terminologies or theories.

Explain why your value/criterion are preferable to your opponents'.

Please do impact calculus, and please ground your impacts in reality.

Be nice to each other. Being rude or snarky sucks.

FOR POLICY DEBATE

I am not a fan of speed (especially constructive speeches when you are presenting your case). I would much prefer quality of arguments over quantity. If I can't keep up or understand your arguments, you won't win them. I know you like to spread in Policy, but I borderline hate it. SLOW DOWN. You can do it. You can adapt to your judge's paradigm. You are capable of doing that, I promise. You don't have to run 6 off-case on the neg. You really don't have to!

I would like to vote on pretty much anything if you are persuasive enough. I am generally okay with everything as long as they are explained well. Don't just read your arguments, explain their purpose in the round! However, I am more of a "traditional" judge in that I would usually much prefer a solid debate about the resolution rather than endless K debates with super generic links. Lately I have seen more bad K debates than good traditional debates. It makes me very sad. I judge primarily based on what I see on my flow. It is in your best interest to use roadmaps, signposting, clear taglines, and SLOW THE HECK DOWN to make my job of flowing the debate as easy as possible.

I also prefer impacts grounded in realism. If every single policy debater for 50 years that has been claiming nuclear war as an impact was actually right about it, the world would've been destroyed 1,000 times over. But regional conflict? Economic downturn? Environmental damage? Oppression of minority populations? These are impacts we've actually witnessed as a result of policy action. I strongly prefer impacts that I as an Earthling can actually visualize happening.

I will be friendly with speaker points to debaters who are friendly to each other. I will be unfriendly with speaker points to debaters who are unfriendly with each other. This should be a fun experience for everyone. Just be nice to each other.

Nicholas.Phillips@bellinghamschools.org