Paradigm Last Updated – Summer 2023

Coach @ Shawnee Mission South and the University of Kansas.

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

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 + K 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!

Hello! I’m Christian Butterfield and I’ve competed/coached both individual speech events and Congressional Debate for the past eight years. I currently compete as a junior for Western Kentucky University’s Forensics Team, where I hold national championships in Impromptu and After Dinner Speaking, as well as national final rounds in Extemp Speaking, Info, Crit, Persuasion, POI, and Congressional Debate.

Before anything else, I rank on respect and kindness. The quickest way to a dropped rank/ballot is to actively belittle or exclude others, including both within the round/activity and within your rhetoric :)

My email is christian.butterfield916@gmail.com -- Put me on the email chain if you have one!

Congress Paradigm

I think Congress is a truly wonderful blend of both delivery and argumentation, and I tend to rank both equally on my ballot. Here are some specific thoughts I have about Congress!

— I encourage moments of levity/gravitas! If you’re funny, be funny! If you’re heartfelt, do that! Using the AGD + transitions + conclusion to tell a compelling story is always a path to my ballot!

— I’d rather watch a stumbly speech delivered extemporaneously than a fluent speech read directly off a sheet of paper or computer screen!

— I looove clear roadmaps and signposting throughout the speech! Help me follow along!

— For authorship speeches, I love to see especially stellar delivery and clever writing, as well as the speech addressing all parts of the bill! You can’t clash here, so delivery is your chance to make up for that!

— Congress is a performance, so I tend to reward those who acknowledge the roleplay of the round (shout out to the imaginary viewers on C-SPAN haha).

— I highly value innovative/unexpected lines of argumentation, as well as arguments explicitly geared towards social justice and equity. If you can tell me the human impact of the legislation, I’m sold!

— I adore an interesting constructive point, especially if you can place it conversation with other argumentation later in the round

— I highly encourage impact calculus and engaging with previous lines of argument, especially as the round continues.

— If you give a crystallization speech, sounds great! Put please do not give a speech that’s just summarizing previous arguments! Also, I feel that refutation and crystal speeches especially benefit from clear signposting/transitions to help me follow along with your argument!

— I love interesting types of evidence! Google scholar + academia is your friend!

— Please don’t rehash! If you NEED to bring up a point again, please use it in the context of the new arguments being brought up.

— Effective questioning and clever use of Roberts Rules of Order are also lovely. If you ask great questions, that can bump you up in my ranks!

— If everyone in the room has an uneven amount of speeches due to limited time, those who gave fewer speeches will not automatically receive a lower rank.

— POs: You are amazing; the key to my rank is to make your job look fun/easy, and to project a sense of authority in the chamber.

PF/LD Paradigm

My experience in PF and LD is very very limited compared to Congress and Speech. I have an educational background in International Affairs and compete in Extemp/Congress, so I can hold my own with argumentation. I'll be totally candid, I'm a lay judge! Just make sure to clearly signpost your tags and arguments. If you can clearly and explicitly state what arguments you are refuting and why your analysis is stronger, I will be able to follow more cogently. Clarity is key for my ballot. I’m open to debate on Topicality and K’s and whatnot, as long as it isn’t abusive towards your competitors. I have a speech background, so I do value engaging delivery. It won’t win a ballot but it will help with your speaks! The key to high speaks for me are: engaging delivery, interesting arguments, clear organizations and overall respect and decorum.

Best of luck!!

Events: I participated in Speech and Debate from 7th grade through high school and college. My primary events were:

• Extemp
• Impromptu
• LD
• PF
• Info
• Congress

While I have only ever competed in POI, I often engaged in peer sessions with speech competitors in my team. Therefore, I feel well equipped to judge any speech or debate events.

Speed: I can handle a quick pace so long as the speaker is clear.

I don't like to be confused - give me clear voting issues. If I am confused, I'll probably default to impacts / policy-maker or a simple morality question of what the right thing is to do. Speed is okay, and I'll try to follow, but speed with ridiculous breathing is obnoxious. Speed without any change in delivery for tag lines is hard to follow and hard to flow. And again, speed with an argument I'm not expecting and trying to learn is counterproductive. You can say "it's on the wiki" to your opponent all you want, but I don't feel any obligation as a judge to go read your case. Do the communicative work and teach me.

If you're going to run something unexpected (i.e. something a little squirrely or a blatantly non-topical or niche argument) or a kritik that I might not have heard before (well, any kritik, really), put in the work to explain it to me. I like learning stuff, otherwise I wouldn't spend my weekends doing this. What I don't like is being yelled and spread "at" about a philosophical premise I've never heard of before. Dumb it down for me a bit, take it a little slower, and I'll gladly come along for the lesson.

Some pet peeves (certainly not voting issues, but a paradigm is here for me to air all my complaints, right?)

- pointless off-time road maps, particularly in PF and LD. The only reason you'd need to give me this is if you're going in an unexpected order

- statements like "my opponent made a key mistake" - don't critique your opponent's performance for me. Convince me on the actual issues we're debating.My RFD may be dependent on a mistake made by a debater, but the voters you give me should be impacts in the context of the topic at hand.

- standing/sitting around while opponents "look for" evidence, saying that you'll start your prep time once they give you the evidence - always have your own evidence ready to go, and if your opponent doesn'thave it ready to go, ask them to give it to you ASAP, while you go ahead with prep time or your speech - if they are unable to produce the evidence, go after them in your next speech for that - DON'T hold up a round "waiting for evidence"

If you're reading this for Policy specifically: I didn't compete in Policy, but I've been coaching it off and on for a little over a decade, and I've judged frequently at NSDA and NCFL. That said, the circuit I coach in is fairly limited in terms of competition (like fewer than 10 teams at most tournaments), so my approach to policy tends to be pretty traditional, and I understand the event and the stock issues, but I'm not super familiar with kritiks or whatever passes for "progressive" arguments on "the circuit." (And if you can't tell by the quotation marks, as a coach in a small state focusing on just getting kids to competition, I'm a little disdainful of the elitism of "the circuit.") That said, I'm willing to listen to anything and willing to vote on anything, but you need to do the work to explain and teach me. It may be harder to get my vote with a kritik or anything else outside the realm of typical stock issues if you don't clearly explain the impacts of your argument and give me a nice Aff/Neg world comparison.

If you're reading this for LD: I didn't compete in it. I've coached it off and on, though not as much as PF and Policy. I'm going to lean pretty traditional for LD, just given my limited background and the circuit my students compete in. That doesn't mean I won't vote on plans or kritiks, but you're going to have to convince me. My default mode approaching LD is that I should be focusing on a value and criterion debate supported by some straightforward contentions, and I'm going to need a little help doing the mental jump into plans or kritiks. I'd certainly rather hear a framework debate about the values presented in the round than a framework debate about whether or not LD should allow plans, but I'll reluctantly follow along with whatever (cross apply my notes above for Policy, I guess.)

If you're reading this for Public Forum: I've coached it quite a bit, including teams that have broken at NSDA and won moderately large regional tournaments. I've also judged at nationals and major regional tournaments. I strongly object to the idea of paradigms in Public Forum debate. Access for students is a broadly discussed issue in Speech & Debate, but we need to remember that access for judges, especially volunteers, is just as important. Demanding paradigms in a debate event meant by design to be accessible to the public is, in my humble opinion, the wrong way to approach this event. I'm not exactly a "lay judge," but you should approach me in a public forum round, for the most part, as if I were a lay judge. Be organized and clear. Don't spread. Don't play games, especially when it comes to evidence and prep time. Give clear voters and an easy-to-understand Pro world vs. Con world layout.

Pretty much tab, I'll vote for practically anything if you explain it well and it's not racist/sexist/bigoted etc. Because of this, framework occupies an essential role in the round as it defines the debate space. Also, the cleaner you allow my flow to be, generally the easier time I'll have voting for you. Feel free to ask any specific paradigm questions.

My name is Spencer Humphreys. I am a 4 year head coach with 4 years experience competing in Humorous interpretation, one year competing in Dramatic interp and Duo interp on the college level. When judging interpretation events I focus on distinct voices, facial expressions to match the emotion you are trying to convey with each character, and clean blocking.

I do not consider cartwheels and flips "creative blocking".

Hello competitors,

My name is Chitra Jayaraman and I have been judging speech for a few years now, so I am pretty familiar with most categories.

For original events, writing and solutions are just as important as how good of orators you are. I appreciate good cadence and tech, but I would also like to see good writing with well thought out solutions and sources when those are applicable.

For interpretation events, your piece selection does matter, however I am more looking at gauging your skill set. Tonal variation, emotional variation, show me that you are able to become a character. I would also like to see clean characters popping. This is so important especially in events like POI when you are constantly changing.

While planning out your tech is important, it should still seem like it is natural. Movement shouldn’t seem robotic or over rehearsed.

Good luck orators, I look forward to seeing your pieces!

I prefer QUALITY over QUANTITY. I would rather see that you have mastered the basics and are able to communicate clearly than have an overabundance of data info-vomited at 1000 mph. If you are able to speak for 500 words per minute, but no one in the room has been able to understand what you said, no one in the competition has benefited, least of all you.

ALL new cards must be submitted in your first or second Constructive speech. By the time you get to your Rebuttal speech, we should be dealing with the topics already on the table.

DO NOT SUBMIT ANY NEW ARGUMENTS IN YOUR REBUTTAL SPEECHES.
IF YOU DO, I WILL VOTE AGAINST YOU.

Whether it be a Speech or a Debate event, I'm very much about competitors having a positive experience before, during, and walking away from the tournament. S&D is about mastering technical skills and building relationships with both your teammates and your fellow competitors.

She/they

kimmerle.debate@gmail.com

About me: Currently debating for Missouri State University in NDT/CEDA & coaching at Greenwood Labs and Liberty North High School. I'm an NFHS topic author for HS policy debate which gives me an interesting insight into debates. My views about what debate looks like/should be are constantly evolving to keep up with my experiences and community 'norms.'

About me as a judge: I'm pretty open to any argument or style. I'll go off of my flow when making my decision focusing on impacts and clash. The best way to win my ballot is to "write it for me." Show me through evidence why your [case/impacts/alt/etc] are more important and then tell me how you better resolve [insert issue here]. This can vary based on each round or position so I will try to address these below.

DA: Yes. A good disad with a CP is probably my current go-to when I'm negative. Read your best link cards in the constructive(s), the more specific the better.

CP/PICs: Yes. As I said above, love a CP/DA combo. Make sure you outline how it solves the aff and doesn't link into your other offense. I think the neg can get away with 2 CPs before conditionality becomes a major voting issue (remember: you should always condense down for the 2NR!!).

K: Sure. I'm comfortable with K arguments but I might not be super familiar with the literature. I do think you need an alt with your K because I need to understand what happens if/when I vote for it. If you have a performative component to your argument, explain its function and utilize it as offense throughout the debate -- you read it for a reason, tell me about that reason!

Theory: Maybe?? I'm going to assess topicality separately (below) since I weigh it differently. As I have progressed in my career, my opinion on theory has changed significantly. I find myself voting less and less on funding, enforcement, over-specification, or whatever else you can come up with. I just feel like it's incorrectly used to try and win my ballot in a 'slimy' way. I'd rather you run it as a solvency analytic without the interp, violation, standards, etc.

With all of that said, I understand that many participants view theory as a key part of debate so I will continue to weigh it the same as other arguments.

Topicality: Yes. Against policy aff, I think T is a viable option. The neg should define words in the resolution in the 1NC, and then put any [TVAs/ExtraT/FXT/impact] framing issues in the 2NC/1NR block. The 2NR should specifically go between explaining the disadvantages to the aff interp and line by lining the 1AR responses.

No specific preferences, just keep it respectful and efficient. I'm a former competitor in this event so I'm well versed in the rules but I may need an occasional refresher :)

I am a previous PF debater so the structure and language is all familiar to me. HOWEVER, prior to this weekend I have not competed in PF since 2017 so please talk to me like someone who knows nothing about the topic. Please do not spread, you must enunciate so I can keep up with you and if you want me to flow well.

1. The most important thing in a round is being respectful, please make the debate enjoyable for everyone!

2. I don't flow cross, but I am listening. I want to hear impactful questions but I also need you to carry that in your speeches.

3. Good weighing is something I really look for. If you tell me why I should vote for you instead of your opponent with a decent line of reasoning, there's a very good chance that I will listen to you. Especially in PF, use summary for this. In LD, all rebuttals should have weighing analysis.

4. Always have clear sources and links for all of your evidence. It will reflect poorly on you if your opponent calls for a card and you can't pull it up. I will also call for cards if I didn't fully understand the point, so be ready for it.

7. I love a clean flow so signposting is very important and that's generally what I consider most when giving out speaker points. I will also give speaker points based on the level of respect you treat your peers.

8. If your framework is important to your case, don't just tell me what it is, tell me why I should prefer it compared to your opponent's. Especially in LD, frame the debate well and I will follow your lead. It should also connect seamlessly with the remainder of your case.

9. Comparative analysis is important when clash occurs. Don't continue to extend evidence without telling me why it should remain on my flow.

Feel free to ask me questions before or after debating! I want you all to learn from every round so please do not be afraid to ask me any questions after I give my comments. I truly enjoy judging so I hope we can all have a good round :)

Key Points (it's honestly nothing):

- Keep it structured like an argumentative paper! (Intro, three points, conclusion [with several sub-points in your main points])

- Bring the VOLUME, not the PACE! In other words, try to SPEAK CLEARLY and LOUDLY, but not FAST!

- Repetitive contentions are allowed any time/any day!

- Do your thing. Just keep your flow going and do your best; anything works! Depict good communication skills and try to elaborate as much as you can on your arguments!

- Be nice! :) Any rudeness, discrimination, or any negative comments will NOT be dismissed and will be used AGAINST you during your rounds. (Keep in mind, this may be an automatic WIN for the opponent).

- I will use arguments, preparation, and speaking skills made to make my decision. Please make sure to participate at your best effort.

ALWAYS REMEMBER TO HAVE FUN!

I am a traditional judge who prefers a more conversational style, so "spread" at your own risk. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you. Try to avoid getting lost in debate jargon, and I strongly prefer traditional LD debate to “K’s” and “theory” arguments. I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round.

1. Philosophy : I approach LD debate from a philosophical standpoint, valuing the clash of ideas and the depth of analysis over mere recitation of evidence.

2. Framework : I believe that the debaters should clearly establish a framework that guides the round. This framework should be logically consistent and serve as a lens through which arguments are evaluated.

3. Clarity : Clarity is paramount. Debaters should articulate their arguments clearly, avoiding jargon or overly complex language.

4. Contention Analysis : I expect debaters to thoroughly analyze each contention presented, weighing its significance, providing impacts, and demonstrating how it relates to the overall debate.

5. Logical Reasoning : Debaters should employ sound logic in constructing their arguments and rebuttals. Logical fallacies should be identified and refuted.

6. Evidence Quality : While evidence is important, I prioritize the quality over quantity. Debaters should provide well-sourced and relevant evidence to support their arguments.

7. Ethical Conduct : I expect debaters to maintain high ethical standards throughout the round, respecting their opponents and the rules of the debate.

8. Flexibility : I appreciate adaptability and flexibility in debaters. They should be able to adjust their strategies based on their opponent's arguments and the flow of the round.

9. Clash : I value substantive clash between debaters. Debaters should engage directly with their opponent's arguments, rather than merely delivering prepared speeches.

10. Decision Criteria : Ultimately, I will base my decision on which debater presents the most persuasive and well-supported arguments within the framework established at the beginning of the round.

Speech Docs: MoStateDebate@gmail.com
Asst Coach at MoState.
2x NDT Qualifier for MoState, Graduated in 23'.
3rd at NFA Nationals 2021, 4x NFA Nationals Qualifier

Random Thoughts:
- "I'm going to flow your speech. There is nothing you can possibly do to stop this short of concede. What's worse, I'm even going to decide the debate based on said flow and said flow alone."

- I do not care what you do, Everything is up for debate (besides objectively wrong things).

- Please keep track of your time, I want to keep track of your speech and the docs, not the time.

- You will often do better if you debate how you feel rather than adjusting to this paradigm.

- Pen time is GREAT, make it easy to flow your speech and you will be rewarded.

- I'll probably take a long time to decide as I try to be respectful of the time and energy that we put into this game. I really try to invest in debate as much as everyone else does, and love to reward bold strategic choices (no, not spark).

- My decisions are going to be what's exactly on my paper, and speaker points will be how well you articulated the thing from the flow to being understood + clarity.

- Evidence Quality is under rated. I'll 1000% read your evidence during, and after the round. You should probably tell me HOW to read it. If it does not say the thing that you think it does, things will not go well for you.

Specific ?'s:

Policy v. K ideological divide (the stuff that matters for prefs).

- I tend to like both for different reasons. I think that being strategic is the best thing that you can do in front of me, be bold and embrace your decisions whole-heartedly. My first 2 years of college debate, I debated exclusively the K (pomo, cybernetics, queerness, etc.), and the last 2 1/2 years, I debated mainly policy. With that in mind, that means I don't have ideological underpinnings that assist either side.

- I think that the strongest part of the K is the Link, and weakest part is the Alt. Policy AFF's tend to have more warrants for how they solve things, than why they actually do. I think that it behoves both teams to play to the others weakness. K's are better at why, and Policy stuff is better at how, explain to me which is better.

Policy:

- I tend to think that offense is where I always start, and the place that teams should always spend the most time on. Impacts tend to be the things that decide debates, and make everything else important as they leak out of that.

- Case debating is a lost and dead art, please bring it back. Hyper specific case negs or good impact D debating is the best stuff to watch.

CP's:

- CP Texts for Perms >>>>

- Fine with Judge Kick, if it makes sense. Should be more than a 10 second blurb.

- PICs are cool, and often strategic.

DA:

- Turns Case is ESSENTIAL, and is usually the difference between a Win that can be easily sought out, and a Win that I scratch my head for a while at.

Topicality:

- T should have a case list, of what is and isn't T.

- Reasonability is probably bad, unless you have a good argument about why your AFF is essential to the topic thus -> Competing Interps !

- Quals are better than no Quals

Theory:

- I think there is a sharp divide between the neg being strategic, and just trying to make the 2AC's life hard by not really debating stuff. I think hard debate should be rewarded, and cowards shouldn't. The best strategies that we always remember were never the 12 off with the 9 plank CP, but the 4-5 off with the impact turns etc. With that said, I think 3 condo is probably my limit (each plank counts as 1 unless stated otherwise by the neg), and contradictions are fine until the block.

K's:

- Telling me why your links mean that I should weigh the AFF and how that implicates their research is probably much better than just stating why your model of debate is better. Vice Versa for AFF, telling me why your research praxis is good, and should be debated is better than telling me why it's a pain you can't weigh the AFF. I think that fairness is an impact, but we have been on the fairness spiel for like 20+ years.

- More impact analysis > no impact analysis.

K AFF's/FW:

- I think that teams should probably read a plan text, and talk about the resolution. But if you want to read a AFF without a plan text, go for it as long as you do it well. Usually, negative teams going for framework do so poorly.

- I usually prefer fairness as an externalization of education, and how it impacts the game of debate in terms of making us better people and/or better educators.

- Definitions are under-used, and I think that the best AFF's make us really ponder how we should collectively view the topic.

Overview: These are my defaults. Everything is up for debate. Please add me to the email chain phildebate@gmail.com

First, I consider myself an argument critic. By this I mean I might vote on an argument that I do not agree with or one I think is untrue because in the context of the round one team persuades me. This means that I tend to fall on the side of tech over truth.

Second, I understand debate by argument. There is a trend in debate to replace argument with author names. The community has begun referencing authors instead of the argument that the evidence is meant to strengthen. This is a bad trend, in my mind, and should be limited to necessity.

Third, I will not now, nor will I ever, stop a debate if I think that someone is clipping or cross reading. While I think this is cheating I think it is up to the debaters in the round to make an argument and then for me to judge that argument based on the available evidence and render a decision. However, if you are caught clipping when I judge I will give you a loss and zero speaker points. .

Fourth, Speaker-Points are dumb. Preffing judges based on the speaker points they give is even dumber. It has long been the case that weak judges give high speaks in order to be preffed. It is unfortunate that judges of color have had to resort to giving debaters higher points than they deserve to get into debates. I will do my best to maintain the community norm.

Topicality: Yes, I vote on it. It is always a voter. Topicality debates are about competing interpretations and the benefits of those interpretations. It is incumbent upon the debaters to do impact calculus of their advantages (these are the reasons to prefer aka standards) vs. the advantages of the counter-interpretation and the disadvantages to your interpretation. In other words, to win topicality you need win that your interpretation is better for debate than your opponents. This formula is true for ALL theory arguments if you plan to win them in front of me.

Framework: Yes, I vote on it. Framework is, to me, a criticism of the affirmatives method. What does this mean for you? It means that I am less persuaded by arguments like debate is a game and fairness claims. I tend to think of fairness, strategically, and my default is to say that fairness almost never outweighs education. I have voted on fairness as a terminal impact before and will likely do so again but the threshold to beat a team going for fairness is often very low and this gets even lower when the affirmative rightly points out that fairness claims are rooted in protecting privilege. If you are negative and you are going for framework my suggestion is that you make sure to have as many ways to negate the affirmatives offense as possible in the 2nr; this includes switch side debate solves your offense and topical version of your aff. If you do that and then win an internal link into education you will likely win my ballot.

I default to utilitarian ethics when making judgments about what action/vote is most beneficial. If you would like me to use some other method of evaluation that needs to be explained and it needs to be upfront.

Counterplans-You should read one. Counterplans compete through net benefits.

*Presumption never flips aff. I know there is a redefinition of Presumption as “less change” but this is a misunderstanding of presumption. Presumption, simply put, is that the existing state of affairs, policies, programs should continue unless adequate reasons are given for change. Now like everything in this philosophy this is a default. To say that presumption flips affirmative is just to say that the affirmative has achieved their prima facia burden to prove that the SQ needs change.

*Counterplan theory: My default is that conditionality is the state that counterplans naturally exist. Because I believe counterplans are merely a test of the intrinsicness of the affirmatives advantages it means that I also default to judge kick. This means that there is little chance that I will vote outright on conditionality bad. Instead, I will assess that the Negative is now “stuck” with a counter-advocacy that alters the debate in corresponding ways.

Criticisms: Criticisms function much like counterplans and disads, insofar, as they should have an alternative and link and impact. I can be persuaded that K’s do not need an alternative. With that being said, if you are going for a K without an alternative then you need to have a lot of defense against the affirmative. Some of that defense can come in the form of the k itself (serial policy failure or impacts are inevitable arguments) but some of it SHOULD also be specific to the plan.

Any questions just ask. Good Luck!

Hi Everyone, I am a parent judge with extremely limited experience. I'm unfamiliar with how different forms of debate and speech work, so I hope competitors will be patient with me and explain to me.

For speech, I respect a speaker who can enunciate and articulate, with vocal variety, without loads of filler words. I will not be able to provide time signals, so if you need them, I recommend asking another competitor. That said, you are allowed to self time as long as the rules permit it. Please be supportive of one another during a round by staying quiet and offering support and encouragement between speeches/rounds.

For debate, I have limited debate experience. I am not sure how long each speech is supposed to go or the order of speeches and crossfires, so if competitors could guide me, that would be great. I would like your contention to be clear and supported well by your points. Please, no spreading, I would like your speeches to have a good pace and enunciation. I would like competitors to be respectful to one another and to the judge during a round.

Thanks so much, and I look forward to a fun round.

umich '27

yes, put me on the chain (if applicable) : shsophia@umich.edu

notes for the michigan tournament october 2023:

-- what framework impact? --

fairness is the most strategic, but just do whatever you like best

-- can i go for the K/K AFF? --

i default to weighing the aff vs evaluating aff scholarship. k aff -probably not. i lean neg on framework, but i'll vote for it if debated well

-- how many condo? --

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? --

almost always, but exceptions can happen

-- 1NC construction/do they care about a ton of off? --

don't care. do whatever. i'd prefer you don't spam 5+ undeveloped off

-- rehighlightings? --

fine, but read them

-- is going for theory hopeless? --

no, but impact out when analyzing models/trends and their consequences

-- If they drop condo or aspec or it's a crush etc do i have to fill the whole 2NR/2AR? --

no

skip down to policy vvvvv

notes for debaters on the local utah circuit:

read whatever you want, i am good on mostly everything besides uncommon/high phil

if you don't understand some of the terms in my paradigm don't worry about it- it probably does not apply to your style of argumentation

i'm not well versed on the high school topics, so please explain any topic specific acronyms you throw around

if you like creative/progressive/technical arguments, i know you cannot read them in front of the majority of judges on this circuit. please feel free to read them in front of me, i strongly believe lay arguments get repetitive and boring over time, so if you want to try something new go for it

LD prefs shortcut:

1- policy-like LD rounds

2- traditional

3- generic kritiks

4- generic theory/t, niche ks

5/strike- trix, friv theory

LD

tech > truth

definitions debate < value-criterion debate < literally anything else ever in the entire history of time

spread if you want but slow down on tags and analytics. i will yell clear if necessary

spreading in a round with a new/slow debater who clearly can't adapt to your style will hurt your speaks (and depending on the context and circuit, your chance of winning) and will definitely be on my ballot. however, if the technical debater wins the round on the argumentative level, i will almost always often vote for them

use cross effectively but i will not flow it, so include it in speeches

cross-ex is binding

good use of 1NC time and going down the aff flow is appreciated

in my experience the 1AR makes or breaks the round; how you give the 1AR is fairly indicative of how you're doing and how likely you are to win. in an (especially in a traditional) LD round, this will be one of the speeches i pay the most attention to

please tell me how to vote. LD debaters often lack impact calc and sufficient weighing of impacts under their framework (despite almost always reading one)

make good use of your evidence -- a lot of debaters in traditional rounds do not do this. integrate your evidence into your analytics, and don't falsify or clip your cards

Policy

DISCLOSE. if you are a utah debater, using the wiki is not super common, so i won't be surprised if you don't use it. however, sending speeches/evidence in an email chain is necessary as soon as you get into the round.

read as fast as you want, but my above notes on clarity on tags and analytics apply. otherwise, i think a faster pace (even if you don't spread fully) is super super useful in policy

send perm texts

creative (aka dubiously topical)plan affs are fun but please be prepared for common t shells

this should go without saying, but split the block

tag-team cross is always fine

i will only judge-kick if you tell me to

condo is good

tech > truth

if you read a to z spec i will be very bored and if i vote for you, i will do so begrudgingly. your speaks may suffer

i'm not super likely to vote on "1% risk of a link"

cards that are not word salad are HEAVILY PREFERRED

i can tell when you steal docs off the wiki and don't know what you're reading/don't bother to look over them

case debate is underrated- please do it and do it well if you want my ballot

T- please be specific on why i should prefer your counter-interp

should also go without saying- please extend well. good overviews are always appreciated

PF

please weigh your impacts- good impact calc is underrated in PF

extend well, i will not flow anything you don't extend

analyze your evidence. similarly, your analysis should incorporate your cards directly

write my ballot for me- if you do not tell why/or how to vote for you i probably will not vote for you

use cross well

plans/counterplans in PF are fine. i will weigh them or vote on them. i think limiting what pf teams can read decreases how effectively debaters learn. however, i am persuaded by a good t or theory shell.

anything else applicable to PF from the above two categories also applies

misc.

be respectful

if you are reading anything discriminatory, or are exceptionally mean or disrespectful, you will lose with very low speaks

don't misgender your opponents

don't try to impact turn sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.

have fun!

email chain/contact info: stoutmalicia@gmail.com

about me: recent graduate from truman state university where I debated for four years. I coach policy debate at pembroke hill in KCMO. in undergrad i studied polisci & ir, postmodern philosophy and women & gender studies.

housekeeping: doc should be sent within 30 seconds of ending prep barring unusual circumstances. signpost well (VERY CLEARLY, "NEXT OFF"). you should send analytics. card dumps and expecting me to cross apply the cards for you to the LBL is a risky game. "clean docs" that are sent that are not actually "clean" are slimy. lack of distinction between your card reading voice and your tag/analytic voice also can result in mishaps on the flow.

Debated: Immigration(CX), Arms Sales (CX), Immigration (NFA), Counterterrorism (NFA), Elections (NFA), Nukes (NFA)

Coached: Criminal Justice Reform (CX), Water (CX), Fiscal Redistribution (CX)

TLDR: Speed is cool. Signposting is necessary. Ks on the aff and neg are a vibe and procedural debates are fun.

ETHICS ISSUES: Don't scream. Be kind. Don't cheat! Don't card clip. Repeated Interrupting and yelling in CX is a voter.

Policy:

Tech > Truth: I am anti-judge intervention, I default to tech as reasonably as I can. Dropped args are generally true so long as there is some extension of a warrant. I will read cards - so at the very minimum at least make sure your evi. is somewhat coming to the conclusion you say it does. If the card is completely dropped, my threshold for this is pretty low but don't misconstrue evidence -> that's probably not good for debate.

Speed: Speed is my preference as a competitor. Will vote on the Speed K if pertinent. Slow down on analytics that aren't in the doc.

T/Theory: Big fan if you do it well. The 2NR/2AR should collapse solely to the theory page. There should be an interp, vio, standards and voters in the shell. I'll vote on potential abuse if there is a clear warrant for why I should. Love a good TVA. I default to competing interps but can be swayed.

Disclosure: Neg and aff should disclose full-text new positions on the wiki. Hard debate is good debate. I'm from a smaller school, and have fully disclosed all of my debate rounds. I highly encourage debaters to disclose, it makes you better. Don't false disclose.

Disads: I pref aff-specific links. If you collapse to DA/Case, give me an overview on top and do lots of impact comparison. Tix aren’t my favorite but like I said tech over truth.

New in the 2: Not a fan, unless it's justified - i.e. a new theory sheet because of in-round abuse. New impact scenarios are fine, but I'll give a lot of mercy to the 1ar.

Counterplans/Conditional Advocacies (General): One condo CP/K is fine. The more conditional CPs/Ks you run, the lower my threshold gets. In most cases a CP/K combo is perfcon -- which I absolutely will vote on. I default to judge kick, but can be persuaded on why judge kicks are bad - or why I shouldn't. I won't vote solely on a solvency lens - you need to win the net benefit.

Kritiks (Neg): Please operate under the assumption that I'm completely unfamiliar with the literature you're reading -- that's the best way to avoid any specific K biases I might have. I enjoy it if you can clearly explain what the K does & what the alt looks like. Well versed on cap, militarism, security and fem. Specific K links will always be more compelling than generic ones I like alts that do something. FW is important. (IF YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN WHAT THE K DOES I HAVE A VERY LOW THRESHOLD FOR K SOLVENCY!!!)

Kritiks (Aff): I've ran K affs without a plan text. they need an advocacy statement/clear alt text. I've voted neg and aff on framework plenty of times in these debates. tell me why the debate space solves, and how that outweighs fairness claims and such. What does my ballot do? What am I voting for? Am I a policymaker? Is fiat real? If I am left not knowing the answers to all of those questions I probably won't vote on the K aff.

Case: I LOVE turns and I will vote on them if they are impacted out properly. Do not expect me to vote on a dropped turn if you do not weigh it in the round. Case debate is a lost art for the negative, I award high speaks to debaters who do quality evidentiary analysis.

Fun Speaks: clever tasteful APPROPRIATE humor in round is rewarded w/ speaker points :)

put me on the email chain: ahart2241@gmail.com

Experience: 3 years of high school policy debate, 5 years of NDT/CEDA debate at Miami University and Missouri State University. High School coach for 4 years at Parkview (Missouri) High School, Graduate Assistant at Missouri State University.

Most of my experience in debate was very much on the policy side of thing. That doesn't make me uncomfortable with kritiks, but I also wouldn't say I'm familiar with much of the critical literature base. Even more so than in policy rounds, solid evidence analysis and application is very important for me to vote on a critical issue on either the affirmative or the negative. For critical affirmatives, I do think it's important to answer any topicality or framework arguments presented by the negative. For kritiks against these types of affirmatives, I think it's important to contextualize the philosophies and arguments in each in relation to the other side. Maybe even more than in policy v policy debates clash here is very important to me.

On the policy side of things, I love to see a good case debate, and think that evidence analysis(of both your own and your opponent's evidence) is of the utmost importance in these debates. I love a good discussion and comparison of impacts.

In terms of CP theory, I will probably default to rejecting the argument rather than the team in most instances if the affirmative wins the theory debate. On conditionality specifically, the affirmative must have a pretty specific scenario on the negative's abuse in the round for me to vote on it. I much prefer the specificity of that distinction over the nebulous "bad for debate" generality. That ship has probably sailed. One other thing to note is that I will not kick the counterplan for you automatically. The negative will need to make a judge-kick argument (preferably starting in the block) to allow the affirmative opportunities to answer it. I think this is a debate to be had, and shouldn't just be something that is granted to the negative at the outset of the round. That being said, I am definitely willing to do it, if said conditions are met and you win the reason why it's good.

Speed is fine, but I think clarity is far more important that showing me that you can read a bunch of cards. I will say that I am a little rusty, having judged at college/higher level high school tournaments sparingly in the last few years. On evidence I will likely be fine, but would appreciate going slightly below full speed when reading a block of analytic arguments/overviews.

Cajon High School, San Bernardino, CA

I debated Policy for one year in high school a hundred years ago. I have been coaching LD for nine years, judging it for fifteen. I like it. I also coach PuFo and have coached Parli. I have judge two rounds of Policy as an adult and am not a fan.

LD: Briefly, I am a traditional LD judge. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules (no plans/counterplans), that affirms or negates the resolution. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in debates on theory. Engage in an argument with the other person's framework and contentions and I will be engaged. Go off topic and you had better link to something.

Parli: I definitely don't like to hear tons of evidence in Parli, which should be about the arguments, not the evidence. Please ask and accept some POIs, and use them to help frame the debate. Manufacturing of evidence has become a real ethical problem in Parli. I don't really want to be the evidence police, but I might ask how I can access your source if the case turns on evidence.

Public Forum: Stay within the rules. Don't dominate the grand crossfire. This was designed to resemble a "town hall" and should not get technical or be loaded with cards. It is a debate about policy, but it should not be debated as if it was Policy debate.

In more depth:
Crystallization: It's good practice. Do it. Signpost, too.

Speed/flow: I can handle some speed, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need speed to win. IMO, good debating should be good public speaking. It's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear", and I am certainly not interested in reading your case. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing and try to listen as best I can. I will flow the debate, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just blippy arguments covering the flow. If you're not sure, treat me as a lay judge.

Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies. I get that some evidence should be challenged, but a debate about evidence isn't the point.

Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker.

Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give under 27 or over 29. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged a state champion. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair.

Theory: I generally dislike the migration of Policy ideas and techniques to other debates. If you want to debate using Policy methods, debate in Policy. In my opinion, much of the supposed critical thinking that challenges rules and norms is just overly clever games or exercises in deploying jargon. Just my opinion as an old fart. That said, I am okay with bringing in stock issues (inherency, solvency, topicality, disads) if done thoughtfully, and I will accept theory if all of the debaters are versed in it, but you'll do better if you explain rather than throw jargon.

Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and often fail to offer good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. I generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution - but not always. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" If it's just because it's cool - don't.

Other: Unless instructed to do so, I don't disclose decisions or speaker points in prelims, though I will give some comments if that is within the tournament's norms and you have specific questions.

Please add me to the email chain: hstringer@princetonisd.net

CX Philosophy
As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and argument. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round.

I enjoy topical affirmatives and unique arguments from the negative that link to the affirmative case. If an argument applies to any topical affirmative, I tend to not vote for it (provided the affirmative shows that it is non-unique). Really good impact debate is my happy place.

In regards to speed, I would say I am comfortable with mid-high, however it would be smart to think slower on procedurals and tag lines. Go ahead and add me to the email/flash chain and then do what makes you happy.

My facial expressions are pretty readable. If you see me making a face, you may want to slow down and/or explain more thoroughly.

I don't count flashing as part of prep, but prep for flashing/sending files (organizing files, trying to find the right speech, deleting other files, etc) are. It shouldn't take more than about 30 seconds to send files. Going on 5 minutes is a bit excessive.

In terms of critical debate: I am not opposed to it, but I am not well versed, so be sure to really explain any kritiks and how they impact the debate. One of my students called me a lazy progressive judge. That fits. I don't read the literature or envelope myself in the K. Do the work for me; I don't want to.

Counterplans, disadvantages and solvency/advantage debates are great.

I think topicality is necessary to debate, but tend to skew to the aff as long as they can show how they are reasonably topical.

All that being said, I will flow anything and vote on anything until a team proves it isn't worthy of a vote.

LD Philosophy

I have been near LD Debate for about 20 years, but have never been trained in it. So, I am knowledgeable about the event, but not about the content within it. You will probably need to explain more to me and why I should vote on a particular issue. As a policy debater, I tend toward evidence and argumentation. However, I will vote on what you tell me is important to vote on unless your opponent makes a more compelling argument for me to vote on something else.

Public Forum Debate Philosophy

My favorite part of public forum debate is the niceties that are expected here. I love to watch a debater give a killer speech and then turn to politeness in crossfire. Polite confidence is a major selling point for me. Not that I won't vote for you if you aren't polite, but I might look harder for a winning argument for your opponent. In PF, I look more for communication of ideas over quantity of argumentation. I don't coach public forum, so I am not well versed in the content. Make sure you explain and don't just assume I know the inner workings of the topic.

I am a high school science teacher and speech and debate coach. I've coached speech and debate for 9 years. I competed in speech and congressional debate in high school, then some speech in college. I am very passionate about the power of communication. Above all, it is extremely important to me that you articulate and enunciate well. This can still be accomplished with reasonable speed. Take care to explain your arguments well. I strongly prefer constructive speeches with resolutional analysis, framework, key definitions, and a standard that I can use to weigh arguments. I should have a solid understanding of what you think are the most important issues in the round. Please use voters! If you want me to vote on it, please make sure it is in your final speech and explain it thoroughly so I can understand it.

Arguments

Argue on logic, not emotions. Construct well-impacted, well-supported arguments. Quotations have no meaning without explanations. Therefore, always explain the significance of your evidence. The debater that most clearly presents a logical argument AND effectively refutes the opponent will be the victor.

Evidence

I may ask you to post your case or cards, if a virtual tournament. I may call for cards if your opponents ask me to, if the card is widely disputed during the round, or if it sounds exceptionally sketchy. According to NSDA rules, you can also access the Internet during round if you need to show your opponent the full citation.

Speed and Flowing

Anything below spread speed is fine. If you go fast, you should: SLOW DOWN when using tag lines and signposting. Give clear citations. Make sure you tell me where you are on the flow (off time roadmaps). Please look out for physical cues if you are speed-talking. If I look visibly confused or if my hand isn’t moving, that’s probably because I can’t understand you. While I don’t flow crossfire/cross-ex, I’ll remember anything exceptionally witty or smart you say. Make sure you repeat anything significant from crossfire/cross-ex in your next speeches. Rebuttal speeches should be well organized. Please go straight down the flow.

Behavior

Don’t be mean. If you’re mean, my brain will naturally find a way to vote against you. Being assertive is valued. Being aggressive is unnecessary. There is a difference between a passionate debater and an abrasive or condescending debater. Crossfires/cross-ex needs to be conducted with civility. You can be civil and still have clash in the round. I enjoy good clash.

Specific to LD

My judging paradigm for Lincoln Douglas (LD) Debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to an idealistic, just world. The criterion is the standard by which to measure the opposing value and to ultimately define the value that should be upheld. The contentions are used to uphold the value. Impact all your contentions back to your value. Value, criterion, and contentions must be clearly stated by both sides. Therefore, the debater that upholds their value and criteria with the strongest contentions and strongest cross examination will receive the higher points, thus (generally) the win.

Speaker Points

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.