Most important thing first: He who wins the framework, wins the round. He who wins the framework wins the round. He who wins the framework, wins the round. Ok? Yes, you can argue against the contrary if you want.

No spreading. I will put my pen down and stop listening. I feel no ethical or professional obligation to strain myself to understand someone trying so little to be understood.

Philosophy and framework debate matter before all. I have a masters in philosophy. Impact doesn't really matter, if philosophically you can't prove that the impact would be a good thing.

I pay attention during cross examination. Concessions made there are binding.

I've done this for some time, but I am traditional and have no patience for progressive LD tricks designed to avoid a debate. This doesn't mean no critique, but it does mean that your critique had better demonstrate deep understanding of the deeper philosophic issues at play or I'll just dismiss it as sophistry. Theory? Again, fine if you really demonstrate a deep understanding of the philosophy. I feel likewise about cleverly redefining words in the resolution. I'm fine with a fine-tuned definition of words and their meanings but you had better have a really good reason for redefining a word away from its commonsense, everyday use. Again, you could have that reason.

While I'm not a lay judge, if a lay judge couldn't understand you, we have problems. It's up to you to be clear, not up to me to demonstrate I can listen. The real Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debated before farmers with less than an eight grade education in Freeport and Peoria IL. Let them be your guides.

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card.

Timing

You are welcome to time yourself but I will be timing you as well. Once my timer starts, it will not stop until the time for a given speech has elapsed. You may do whatever you like with that time, but I will not pause the round for tech issues. Tech issues happen and you need to be prepared for them.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if not argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts. Performance is important here.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to possibility of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true. I have a fairly low threshold to vote on "psychoanalysis is unscientific nonsense" arguments because....well, they're kinda true.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

I'm a coach and a relatively new judge.

My paradigm falls primarily into speaking skills/communications.

I'm not impressed with spread. I am impressed with clarity and good arguments.

I like road maps and voters.

I am a second year parent Judge so fairly new.

I prefer no spreading, at a pace that all can follow. I am very much a more traditional LD judge.

Please give me your voters !! Why you should win. What makes your framework better than your opponents.

No progressive debate ie, Counterplans, K, Theory, DA's, etc. ( not qualified )

Experience-This will be my fifth year as the head coach at Northview High School. Before moving to Georgia, I coached for 7 years at Marquette High in Milwaukee, WI.

Yes, add me to the email chain. My email is mcekanordebate@gmail.com

*As I have gained more coaching and judging experience, I find that I highly value teams who respect their opponents who might not have the same experience as them. This includes watching how you come across in CX, prep time, and your general comportment towards your opponent. In some local circuits, circuit-style policy debate is dwindling and we all have a responsibility to be respectful of the experience of everyone trying to be involved in policy debate.*

I recommend that you go to the bathroom and fill your water bottles before the debate rather than before a speech.

LD Folks please read the addendum at the end of my paradigm.

Meta-Level Strike Sheet Concerns

1. Debates are rarely won or lost on technical concessions or truth claims alone. In other words, I think the “tech vs. truth” distinction is a little silly. Technical concessions make it more complicated to win a debate, but rarely do they make wins impossible. Keeping your arguments closer to “truer” forms of an argument make it easier to overcome technical concessions because your arguments are easier to identify, and they’re more explicitly supported by your evidence (or at least should be). That being said, using truth alone as a metric of which of y’all to pick up incentivizes intervention and is not how I will evaluate the debate.

2. Evidence quality matters a bunch to me- it’s evidence that you have spent time and effort on your positions, it’s a way to determine the relative truth level of your claims, and it helps overcome some of the time constraints of the activity in a way that allows you to raise the level of complexity of your position in a shorter amount of time. I will read your evidence throughout the debate, especially if it is on a position with which I’m less familiar. I won’t vote on evidence comparison claims unless it becomes a question of the debate raised by either team, but I will think about how your evidence could have been used more effectively by the end of the debate. I enjoy rewarding teams for evidence quality.

3. Every debate could benefit from more comparative work particularly in terms of the relative quality of arguments/the interactions between arguments by the end of the round. Teams should ask "Why?", such as "If I win this argument, WHY is this important?", "If I lose this argument WHY does this matter?". Strategically explaining the implications of winning or losing an argument is the difference between being a middle of the road team and a team advancing to elims.

4. Some expectations for what should be present in arguments that seem to have disappeared in the last few years-

-For me to vote on a single argument, it must have a claim, warrant, impact, and impact comparison.

-A DA is not a full DA until a uniqueness, link, internal link and impact argument is presented.Too many teams are getting away with 2 card DA shells in the 1NC and then reading uniqueness walls in the block. I will generally allow for new 1AR answers.

Similarly, CP's should have a solvency advocate read in the 1NC. I'll be flexible on allowing 1AR arguments in a world where the aff makes an argument about the lack of a solvency advocate.

-Yes, terminal defense exists, however, I do not think that teams take enough advantage of this kind of argument in front of me. I will not always evaluate the round through a lens of offense-defense, but you still need to make arguments as to why I shouldn’t by at least explaining why your argument functions as terminal defense. Again this plays into evidence questions and the relative impacts of arguments claims made above.

Specifics

Case-Debates are won or lost in the case debate. By this, I mean that proving whether or not the aff successfully accesses all, some or none of the case advantages has implications on every flow of the debate and should be a fundamental question of most 2NRs and 2ARs. I think that blocks that are heavy in case defense or impact turns are incredibly advantageous for the neg because they enable you to win any CP (by proving the case defense as a response to the solvency deficit), K (see below) or DA (pretty obvious). I'm also more likely than others to write a presumption ballot or vote neg on inherency arguments. If the status quo solves your aff or you're not a big enough divergence, then you probably need to reconsider your approach to the topic.

Most affs can be divided into two categories: affs with a lot of impacts but poor internal links and affs with very solid internal links but questionable impacts. Acknowledging in which of these two categories the aff you are debating falls should shape how you approach the case debate. I find myself growing increasingly disappointed by negative teams that do not test weak affirmatives. Where's your internal link defense?? I also miss judging impact turn debates, but don't think that spark or wipeout are persuasive arguments. A high level de-dev debate or heg debate, on the other hand, love it.

DA-DAs are questions of probability. Your job as the aff team when debating a DA is to use your defensive arguments to question the probability of the internal links to the DA. Affirmative teams should take more advantage of terminal defense against disads. I'll probably also have a lower threshold for your theory arguments on the disad. Likewise, the neg should use turns case arguments as a reason why your DA calls into question the probability of the aff's internal links. Don't usually find "____ controls the direction of the link" arguments very persuasive. You need to warrant out that claim more if you're going to go for it. Make more rollback-style turns case arguments or more creative turns case arguments to lower the threshold for winning the debate on the disad alone.

CP-CP debates are about the relative weight of a solvency deficit versus the relative weight of the net benefit. The team that is more comparative when discussing the solvency level of these debates usually wins the debate. While, when it is a focus of the debate, I tend to err affirmative on questions of counterplan competiton, I have grown to be more persuaded by a well-executed counterplan strategy even if the counterplan is a process counterplan. The best counterplans have a solvency advocate who is, at least, specific to the topic, and, best, specific to the affirmative. I do not default to judge kicking the counterplan and will be easily persuaded by an affirmative argument about why I should not default to that kind of in-round conditionality. Not a huge fan of the NGA CP and I've voted three out of four times on intrinsic permutations against this counterplan so just be warned. Aff teams should take advantage of presumption arguments against the CP.

K-Used to have a bunch of thoughts spammed here that weren't too easy to navigate pre-round. I've left that section at the bottom of the paradigm for the historical record, but here's the cleaned up version:

What does the ballot do? What is the ballot absolutely incapable of doing? What does the ballot justify? No matter if you are on the aff or the neg, defending the topic or not, these are the kinds of questions that you need to answer by the end of the debate. As so much of K debating has become framework debates on the aff and the neg, I often find myself with a lot of floating pieces of offense that are not attached to a clear explanation of what a vote in either direction can/can't do.

T-Sitting through a bunch of framework debates has made me a better judge for topicality than I used to be. Comparative impact calculus alongside the use of strategic defensive arguments will make it easier for me to vote in a particular direction. Certain interps have a stronger internal link to limits claims and certain affs have better arguments for overlimiting. Being specific about what kind of offense you access, how it comes first, and the relative strength of your internal links in these debates will make it more likely that you win my ballot. I’m not a huge fan of tickytacky topicality claims but, if there’s substantial contestation in the literature, these can be good debates.

Theory- I debated on a team that engaged in a lot of theory debates in high school. There were multiple tournaments where most of our debates boiled down to theory questions, so I would like to think that I am a good judge for theory debates. I think that teams forget that theory debates are structured like a disadvantage. Again, comparative impact calculus is important to win my ballots in these debates. I will say that I tend to err aff on most theory questions. For example, I think that it is probably problematic for there to be more than one conditional advocacy in a round (and that it is equally problematic for your counter interpretation to be dispositionality) and I think that counterplans that compete off of certainty are bad for education and unfair to the aff. The biggest killer in a theory debate is when you just read down your blocks and don’t make specific claims. Debate like your

Notes for the Blue Key RR/Other LD Judging Obligations

Biggest shift for me in judging LD debates is the following: No tricks or intuitively false arguments. I'll vote on dropped arguments, but those arguments need a claim, data, warrant and an impact for me to vote on them. If I can't explain the argument back to you and the implications of that argument on the rest of the debate, I'm not voting for you.

I guess this wasn't clear enough the first time around- I don't flow off the document and your walls of framework and theory analytics are really hard to flow when you don't put any breaks in between them.

Similarly, phil debates are always difficult for me to analyze. I tend to think affirmative's should defend implementation particularly when the resolution specifies an actor. Outside of my general desire to see some debates about implementation, I don't have any kind of background in the phil literature bases and so will have a harder time picturing the implications of you winning specific arguments. If you want me to understand how your argumets interact, you will have to do a lot of explanation.

Theory debates- Yes, I said that I enjoy theory debates in my paradigm above and that is largely still true, but CX theory debates are a lot less technical than LD debates. I also think there are a lot of silly theory arguments in LD and I tend to have a higher threshold for those sorts of arguments. I also don't have much of a reference for norm setting in LD or what the norms actually are. Take that into account if you choose to go for theory and probably don't because I won't award you with high enough speaks for your liking.

K debates- Yes, I enjoy K debates but I tend to think that their LD variant is very shallow. You need to do more specific work in linking to the affirmative and developing the implications of your theory of power claims. While I enjoy good LD debates on the K, I always feel like I have to do a lot of work to justify a ballot in either direction. This is magnified by the limited amount of time that you have to develop your positions.

Old K Paradigm (2020-2022)

After y’all saw the school that I coach, I’m sure this is where you scrolled to first which is fair enough given how long it takes to fill out pref sheets. I will say, if you told me 10 years ago when I began coaching that I’d be coaching a team that primarily reads the K on the aff and on the neg, I probably would have found that absurd because that wasn’t my entry point into the activity so keep that in mind as you work with some of the thoughts below. That being said, I’ve now coached the K at a high level for the past two years which means that I have some semblance of a feeling for a good K debate. If the K is not something that you traditionally go for, you’re better off going for what you’re best at.

The best debates on the K are debates over the explanatory power of the negative’s theory of power relative to the affirmative’s specific example of liberalism, realism, etc. Put another way, the best K debaters are familiar enough with their theory of power AND the affirmative’s specific impact scenarios that they use their theory to explain the dangers of the aff. By the end of the 2NR I should have a very clear idea of what the affirmative does and how your theory explains why doing the affirmative won’t resolve the aff’s impacts or results in a bad thing. This does not necessarily mean that you need to have links to the affirmative’s mechanism (that’s probably a bit high of a research burden), but your link explanations need to be specific to the aff and should be bolstered by specific quotes from 1AC evidence or CX. The specificity of your link explanation should be sufficient to overcome questions of link-uniqueness or I’ll be comfortable voting on “your links only link to the status quo.”

On the flipside, aff teams need to explain why their contingency or specific example of policy action cannot be explained by the negative’s theory of power or that, even if some aspects can be, that the specificity of the aff’s claims justifies voting aff anyway because there’s some offense against the alternative or to the FW ballot. Affirmative teams that use the specificity of the affirmative to generate offense or push back against general link claims will win more debates than those that just default to generic “extinction is irreversible” ballots.

Case Page when going for the K- My biggest pet peeve with the current meta on the K is the role of the case page. Neither the affirmative nor the negative take enough advantage of this page to really stretch out their opponents on this question. For the negative, you need to be challenging the affirmative’s internal links with defense that can bolster some of your thesis level claims. Remember, you are trying to DISPROVE the affirmative’s contingent/specific policy which means that the more specificity you have the better off you will be. This means that just throwing your generic K links onto the case page probably isn’t the move. 9/10 the alternative doesn’t resolve them and you don’t have an explanation of how voting neg resolves the offense. K teams so frequently let policy affs get away with some really poor evidence quality and weak internal links. Please help the community and deter policy teams from reading one bad internal link to their heg aff against your [INSERT THEORY HERE] K. On that note, policy teams, why are you removing your best internal links when debating the K? Your generic framework cards are giving the neg more things to impact turn and your explanation of the internal link level of the aff is lowered when you do that. Read your normal aff against the K and just square up.

Framework debates (with the K on the neg) For better or worse, so much of contemporary K debate is resolved in the framework debate. The contemporary dependence on framework ballots means a couple of things:

1.) Both teams need to do more work here- treat this like a DA and a CP. Compare the relative strength of internal link claims and impact out the terminal impacts. Why does procedural fairness matter? What is the terminal impact to clash? How do we access your skills claims? What does/does not the ballot resolve? To what extent does the ballot resolve those things? The team that usually answers more of these questions usually wins these debates. K teams need to do more to push back against “ballot can solve procedural fairness” claims and aff teams need to do more than just “schools, family, culture, etc.” outweigh subject formation. Many of you all spend more time at debate tournaments or doing debate work than you do at school or doing schoolwork.

2.) I do think it’s possible for the aff to win education claims, but you need to do more comparative impact calculus. What does scenario planning do for subject formation that is more ethical than whatever the impact scenario is to the K? If you can’t explain your education claims at that level, just go for fairness and explain why the ballot can resolve it.

3.) Risk of the link- Explain what winning framework does for how much of a risk of a link that I need to justify a ballot either way. Usually, neg teams will want to say that winning framework means they get a very narrow risk of a link to outweigh. I don’t usually like defaulting to this but affirmative teams very rarely push back on this risk calculus in a world where they lose framework. If you don’t win that you can weigh the aff against the K, aff teams need to think about how they can use their scenarios as offense against the educational claims of the K. This can be done as answers to the link arguments as well, though you’ll probably need to win more pieces of defense elsewhere on the flow to make this viable.

Do I go for the alternative?

I don’t think that you need to go for the alternative if you have a solid enough framework push in the 2NR. However, few things to keep in mind here:

1.) I won’t judge kick the alternative for you unless you explicitly tell me to do it and include a theoretical justification for why that’s possible.

2.) The framework debate should include some arguments about how voting negative resolves the links- i.e. what is the kind of ethical subject position endorsed on the framework page that pushes us towards research projects that avoid the links to the critique? How does this position resolve those links?

3.) Depending on the alternative and the framework interpretation, some of your disads to the alternative will still link to the framework ballot. Smart teams will cross apply these arguments and explain why that complicates voting negative.

K affs (Generic)

Yes, I’m comfortable evaluating debates involving the K on the aff and think that I’ve reached a point where I’m pretty good for either side of this debate. Affirmative teams need to justify an affirmative ballot that beats presumption, especially if you’re defending status quo movements as examples of the aff’s method. Both teams benefit from clarifying early in the round whether or not the affirmative team spills up, whether or not in-round performances specific to this debate resolve any of the affirmative offense, and whatever the accumulation of ballots does or does not do for the aff. Affirmative teams that are not the Louisville project often get away with way too much by just reading a DSRB card and claiming their ballots function the same way. Aff teams should differentiate their ballot claims and negatives should make arguments about the aff’s homogenizing ballot claims. All that being said, like I discussed above, these debates are won and lost on the case page like any other debate. As the K becomes more normalized and standardized to a few specific schools of thought, I have a harder and harder time separating the case and framework pages on generic “we couldn’t truth test your arguments” because I think that shifts a bit too strongly to the negative. That said, I can be persuaded to separate the two if there’s decent time spent in the final rebuttals on this question.

Framework vs. the K Aff

Framework debates are best when both teams spend time comparing the realities of debate in the status quo and the idealized form of debate proposed in model v. model rounds. In that light, both teams need to be thinking about what proposing framework in a status quo where the K is probably going to stick around means for those teams that currently read the K and for those teams that prefer to directly engage the resolution. In a world where the affirmative defends the counter interpretation, the affirmative should have an explanation of what happens when team don’t read an affirmative that meets their model. Most of the counter interpretations are arbitrary or equivalent to “no counter interpretation”, but an interp being arbitrary is just defense that you can still outweigh depending on the offense you’re winning.

In impact turn debates, both teams need to be much clearer about the terminal impacts to their offense while providing an explanation as to why voting in either direction resolves them. After sitting in so many of these debates, I tend to think that the ballot doesn’t do much for either team but that means that teams who have a better explanation of what it means to win the ballot will usually pick up my decision. You can’t just assert that voting negative resolves procedural fairness without warranting that out just like you can’t assert that the aff resolves all forms of violence in debate through a single debate. Both teams need to grapple with how the competitive incentives for debate establish offense for either side. The competitive incentive to read the K is strong and might counteract some of the aff’s access to offense, but the competitive incentives towards framework also have their same issues. Neither sides hands are clean on that question and those that are willing to admit it are usually better off. I have a hard time setting aside clash as an external impact due to the fact that I’m just not sure what the terminal impact is. I like teams that go for clash and think that it usually is an important part of negative strategy vs. the K, but I think this strategy is best when the clash warrants are explained as internal link turns to the aff’s education claims. Some of this has to due with the competitive incentives arguments that I’ve explained above. Both teams need to do more work explaining whether or not fairness or education claims come first. It’s introductory-level impact analysis I find lacking in many of these debates.

Other things to think about-

1.) These debates are at their worst when either team is dependent on blocks. Framework teams should be particularly cautious about this because they’ve had less of these debates over the course of the season, however, K teams are just as bad at just reading their blocks through the 1AR. I will try to draw a clean line between the 1AR and the 2AR and will hold a pretty strict one in debates where the 1AR is just screaming through blocks. Live debating contextualized to this round far outweighs robots with pre-written everything.

2.) I have a hard time pulling the trigger on arguments with “quitting the activity” as a terminal impact. Any evidence on either side of this question is usually anecdotal and that’s not enough to justify a ballot in either direction. There are also a bunch of alternative causes to numbers decline like the lack of coaches, the increased technical rigor of high-level policy debate, budgets, the pandemic, etc. that I think thump most of these impacts for either side. More often than not, the people that are going to stick with debate are already here but that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences to the kinds of harms to the activity/teams as teams on either side of the clash question learn to coexist.

K vs. K Debates (Overview)

I’ll be perfectly honest, unless this is a K vs. Cap debate, these are the debates that I’m least comfortable evaluating because I feel like they end up being some of the messiest and “gooiest” debates possible. That being said, I think that high level K vs. K debates can be some of the most interesting to evaluate if both teams have a clear understanding of the distinctions between their positions, are able to base their theoretical distinctions in specific, grounded examples that demonstrate potential tradeoffs between each position, and can demonstrate mutual exclusivity outside of the artificial boundary of “no permutations in a method debate.” At their best, these debates require teams to meet a high research burden which is something that I like to reward so if your strat is specific or you can explain it in a nuanced way, go for it. That said, I’m not the greatest for teams whose generic position in these debates are to read “post-truth”/pomo arguments against identity positions and I feel uncomfortable resolving competing ontology claims in debates around identity unless they are specific and grounded. I feel like most debates are too time constrained to meaningfully resolve these positions. Similarly, teams that read framework should be cautious about reading conditional critiques with ontology claims- i.e. conditional pessimism with framework. I’m persuaded by theoretical arguments about conditional ontology claims regarding social death and cross apps to framework in these debates.

I won’t default to “no perms in a methods debate”, though I am sympathetic to the theoretical arguments about why affs not grounded in the resolution are too shifty if they are allowed to defend the permutation. What gets me in these debates is that I think that the affirmative will make the “test of competition”-style permutation arguments anyway like “no link” or the aff is a disad/prereq to the alt regardless of whether or not there’s a permutation. I can’t just magically wave a theory wand here and make those kinds of distinctions go away. It lowers the burden way too much for the negative and creates shallow debates. Let’s have a fleshed out theory argument and you can persuade me otherwise. The aff still needs to win access to the permutation, but if you lose the theory argument still make the same kinds of arguments if you had the permutation. Just do the defensive work to thump the links.

Cap vs. K- I get the strategic utility of these debates, but this debate is becoming pretty stale for me. Teams that go for state-good style capitalism arguments need to explain the process of organization, accountability measures, the kind of party leadership, etc. Aff teams should generate offense off of these questions. Teams that defend Dean should have to defend psychoanalysis answers. Teams that defend Escalante should have specific historical examples of dual power working or not in 1917 or in post-Bolshevik organization elsewhere. Aff teams should force Dean teams to defend psycho and force Escalante teams to defend historical examples of dual power. State crackdown arguments should be specific. I fear that state crackdown arguments will apply to both the alternative and the aff and the team that does a better job describing the comparative risk of crackdown ends up winning my argument. Either team should make more of a push about what it means to shift our research practices towards or away from communist organizing. There are so many debates where we have come to the conclusion that the arguments we make in debate don’t spill out or up and, yet, I find debates where we are talking about politically organizing communist parties are still stuck in some universe where we are doing the actual organizing in a debate round. Tell me what a step towards the party means for our research praxis or provide disads to shifting the resource praxis. All the thoughts on the permutation debate are above. I’m less likely to say no permutation in these debates because there is plenty of clash in the literature between, at least, anti-capitalism and postcapitalism that there can be a robust debate even if you don’t have specifics. That being said, the more you can make ground your theory in specific examples the better off you’ll be.

I debated for four years at Northview High School (09'-13') and very occasionally debated for the Barkley Forum at Emory University (13'-17'). [akash.doshi21@gmail.com]

I've randomly inserted a couple quotes from some debaters who have impacted how I view the activity.

on evidence / debating

tech over truth. Good evidence is good. But good debating is always better. What does this mean? Having a better/more qualified/more recent piece of evidence won't do you much if you can't coherently explain and impact the argument itself as well as how it affects the debate. If you really think your piece of evidence is better and/or that the difference in evidence quality should matter in how I resolve the argument, then tell me.

"I really don't care what arguments you read. Debate is cool because it's an intellectual marketplace in which a debater's persuasion, not my ideology, determines what sinks or swims." - Alex Miles

I'm policy-oriented in terms of how I used to debate and my fundamental evaluation of different arguments but I can be persuaded to vote for **almost** anything.

Debate is always about communication. Be clear. Sacrificing clarity for a bit more speed won't do you much good in front of me. I also feel like speed at some point trades off with persuasiveness which is something I value not just in terms of speaker points, but also in terms of evaluating arguments. That being said, you can go extremely fast idc I'm just saying understand when to use inflection or slowing down to break down an intricate argument, etc.

I think zero risk of an argument is possible but my threshold is relatively high.

Judges try to remain as impartial and unbiased as possible but the nature of communication is that we will be persuaded by arguments that make intuitive sense. Does this mean you can't run confusing/nuanced arguments? No. Does it mean there's a higher threshold to actually explain what your nebulous process CP does and why it solves better? Yes.

Recognizing that an argument was dropped is not sufficient. Explain the argument, it's warrants, and how the concession of the argument affects the debate.

"I wish the debate norm was less focused on whether every impact escalated to maximum magnitude. Most of them probably don't. Things can be bad without being an extinction event.I am definitely guilty of being a debater." - Daniel Taylor

I am definitely guilty of being a debater who often used existential / try-or-die framing but I whole heartedly agree with the above. Intuitive arguments that can dismantle improbable extinction scenarios while articulating why something can be very bad without needing to eviscerate every human on the planet is very persuasive to me.

On framework

There are valuable things to learn from just about any topic you could think of. But I believe the resolution is the only non-arbitrary starting point from which both fair and meaningful discussion can occur. goes w/o saying that the affirmative probably needs a plan

On theory and topicality

One conditional advocacy is probably okay, more justifies the question. Most theory arguments I don't lean one way or another and in most cases its not a reason to reject the team. That being said you should not be afraid to go for theory, but recognize that these debates are often incoherent exchanges of short, jargon-filled arguments so unless you're ready to unpack or show some level of analysis earlier in the debate the threshold is high.

I think severance or intrinsic perms being justified by multiple conditional advocacies or PIC/process cp's bad is a persuasive arg if done correctly.

I default to competing interpretations. I think reasonability is arbitrary. but I just feel like the aff should be able to prove the type of debate and topic they justify via their plan is better than a world of debate without it.

I think topicality is inherently about presenting your vision of what the topic should look like under your interpretation and why it is better

the argument that the affirmative does not meet their own c/i should probably be made more by negative teams extending topicality into the block (if it makes sense)

On the criticism

I think winning the link level is particularly important in K debates. Case must be part of the discussion i.e. the criticism must be both relevant and relative to the affirmative. In order to win the criticism in front of me you must be impacting it as it relates to case and thus you should be "winning case" in some sense. I'm always going to vote for the devil I know over the one I don't i.e. explaining what the alternative does and why that's a better approach then the affirmative is also important. that being said most aff teams should capitalize on this or make arguments that combat these mistakes by negative teams more.

I believe affirmative arguments against the criticism that are rooted in some form of "the K is a non-unique disad" aren't particularly persuasive but the negative should be able to contextualize / differentiate between residual link instances in the status quo vs the plan and whether the alternative does / need / should resolve both or just the latter.

misc.

I've judged a decent amount of debates on this topic, however I am probably not as familiar with the topic as y'all are. So buzzwords and concepts that are commonly tossed around in rounds will probably need to be contextualized a bit better at first. Fine to use afterward.

blatant performative contradictions like reading realism against a criticism when your aff is not realist erk me but aren't nearly leveraged enough by either side anymore.

I believe 'uniqueness controls direction of the link' can be a particularly persuasive framing mechanism if done correctly.

I understand that debate is inherently a competitive activity and things do get heated, but there is a clear distinction between being competitive and being obnoxious/rude.

I don't have a great poker face. If I'm particularly vibing/not vibing with an argument, you'll probably be able to tell. It'll also remind you to look up once in a while.

I love a good impact turn debate (heg good/bad in particular) but people don't really go for it or straight turn disads etc. anymore and it disappoints me. I'm not going to vote on these things just bc you go for it. I'm just saying I miss it.

Death is probably bad.

no need to read this, just food for thought.

Debate is inherently a relative, arbitrary, and qualitative activity. There's no quantifiable way to determine winners, all participants and the judge possess their own implicit and explicit biases that are impossible to flip 'on' or 'off' or separate from our evaluation of ideas and arguments, regardless of how hard we 'try' (I put the word try in quotes because its not something you can try to do, it just exists whether you like it or whether you let yourself believe it or not).

Through this view, consider the following hypothetical situation: a local tournament is short on judges and so a soccer mom with absolutely zero experience in any form of debate or any activity dealing in rhetoric or discourse for that matter has agreed to judge to help alleviate the shortage. She judges a round between a novice team of two freshman who are debating at their second tournament ever and a team that has cleared at the TOC before, made it to the late out rounds of multiple national tournaments, and have attended 'prestigious' debate camps. Both teams debate their hearts out and she votes for the former. Most would just chalk this up to circumstance, or because the judge doesn't understand the technical aspects of the activity. The novice team may have double turned themselves or dropped multiple critical arguments and by every major 'indicator', lost the debate. They could have dropped an entire flow. They could have got up in their final speech, made animal noises for 30 seconds and sat down. In my view, none of that matters. The novice team has won and the other has lost, fair and square.

the judge and your audience exist on a completely independent plane from everything else. in debate and in life. and this is a margin of error that you must willfully accept and embrace in order to truly understand this activity.

I debated national circuit LD at Starr's Mill High School '12 (GA) and did Policy at Vanderbilt University '16 (TN).

I think I am a standard national circuit LD judge. If you only have experience with local debate, this means that I'm fine with (and proactively prefer) spreading and non-traditional arguments. However, if doing so, I recommend using a email chain, for which my email is brenthu1717@gmail.com.

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

LD Paradigm

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

My general preference for debate argument types is Framework >= Plan-Focused/Util > Theory >> Kritiks.

Framework

I like philosophy debate a lot, especially analytical ethical philosophy. If you frequently read cards from Singer, Korsgaard, Mackie, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in general, I would probably really enjoy judging you.

- I enjoy cases that are balanced between framework and contention-level offense, e.g., the AC spending half its time justifying an ethical system (utilitarianism, Kant, Hobbes, virtue ethics, divine command, moral skepticism, etc.) and then the rest on offense under that framework.

- I'm extremely opposed to theoretically-justified frameworks/affirmative framework choice. I think these things kill philosophy education, which is the most useful part of debate. If you can't prove that util is objectively true, what's even the point of pretending it's true if we have no reason to believe it?

- I'm not a fan of vague standards like "structural violence" where practically anything commonly considered bad can be considered an impact. Winter and Leighton are the bane of my existence.

- Your impacts need to actually link to an ethical philosophy in the round. Explain to me why I should care about people dying, why human rights exist, and why racism is bad in the context of the round.

Plan-focused/Util

I can enjoy a Plan-focused or whole-resolution util debate just as much, however, and I've done Policy in the past.

- Weighing is wonderful, and probably the point where you will best be able to pick up high speaks.

- Things like author-specific indicts or methodological critiques of particular studies are fantastic. Tell me things like, "This study only has a sample size of n=24" or "The study's authors indicated the following problems with their own study."

- Impact turns are great. I can’t promise it’s always the best idea, but I’ll probably love it if the 1AR is four minutes of “global warming good” or "economic collapse prevents nuclear war."

- Counterplans are a very important neg tool, but I think some of the more abusive ones, like 50 States CP or Consult CP are difficult to defend in terms of making debate a good activity.

- In LD, I'd prefer you just read one unconditional CP.

Theory

- If the AC is super spiky, please number the spikes. This will make it a lot easier for me to flow. If you spout out single-sentence arguments for a full minute, I’ll be more inclined to vote on them if I can clearly tell where one ends and another begins.

- I like clearly articulated theory shells in normal Interpretation-Violations-Standards-Voters format. It makes it much easier to flow compared to paragraph theory.

- I would prefer if you shared pre-written shells in the email chain, even if they're only analytical.

- I default to competing interpretations but am receptive to reasonability if mentioned.

- I like RVIs and will often vote on them, especially for the aff. If you're the aff and you're not sure if you should go for 4 minutes of the RVI in the 1AR, my advice is probably yes.

Kritiks

- Post-fiat Kritiks are fine. I'm not very receptive to pre-fiat Kritiks. If you aren't sure about the distinction, think about whether your alternative negates the resolution. For example, if the resolution is "The US gov should do [x]", and your alternative is "The US gov should not do [x]" or "The US gov should instead do [y]", that's fine. If your alternative is only "People around the world should..." or "The judge should..." or "The debate community should...," I'm probably not going to enjoy it. If the alt doesn't even have an actor and is just to "reject the aff," that's even worse.

- Although I’m generally well-versed with the basic ones like Cap/Security/Fem K, my understanding of the more esoteric ones falls off. Although I will try to evaluate the round as fairly as possible, I haven’t spent much time reading 1970s Continentals, and you can’t assume that I’ll have intimate knowledge of their arguments ahead of time.

- I lean towards the Role of the Ballot being just whoever proves the resolution true or false (offense-defense is also acceptable).

- Fairness definitely matters. Education might matter to some degree. I am very loathe to consider anything else as an independent voter. If your argument is nothing more than "Util justifies slavery, so auto-drop them," I am not likely to be agreeable.

- If your NRs often include the claim, "It's not a link of omission; it's a link of commission," I am probably not the judge for you.

Miscellaneous

- I'm fine with flex prep (asking questions during prep time) if you want it. I think it's a good norm for debate.

- I do not care if you sit or stand.

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

Policy Paradigm

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

Read the Plan-focused/Util and Kritiks sections of the LD paradigm, but you can ignore most of the rest. Due to my LD background, I am much more willing to vote on philosophical positions. If you want to go for "Don't do the plan because objective morality doesn't exist" or "Pass the plan because that's most in line with Aristotle's notion of virtue," I'm totally fine with that.

Theory

- I still prefer clearly articulated Interpretation-Violation-Standards-Voters theory shells, even in Policy.

- I'm more willing to accept conditional CPs in Policy, although it gets really sketchy with conditional K's, especially if there's performative contradictions.

Miscellaneous

- I'm probably more willing than most Policy judges to consider analytics. I don't think you need a card for every argument you make, and oftentimes just having a warranted argument is sufficient.

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

Public Forum Paradigm

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

I understand that Public Forum has different end goals than LD or Policy. I will try to evaluate it through the following in contrast to LD or Policy:

- I will not require explicit ethical frameworks. If something sounds bad, like "It kills people" or "It hurts the economy" or "It is unfair," I'll try to evaluate that in some gestalt manner. You can probably expect a little bit of judge intervention might be necessary in the case of mutually exclusive impact frameworks and lack of weighing.

- I will generally keep in mind who is "speaking better." Although this will not change my vote in most cases, if the round is really close I might use that as the determiner.

- If I ask for a card and you can't find it, especially if it has a statistic, I will drop 1 speaker point for poor evidence norms.

kelvinmaiohmai@gmail.com

I will disclose my decision and give RFD. Will also disclose speaks on request. For every minute you post-round me, I take away one speaker point (asking for legitimate feedback is ok). Please be sure to read my paradigm in its entirety (yes it's long but too much information is always better than too little). I don't mind giving a summary before rounds, but if you neglect to read my paradigm and do something I don't like and then you lose because of it, that's on you. If you're looking for policy, you can skip to the bottom but reading through might help you. If you're looking for PF, skip to the bottom.

Cheating is an auto-drop. I don't care how hard you may be winning everything else, if you are caught cheating you will automatically be dropped.

Prefs:

1: Case, LARPing with an LD framework, philosophy

2: K

2.5 (don't dislike but don't actually like either): Theory (only if actually abusive), LARPing without an LD framework

3:

4 (strike me please): Friv theory, tricks, RVI, etc

Background:
Debated for 3 years in varsity LD at Northview High School from 2012-2015. Have been judging on and off for the past 6 years. Currently working as a quant risk analyst in the banking/financial services industry after finishing my masters in quant risk analysis.

Speed:
I'm ok with speed for the most part. Spreading is generally ok if you are clear, but if you aren't, I will clear you twice before I stop flowing. Don't sacrifice clarity for speed, you'll lose speaks. Make sure you look up once in a while to make sure I'm flowing and understanding your arguments (not an issue with email chains). Slow down a bit for taglines. Not an issue if you do email chains, but make sure you're letting me know which cards you're cutting. If you do email chains, don't forget your clarity still matters for speaks. For online tournaments, there might be difficulties and so I would prefer a generally slower pace in case issues arise.

Prep:
I'm ok with flex prep. Flashing doesn't count towards prep. Don't steal prep. I'm a really lenient and reasonable judge so I'll let you finish your sentence.

CX:

I don't flow cross, so if you want to make a point, make it in a speech.

Roadmap/signpost:

Please do this. It makes it easier to flow the debate and will make it easier for me to give an RFD.

Voters:
Please do this. I want you to write the ballot for me. Tell me EXACTLY why you win, and why I should uphold your framework over your opponent's. I shouldn't be doing the work for you.

ARGUMENTS:

"Tech over truth."

Tabula rasa

***I am a more traditional LD judge who accepts progressive arguments as long as they have a clear LD framework. I believe that the framework in LD is the fundamental difference between LD and policy, and so if you don't have this framework I will default to voting against you. If you only want to run policy framework, you might as well just switch to policy. I'm not asking for a super philosophical debate (although I do know a lot of philosophy and enjoy it), but I am asking for some sort of LD framework. Framework is like 70% of my RFD. Clash is good.

Adjust to your opponent. If you run something like K or theory against a novice, that won't reflect well in your speaks.

Theory and RVIs (3/7/2020 post-GA varsity state update):
I find theory and RVIs incredibly boring to judge, and I honestly don't even get what RVIs are since they weren't really a thing when I debated. Don't read theory shells if your opponent isn't actually being abusive, I'll probably vote you down. If both debaters choose to read theory/RVIs when neither are actually being abusive, I reserve the right to stop flowing and just flip a coin to decide winner. Both speakers will then receive a 27.5 in speaks. Friv theory is an autodrop. Don't waste my time or your opponent's time. Not a fan of tricks either. Don't waste my time with blippy one-liners. Reading the same theory/RVIs for every tournament is incredibly boring for me to listen to.

DAs:
Sure, make sure well-warranted and links to resolution.

K:
I love listening to k. That's not to say I'll always vote for them, but I will understand them and will vote on them if done correctly.

CPs:
Yes. I love CPs as well so I'm ok with them as long as they link and are unique. I will vote on a perm if your CP is non-unique. Kicking a permed CP is going to negatively impact you.

Impact calc:

Impact calc is good. I weigh impacts in the RFD if needed.

Dropped arguments:

Don't just say "extend _____ b/c opponent dropped it." Explain how the dropped argument impacts the debate itself

Above all else, have fun! I believe that if you don't enjoy what you're doing, it's not worth doing, so please have fun and relax. Good luck!

Other prefs based off judging rounds:

If you're going to read arguments on analytics/data science/economics/finance/financial theory/markets, please make sure you at least research the topic. I'm a quant in the banking industry and it can be frustrating to hear people butcher these things so hard. You don't need to have a PhD level of understanding, but please at least do some reading on it.

I've also taken some actuarial theory/insurance mathematics, so if you want to run super technical args about actuarially fair priced insurance/optimal insurance and stuff like that I'll understand.

Don't read identity k arguments while not being a member of that identity AND read a link that your opponent is speaking for others in their advocacy. It comes off as incredibly short-sighted, and if your opponent calls you out and says you link I'll vote you down.

Please no RVIs, this has been in my paradigm for a long time and I still have people try to read them in front of me. I've literally been in a situation of judging a break round where all 3 judges (myself included) did not understand what the heck was going on.

Please stop reading generic theory shells. What's the point of getting excited for new topics if your strat is to find one or two arguments and then stuff theory shells and spikes into your case? Where is the educational value in that (yes, generally I agree that fairness>education but that doesn't mean that education isn't important). If I can clearly tell that what you're reading is 80% the same as what you were reading last topic, you'll probably lose speaks. Only use theory shells if your opponent is actually being abusive.

For the random policy debates I judge here and there:

I'm pretty ok with spreading and args, so it should be fine. If I HAD to pick a paradigm, it would probably be something like case/impacts/DA/CP>K>Topicality>>>>>>>Theory/RVI. This is not set in stone however.

For the random PF debates I judge here and there:

PF is PF, and at its core it should be lay debate. When I judge PF, I will approach the round as if I were a lay judge. If you're going to LARP, you'll probably lose speaks and the debate as well. If you spread, you will lose speaks.

You are more than welcome to run any case you want and I will do my best to judge you fairly and without bias, as should go without saying. Running cases in line with the paradigm is simply the easiest method of reducing the amount of bias that all judges have and are required to overlook in the pursuit of purely merit based evaluation.

If you want the round to be easier for you, do not:

1. Run a kritik

2. Forget strategy #1

3. Spread

Detailed Breakdown:

— The odds of me voting for a kritik are lower than most other case structures. All debaters are entitled for the opportunity to prepare for their opponents' arguments. Kritiks completely destroy this ability given the potentially infinite forms they could take. Additionally, Neg Kritiks essentially force the Aff to drop the majority of their constructive, or at the very least fight a war on two fronts. They're really not worth it for this round.

— I am both familiar with and indifferent to counterplans. I ran many in my day so if you would like to run one, go ahead.

— I am not extremely well acquainted with progressive case structures, though I am attempting to learn. If you wanna run one that's your choice, but if your case is of a length necessitating spreading, the likelihood of my complete comprehension decreases and thereby your chances of winning.

— if you spread, I will cap your speaker points at 29. If I do not understand you I will not tell you, it is your responsibility to be intelligible. It will not affect my vote assuming I understand everything you say. Speaker points are rewards for eloquence in articulation and skill in the art of speaking itself. Spreading will make your presentation worse, so you will receive less points for it.

— I do not like theory. I would prefer you spend more time debating the topic than the nature of LD.

"Do you have any preferences?"

Yes.

I prefer interesting and specific framework debate. A general framework is not a bad thing, they succeed in making your case easier to defend from a framework perspective but this comes at reduced offensive potency. Don’t be afraid to engage your opponent at the framework level.

I like philosophy. I think Util or societal welfare and other vague values are neither specific nor interesting.

I do not like Morality as a value. Morality as a value leaves little room for much framework clash with the majority of other common values. Additionally, unless one were to argue we ought to do what is morally wrong, defining what ought to be done with a value of morality is ostensibly saying what ought to be done is what ought to be done. I find this redundant.

Be nice, that's more of a general thing.

Sit or stand depending on your preference, look at each other during cross ex.

How I judge

I understand if you've been coached to see debate as an extremely technical competition and there is merit in that practice and excellence in that regard will of course be reflected in the ballot, but I will also judge you on how persuasive I find you. My ballot will be more nuanced than simply looking at how many cards each side read or responded to. The strength of arguments your cards support is also a major factor. Do not expect to win simply because your opponent did not directly address one of your presumably numerous cards. While obviously this will be the deciding factor in some rounds, it is not the only thing you must do to win.

Don't argue with me if you disagree with my decision. I will already have submitted my ballot so it will be less than pointless and it's not great etiquette to do so in front of your opponent. If you'd like you can approach me after the round and I will be more than happy to discuss ways I think you can improve your case.

My evaluation will include skills you would use to convince a real person in the real world. If someone accosted you while speaking faster than a bat out of hell and tried to tell you that the topic of discussion was inherently flawed instead of arguing for any particular position would find them raving and incoherent, not persuasive. Eloquence of delivery is important.

Most of all we are here to have fun and because we enjoy the thoughtful exchange of ideas. After debating since the 6th grade, I'm glad to be back and look forward to all the interesting cases I'm sure to see.

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-2022) Northview High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2022-present) Lassiter High School

Public Forum

Argue well. Don’t be rude. I’ll flow your debate, so make the arguments you need to make.

Policy

I haven't judged a lot of policy debates. I'm more comfortable with a little slower speed since I don't hear a lot of debates on the topic. I'm ok with most any time of argumentation, but I'm less likely to vote on theory arguments than K or Case arguments. Add me to your email chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote, and have voted, on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Speed

If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case.

Disclosure

I try to disclose and answer questions if at all possible.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean-up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross ex in their speeches.

Virtual Debate

The expectation is that your cameras remain on for the entirety of the time you are speaking in the debate round. My camera will be on as well. Please add me to the chain.

Axioms

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

”There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way to be kind.” — Mr. Rogers

Contact: jonwaters7@gmail.com

I led LD at Walton High School '14 for four years and judged local tournaments while attending Georgia Tech '18.

I try to be tabula-rasa-ish, so make sure you give me impacts or conditions under which you win, which you should be doing regardless. For those only experienced in local debate, this means I know nothing about the resolution or your case (including what qualifies your winning the round or how to weigh arguments); I will take your case at face value and actively avoid drawing conclusions until you give them to me clearly.

I'm fine with progressive techniques meaning spreading and Ks, and I enjoy weirder arguments. However, I always go back to the framework debate.

Paint the neg/aff world for me

Notes:

- Ideally, you should be spending roughly a third to half of your AC/NC constructing and justifying your framework; don't be vague

- I encourage use of weighing, impact turns, and counterplans

- Cross-ex blind. Learning how to rephrase/restate/emphasize is good practice for real life.

- Fine with flex prep as long as both debaters are

- Prefer standing over sitting because it makes you a better real-life speaker, but I'm flexible if this is difficult