I firmly believe the judge should not be a part of the debate, therefore I have no paradigm. Your frameworks and arguments will dictate the round. All I ask is that I can understand you.

I am a parent and a lay judge​. That being said, I'm only familiar with traditional LD.

If you're a strict circuit debater, please strike me or plan on going lay. ​As far as traditional debate goes:

Things I like:

● Weighing your impacts clearly

● Full extensions - Tell me why what you're extending matters.

● Structured speeches/Signposting

Things I dislike:

● Being abusive in CX/aggressive in general

● Definitions debate - You can go for it, but don't expect to wow me

● Spreading

● Being late to the round

General:

● The obvious: don't be racist, homophobic, etc.

● I will disclose, but will keep it brief.. There'll be more comments in the e-ballot.

● I try to average a 28 in speaker points. I’d say clear rebuttals are the best way to up your speaks.

If you have questions, please ask me before the round starts.

Pretty obvious stuff

Debate is won through good, well researched arguments, not technical "tricks". Don't claim drops when they didn't happen. Make sure you clash and explain why you won clearly - what did the debate come down to?

I'm not particularly interested in a statistics fight. It is impossible for me to know which statistics are more accurate.

Don't spread. It's not fun, not in the spirit of debate and has zero life skill or educational value.

unionville ’19 | cornell ’23 (not debating)

4 years policy debate as a 2n

email: unionvillekl@gmail.com

policy:

i am a new judge, but i will try to ensure a fair and thoughtful decision based on a careful flow. the best debates have well-researched clash, in-depth explanations, and many argument comparisons. please be considerate of everyone in the room. if there are any ways i can make the debate more accessible for you, please let me know.

*tldr*

• tech > truth
• as a debater, i am most experienced in the policy side but have gone for arguments across the spectrum. i ran mostly soft-left and occasionally big stick affs and went for da/cp/t about 70% of the time and a k 30% of the time vs. policy affs.
• i went for t-usfg with a procedural fairness impact in 95% of my 2nrs vs. k/no plan affs. the other 5% were case turns.
• types of rounds i am experienced in (from most to least): policy v. policy, policy v. k, k v. k (no experience)
• i will call clear 2x; after that, i will just flow what i can. i think it is a reasonable expectation to be able to understand every word, even the warrants of the card.
• evidence quality undoubtedly matters — spin will at best be a lens through which i will view the contested evidence.
• any flavor of “debate bad” arguments will be an uphill battle to win.
• i will not evaluate arguments about actions that occurred outside of the round.
• i have no topic knowledge, so providing more explanation on particularly complex internal link chains or nuanced counterplans would be appreciated.

*specific*

do what you do best. my predispositions can be overcome by quality debating.

t-usfg/fw —

• i heavily lean negative because i believe debate is a game (that does not shape subjectivity) with strategic value and not having a limited topic and predictable stasis point cancels the opportunity for clash and productive debate.
• fairness (because preserving equitable competition is necessary to actualize any benefits of debate) > clash > dialogue > other neg impacts (“decision making,” “debate skills”)
• tvas do not need to solve the aff and prove that the aff could access similar content and literature base with a resolutional tie.
• tvas must meet the neg’s interp.

k affs —

• neg presumption ballots are very appealing in these debates since i just do not think these affs do anything. the aff needs to have clear impact calculus.
• there must be judge instruction: what am i voting for? why is that thing good?
• if the aff forgoes defending the topic, there should be a substantive critique of the resolutional mechanism.

ks —

• i am most familiar with capitalism, neoliberalism, settler colonialism, and discourse (i.e. security, victimization) kritiks.
• because of my policy background, i am predisposed to think: material resolution of conditions and violence is good, extinction is bad, and fiat is good.
• i have a high threshold for explanation, especially for race and high theory based kritiks (i have only ever debated against these).
• explicit line-by-line >>> overview that implicitly answers arguments (i will not make cross applications without instruction)
• on the fw debate, affs will always get to weigh their aff.
• sectioning the kritik in the neg block and doing line-by-line within each section (i.e. the fw debate, the perm debate, the link debate, the alt debate, etc.) creates a much cleaner flow.
• generic links (i.e. state bad) are unpersuasive especially if the aff makes link distinctions, which also makes voting for the perm much easier.
• if the alt is kicked, there must be explicit explanation on how the status quo resolves the links to the plan.
• if there is not case debate while going for the k, there will likely be an aff ballot.

topicality —

• since t is about competing visions of the topic, a clear picture of the topic with details about how debates and research occur and specific case lists under each definition are essential.
• describe and compare the contours of debate under not only the neg’s interp but also the aff’s interp, and explain why those differences matter.
• i default to competing interpretations.
• reasonability is an argument about why your definition is reasonably predictable, not why it is just “good enough.”

das —

• make “turns case” and outweighs analyses contextualized to the aff’s specific impacts.
• there must be a high risk of the da for me to vote on the “turns case” arguments, so disproving the framing flow would still be beneficial.
• the more contrived the internal link scenario the higher the burden of explanation and carded evidence will be for the neg.

cp —

• slow down on the cp text.
• i would prefer having a carded solvency advocate.
• sufficiency framing is at best a reason why the solvency deficits should be weighed slightly less — i would much prefer that the neg just do the solvency debate.
• evidence that compares the cp to the plan makes the cp probably legitimate.
• cps that solely compete on immediacy and certainty are questionable and will be difficult to win.

theory —

• slow down on analytics and warrant arguments.
• there must be detailed explanation of the world of debate under each model and the impacts of defaulting to each interp.
• most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, not the team.
• i rarely ran more than 3 conditional advocacies in neg rounds but if more than that is present in the neg strat 1) i am more sympathetic towards the aff 2) the neg should be very prepared to defend their multiple strategies.
• if theory is dropped, the opposing team must extend it throughout the debate for it to be voted on.

public forum:

i have never competed in this event and my only experience has been in the background research and progressive strategies components. i am not familiar with most pf norms, so most of my reasoning will default to policy norms.

• my flow will dictate the winner and loser.
• arguments should be answered in the same order they are presented.
• an argument must be in the previous speech for it to be extended (except for first rebuttal).
• 2nd rebuttal should answer the speech preceding it and extend their own case.
• arguments with evidence to back up claims will almost always have more weight than smart analytics.
• i strongly oppose paraphrasing (but understand the utility of it in short time constraints). if paraphrased evidence is disputed, i will evaluate the evidence from my own perspective (i will not consider evidence spin). if the evidence is misconstrued, i will treat it as if it has not been read in round and strike it from my flow.
• i am familiar with theory and kritiks (look above for preferences) and am open to hearing them. however, i do not see the strategic value in going for a kritik in this event because the level and depth of explanations and argument comparisons required to run a kritik well far exceeds the time limits of pf speeches.

I have been coaching for about a decade at a school that mostly does Lincoln Douglas debate, some PF teams here and there. I've been judging just as long. Here is what you will want to know.

Speed- is fine as long as it is fine for everyone. However, if you start spreading, it is a good idea to see if I am still flowing or squinting like an old man trying to order off a menu far away. You want the former. If I'm flowing, I'm following.

RFDs- I will give an extensive RFD for my decision where I will tell you the specifics of WHY I chose one framework over the other. While framework will rule the day in my decision, I value evidence over everything else. It is both sides burden to support why your framework rules over all and while evidence won't be my only decision, I tend to appreciate a side that states their argument, proves it with evidence and gives me the voters to say why they have won the debate.

I've judged a lot of LD both local, nationally, and circuit, so I can handle non-traditional forms of debate but you need to make sure you are clear about what you are running non-traditionally and that you are adhering to the league rules that are being followed. However, it is your responsibility to make it clear what are you are doing and why. Basically, pretend I am dumb (but please only pretend, don't actually think it)

And please, above all else, make sure you are clashing and clashing appropriately. I may not cast a ballot against you simply for being abusive but A. it does not help and B. I might.