Tabroom.com

Groves Falcon Invitational

2019 — Beverly Hills, MI/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Jennifer Anton Oakland Debate 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 26, 2019 at 8:21 AM EDT

Affiliations:

Coaching for Seaholm High School and Oakland Debate.

Email: Jenniferantonn@gmail.com - please include me on your email chains.

The short version -

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and many forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Specifics

Non-traditional –

Not my cup of tea and my recent decisions back that up. Debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction for me. Given that, I'm a good judge for T/framework. One might even say it makes the game work. The affirmative is better off counter-defining the words in the resolution and using their offense to prove that their vision for the topic is better, rather than impact turning T. I don't think the correct palliative for inequalities in the debate community is to take a break from debating the topic. When I deviate from this predisposition, the affirmative has usually proven that there is a lack of access to the game for X group. I think these arguments are good, but not that hard for the negative to answer.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not very good for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to role playing as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest.

Kritiks –

Ks that do not engage with the substance of the aff are rarely reasons to vote negative. I'm really not here for your generic batailledrillard business and to be honest I only have a cursory understanding of it. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. You probably think this doesn't apply to your very special kritik, but I bet you it does.

Unless told specifically otherwise, I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

Theory –

Theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” aren't reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed.

I've flip-flopped on "judge kicking" - if the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team.

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points (updated 10/13/17 because inflation is reaching Weimar Germany levels) - My average point scale is consistently 28.2-29.5. Points below 26.5 are reserved for "epic fails" in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that) and points above 29.5 are reserved for absolutely awesome speeches. I cannot see myself going below 26.5 absent some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot imagine. All that being said, they are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks. I absolutely HATE when debaters steal prep. If I notice you're taking prep AFTER the timer has gone off, speaker points will be dramatically lowered.

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision.

Inspired by Brad (I'll add more as I think of them)

Doug Bandow ------------x-------------------------------------------- Doug Husic

brad-----------------------------------------------------x---brud

Koch Industries x-------------------------------------------------------- John Koch

Katrail x--------------------------------------------------------Jenny

horse-traders ------------------------------------------x-------------- horse-traitors

Cats -----------------------------Bats--------------------------- Insects

Monster Zero Ultra x-------------------------------------------------------- Brad

Luke Bagdon Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 8, 2024 at 8:11 AM EDT

conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

the abridged version:

do you, and do it well
don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene
don't misgender me, or your competitors
do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat? How did you use cross?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.
don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."
PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.
even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.
i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm
i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.
PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.
i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong
if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.
i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W.
flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.
PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO READ THEORY:I hear some kind of theory (mostly disclosure) at least once a tournament. I usually end up voting for theory not because the theory is done well, but because the other team does not answer it properly. I do like theory an unfortunate amount, but I would prefer to watch a good "substance" debate than a poor theory debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging
of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment
apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.
'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.
going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos
i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

Jordan Branch Hire 5 rounds

Rachel Fine Hire 5 rounds None

Suki Johal University Prep High School 2 rounds

Ian Kimbrell Padre Pio Academy 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 4, 2022 at 4:48 PM EDT

You can e-mail me at ian.kimbrell.debate@gmail.com.

I coached for Saint Ignatius High School for 10 years in the 90s. I coached for Case Western Reserve University from 1995-2006. I started coaching again in 2016. The teams I coached were 75% policy and 25% Kritik debaters. I am fine with any type of argument, but I tend to enjoy fast, evidence intensive, traditional policy debates that collapse down well to a few clear reasons for me to prefer.

I do my best not to interject my opinions or perspectives into the decisions. I like being told how to sign the ballot and will try to pick either the 2NRs or 2ARs interpretation of the round. I like the analysis of warrants. The clash between competing warrants makes for the best debate.

Bravado is encouraged as long as it is done within the confines of fun, friendliness, and fairness.

DAs: Analysis of the evidence, comparison of evidence, and clear articulation of uniqueness, link, and impact are important to me.

TOPICALITY: I like topicality debates but rarely see them. I look to compare two competing interpretations. I probably have a lower threshold than most for having to justify it as a voting issue.

KRITIKs: They are fine. I treat them like any other argument. The more specific the link evidence and link story is to the affirmative, the more engaged I will be. Multiple links are exponentially more persuasive. Permutations need to be clearly explained. I am open to K is bad arguments. I am not deep into all of the literature.

COUNTER PLANS: Counter Plans are fine. Permutations need to be clearly explained. Solvency for counter plans matter.

FRAMEWORK: Clarity on Framework is helpful early on in the debate.

I have a bias towards new/odd arguments. Especially creative DAs and Counterplans. If you are looking to test something out, I may be a good judge to try it on. I'll make sure I give you all the feedback you need.

The most important thing to know about me is that while I would like to be included in the email chain, I will not read evidence during the round. I believe it risks too much judge bias even from the most experienced judges. I will read evidence at the end of the round if things are close or if the one of the debaters convinces me I need to look at one or two key pieces of evidence. Ultimately, I will vote on my flow. This means a minimum level of speaking articulation, clarity, and general ease of flowing does matter. If I can not understand a speaker I will verbally give a warning or two with no penalty.

Alex Mujtaba Okemos High School 2 rounds

Bruce Najor Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 15, 2024 at 9:26 AM EDT

he/him

Coach at Michigan State University 2019-

Coach at Wayne State University 2010-2019

Debater at Wayne State University 2006-2009

Debater at Brother Rice HS 2000-2004

BruceNajor@gmail.com

Below is a compilation of thoughts. Some are argument related, some are decision-making related. I update it periodically to keep it fresh, but nothing important has changed since you last read this.

-General-

- I used to judge 80+ debates a year, and now I probably judge less than 20. As with anything, skills atrophy, and I find that I'm a bit slower in terms of argument processing, both in real time and in decision time. It would behoove you to narrow the debate and explain the winning arguments as early as the negative block, treat the 1AR like a rebuttal, not a 3AC, and make connections on the line x line, instead of emailing me a plethora of cards and expecting me to sort it out.

- I flow. I don't follow the speech doc while you're talking. If you are unclear I won't be able to get what you say down and I won't vote on it.

- Slightly more truth > tech than the median judge. Once indicts are made your rejoinder burden grows depending on the strength/weakness of the original argument. Bad arguments can lose to bad arguments. Your argument got what it deserves.

- I value my decision time, and I'd hope you do too. Judges normally get around 30 minutes assuming everything in the round ran promptly. This is not an unreasonable amount of time, but ask yourself if the minute(s) it takes to get that marked copy before CX, or the "econ decline doesn't cause war" card before starting prep > subtracting those minutes from decision time. Please be prompt in making and sending a post-round doc.

- I carry the try-or-die flag higher than anyone else in the judge pool. I find I get sat on this argument more than any other. This probably won't bother you on a panel, but may be a tad more frustrating in a prelim debate. Ensuring that the world you're advocating for has a chance at sustainability is important. This isn't applicable to how I think about impacts generally (see below), rather, I think of it as a win condition of the game. If voting for you means there's a 100% chance of everyone dying, but voting for the other team means there's a 1% chance of everyone staying alive you lose, regardless of solving an impact. I'm open to teams who find themselves in a try-or-die trap arguing for rejecting this as a win condition, but debated out equally, or not debated out at all, well, you can't say you weren't warned.

- A bit inconsistent with the above, but once the conditions for try-or-die are not met, I find that I put greater emphasis on the link than many of my colleagues. When I get sat for non try-or-die reasons, it is often because I thought the link was small despite the impact being large.

- I don't flow "stream of consciousness" well. I encounter this a lot in 2NRs where the 1N typed up a thing for the 2NR to blitz through. I don't have an issue with speedy delivery communicated in a way that allows for the listener to digest the content, but if you're just speed reading through a long chunk of text I'm probably missing 50+% of it.

- We don't "debate out" accusations of unethical behavior/practices. If you want to stop the debate and have me adjudicate whether a debater/team was unethical, the debate ends. We cannot restart the debate from the alleged unethical practice, and the winner of the debate cannot be decided on "who did the better debating." I think a fundamental standard for "unethical" must be obfuscation for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage. This doesn't mean the team in question had to know they were gaining a competitive advantage (i.e. they didn't have to have cut the card), but that the way the evidence was presented gained the team a competitive advantage they wouldn't otherwise have had if the evidence was presented properly.

-Critical / Critique-

- I generally understand impact turns to topicality as "counter-standards" that support a counter-interpretation, so I struggle as a judge to get to an aff ballot when the "critical aff" (broad interpretation) fails to provide a counter-interpretation to the resolution. I equally struggle when that counter-interp is self-serving and not grounded in defining resolutional terms (i.e. "affs can affirm or negate the resolution").

- Most critical debate is too fast for me. If these arguments are your thing, you will benefit from slowing down over-explaining.

- I struggle to understand critiques of "fiat." I find that most of them rely on an interpretation that is divorced from what I understand "fiat" to mean. Absent a tech disaster from one team, I have consistently been persuaded that the aff gets to weigh the benefits of implementation versus the impacts of the K.

- A critique argument still needs to engage the case. Trying to simply outweigh the case or framework it away has empirically been unlikely to persuade me to vote neg.

- Critiques of "impact magnitude" are generally unpersuasive to me. "Critical affs" are much more successful in front of me when they focus on challenging the link.

-Evidence-

- My decision will probably reflect evidence quality / evidence specificity more than the median judge.

- I value good evidence with coherent highlighting. Nonsense highlighting makes me want to read for flaws in your evidence and have it reflect in my decision making even if not brought up in round.

- I don't have an issue with "insert re-highlighting" as long as its accompanied by an actual argument, and the insert has merit. If your "inserting" is actually just mis-readings on your end, I won't care if it's "dropped". Likewise, if you're inserting stuff but haven't introduced context for an actual argument, the other teams burden of rejoinder is low to nil.

-Theory / Competition-

- More neg than the median judge on conditionality.

- 50/50 on judge-kick but presumption is 2NR = one-world. This means if neither team addresses the judge-kick contingency, I will not do it and vote aff if the neg fails to prove a NB and/or competition, even if I think the NB links to and outweighs the case.

- Slightly more neg than the median judge on neg fiat (states, international, multi-actor). I can't see myself ever rejecting the team for non-conditionality theory arguments, even if dropped in every speech.

- "Perm do CP" means the plan and the CP can be the same thing. "Perm do both" means doing the plan and CP at the same time resolves all the NB, or enough of the NB that the solvency deficit outweighs. If you are making a different perm than either of these, you need to say more in the 2AC than "do both" or "do CP"

- I'm not going to vote on disclosure args (not disclosing the 1AC is a voter, you disclosed to us wrong, you're not on the wiki, you only gave us a paper copy, you only read this in X spot, etc.). Disclosure is a privilege, not a right, and I'm here to judge a debate, not be the disclosure police. That said, poor aff disclosure can be persuasively used to justify leniency for the neg on theory args, like conditionality or judge kick.

-Speaker Points-

- I don't really have a model. I suppose my scale goes from 28-30, but realistically my range is probably 28.5-29.5. That doesn't mean if you get a 28.5 you're the worst debater I've seen, it means you did an adequate job and I expected debaters I judged at this tournament to fall in that range. #BringBackTies

Shannon Nierman Hire

Last changed on Sun October 27, 2019 at 2:14 PM UTC

Email: shannonnierman@gmail.com

I debated for Wylie E. Groves High School for four years, debated for 3 years at MSU, and currently coach at Groves.

Topicality: I’m not opposed to voting on T, but rereading T shells is insufficient. There needs to be substantial work on the interpretations debate from both teams, in addition to the standards and voters debate, i.e. education and fairness. As long as the aff is reasonably topical and it is proven so, T is probably not a voter. Also, if you are going for T in the 2NR, go for only T, and do so for all 5 minutes.

Counterplans: Any type of counterplan is fine; however, if it is abusive, do not leave it for me to decide this, make these arguments.

Disads: Any type of DA is fine. A generic link in the 1NC is okay, but I think that throughout the block the evidence should be link specific. When extending the DA in the block, an overview is a must. The first few words I should here on the DA flow is “DA outweighs and turns case for X and Y reasons.”

Kritiks: I will vote on the K, but I often find that in the K rounds people undercover the alternative debate. When getting to this part of the K, explain what the world of the alternative would look like, who does the alternative, if the aff can function in this world, etc. I am well versed in psychoanalytic literature i.e. Zizek and Lacan and I do know the basis of a plethora of other Ks. This being said, I should learn about the argumentation in the round through your explanation and extrapolation of the authors ideas; not use what I know about philosophy and philosophers or what like to read in my free time. Read specific links in the block and refrain from silly links of omission.

Theory: I am not opposed to voting on theory, but it would make my life a lot easier if it didn’t come down to this. This is not because I dislike the theory debate rather I just believe that it is hard to have an actual educational and clear theory debate from each side of the debate. Now, this said, if a theory argument is dropped, i.e. conditionality bad, by all means, go for it!

Performance: An interesting and unique type of debate that should still relate to the resolution. As long as there is substantive and legitimate argumentation through your rapping or dancing and whatever else you can come up with, I am willing to vote on it. Even if you are rapping, I would prefer to have a plan text to start.

*As technology is vital in our life, many of us have switched toward paperless debate. I do not use prep for flashing, because I have also debated both off of paper and paperlessly in debate and I understand that technology can sometimes be your opponent in the round, rather than the other team. I am being a nice and fair judge in doing this, so please do not abuse this by stealing prep, because I will most likely notice and take away that stolen prep.

FAQs: Speed – I’m okay with speed as long as you are clear!
Tag teaming - I’m okay with it as long as it’s not excessive.

Things not to do in rounds I’m judging: go for RVIs, go for everything in the 2NR, and be mean. Believe it or not, there is a distinction between being confident and having ethos vs. being rude and obnoxious when you don’t have the right to be.

Robert Pluta University Prep High School 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 5, 2021 at 9:34 AM EDT

Email - robbpluta@gmail.com - please include me on the email chain!

As an FYI, I don't coach for any teams currently, and last debated as a senior in high school, so I probably have a little less experience with the intricate details of a lot of arguments than other judges, especially as the season is starting. Explaining everything out to me, no matter how obvious it might seem, is a great way to earn my ballot.

Judging Philosophy - My default position is that debate is an educational competition, and that by exchanging arguments in this space we gain knowledge on the topic, the world, political mechanisms, activism, etc. I can be convinced out of this reasoning but sans framework it's where I default.

I am adamant that I vote only on the arguments presented to me in the round. If an argument is clearly abusive, doesn't link, makes no sense, has no supporting warrants - I am counting on YOU to be the one to point it out. This is a test of your skills, not mine. I've voted for DAs that clearly don't link simply because the Aff let's Neg get away with it - always call out the other team and don't count on me to do it.

A dropped argument is a conceded argument - but you need to point out why this wins you the round.

Slurs or abusive language/arguments designed to hurt others (racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc), is an auto-ballot against the violating team. "Fascism good" arguments fall under this category as well.

Sans above, I will be willing to vote for any argument, but historically, I've noted what I find more persuasive below.

Topicality - I'll be honest that I have rarely voted on T's that were not dropped in whole/in part. The neg needs to make the argument that T is a priori (as I will not assume this). The Neg should attempt to prove what education/ground has been lost by the aff with actual examples, otherwise I tend to be unconvinced. If you're going for T, make it the whole 2NR.

DAs - always cool (Unless you're going for "climate change good / isn't happening" in which case I will laugh you out of the room)

CPs - always cool - Neg run what you want, aff run theory it's abusive. Arguments that tell me "this is what debate will look like if we allow ______" are a must if you're arguing abuse.

Ks - cool if explained well. A layperson's explanation is a must, especially on psychoanalytic Ks. It's not necessary for K's critiquing Aff's specific plan epistemology to have an alt, but is never a bad idea. Ks that critique the resolution/general format of policy (IE 'state bad') should absolutely have one. Aff - always question the link.

FW - super cool - needs to be in every round.

Theory - cool - I'm probably in the minority of judges who think so. But debate is a competition, and debating best practices that allow everyone to play the competition are intriguing to me. Statements like "Debate becomes _______" or "Debate will look like ________" are essential.

Performance Affs - cool, but should still be "topical". At minimum, a "plan text" that states "We [do the resolution] by ________".

Impact Calc - absolutely necessary. Probability / questioning the link always seems neglected in favor of magnitude, which would be a mistake for me.

General Things I like:

- SLOW DOWN on your Tags! and tell me NEXT when moving on!

- Explicitly contrasting FW/Role of the Ballot.

- Explaining the benefits or drawbacks of the world of the alt

- Questioning the warrants of cards

- Reading more than just the T or Theory shells.

- Theory debates where we are having honest discussions on game theory/what is best for debate, and moving beyond shell arguments.

Things I'm not the biggest fan of:

- Running Condo with less than 4 off case

- 5 or more off case

- Elections DAs more than 6 months before an election

- Sticking ONLY with T or Theory Shells

- Reading off standards/voters in T/Theory without explaining what they mean (What the heck is "reasonable"? Or "education"?)

- Not explaining the warrants/alt of the K to me.

- Heck, reading any K and not being able to explain it with current / relevant examples outside the space of the round

Kathryn Polus Traverse City Central 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 7, 2022 at 5:17 AM EDT

Current coach for Traverse City Central High School.

Paradigm: I want you to frame the round and tell me where to vote and why. A well developed framework on which I can vote is key. I will not create your arguments for you, so explain them well. As a teacher, it is most important to me that you understand your arguments and learn from the process, so if you can create a framework that convinces me I should vote on it and is well argued I will vote on any argument.

Speed: I come from Policy Debate, so I can handle speed, but please enunciate. Be sure to be clear on your tags and subpoints. Do not use speed as a tool to confuse. I would rather hear quality arguments and clash than spreading just for the sake of confusing your opponent.

Arguments: I generally want the arguments you make to be in the round, not just in cross fire, and I want you to extend them throughout the entire round. If you don't mention them in the last speeches, I will consider them "dropped".

Procedure: Be polite! This is an educational process and should be respected by all competitors. Regardless of your experience level in this community, we are all still learning.

I strongly prefer that you do your own Crossfires. Each team member should be able to articulate the arguments and should not rely on the other(again learning is the key). I will let you know if your tag-team gets out of hand.

Politeness and respect in the round is a TOP priority. I do not find any flashy behavior appropriate, and will take speaker points for rude interruptions during constructives or rebuttals, cursing or inappropriate language, racist/sexist/classist/xenophobic/homophobic comments to other people in-round, arrogant or insulting comments even if you believe you are winning the round.

Other:

-Line by line! I am super type-A, and if you are not organized my flow is not in your favor.

-Having a card on something doesn't always beat good analytical arguments

-I will not assume dropped arguments are true if you haven’t done the work to extend it.

-Good analysis needs to make it all the way through to the final speeches.

-I need to be able to understand and find your arguments to vote on them, be organized!

I'm always working on learning as a judge and updating my paradigm. I think all types of debate are interesting and enjoyable as long as you do it well. Ask me questions, make good arguments, and help me understand why it is important to vote for you on any argument. Have fun.

Add to me to the email chain: poluskathryn@gmail.com

Tyjuan Thirdgill Okemos High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun June 5, 2022 at 9:18 PM EDT

Put me in the email chain tyjuan.thirdgill98@gmail.com

I am not going to lie to you and say I am a Tab judge and I will vote for anything because that is just not true.

I don't like new arguments in the 2NC by that I mean I don’t like entire new off case arguments in the 2NC I think its really abusive to the 1AR. With that being said I am willing to listen to abuse arguments about how that is bad for debate. Although I am more inclined to reject the argument and not the team.

Topicality

By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. I don't hate T nor do I love it. I use to love it but I don't think teams do enough work on the flow. Teams are always either winning the interpretation debate but losing the standards and voters of vice versa. That being said I will vote on T and I don't mind voting on team but you need to win the entire flow. This means having a good debate about whose interpretation is better on down to the violation and all the way through to the standards and voters.

Specifically, on T I HATE reasonability as a no voter. I think that it is your job to debate the T flow well enough so that I come to the conclusion that you are reasonably topical.

Please don't run and RVI on T I am not that likely to vote for it that being said if its dropped I will vote for it with great protest.

Theory

I evaluate theory the same as I evaluate Topicality: it is only as important to me as you tell me it is. I can be swayed either way on theory; whether it's on condo, multiple worlds etc. With that being said, teams need to be able to explain the implications of what the other team did for me to vote on said theory. If you don't explain why I should vote on it, then I won't vote on it. My default on the theory flow is to reject the argument and not the team. For example, even if the neg drops the condo flow but you don’t tell me to drop the team instead of the argument I will just kick the argument. With that being said you need to little work on the flow for a dropped theory argument in order for me to vote on it.

Kritiks

I love a good K debate. You have the potential to make me vote for any Kritik that you want me to vote on. Ks that do not engage with the substance of the aff are rarely reasons to vote negative. I'm really not here for your generic K’s don’t waste my time with this. A good K debate needs to make it so that even if the judge hasn't heard the K before they grasp and understanding of the story you are telling with the K. I don't need to walk away being a scholar on the K for me to vote for it I simply need a clear picture of the impact of the K and how the world of the alt differs from the aff .

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K. I am more than willing to listen to a discussion centered around their need to defend the scholarship of the 1ac and how they should be forced to defend the epistemology of the 1ac but this should be used as a reason why the perm fails and why they don’t gain access to your impacts or maybe even their impacts but not as a reason why they can’t weigh the aff against the K.

Ryan Timmis Hire 5 rounds

Email: rtimm4341@gmail.com (went years opposing being on the email chain on the grounds that it removes the debate from what is actually claimed by the debaters, but zoom debate being what it is, maintaining a purist stance is not practicable)

I have been involved with debate since 2003. As you might suspect of something I've been doing longer than most people reading this will have been alive, I'm here because I genuinely believe in and enjoy the activity. Hopefully you feel the same way! Happy, fun teams make happy, fun judges make happy, fun, high point rounds.

Tech > truth. There's virtually no argument that can't win if argued well. The places where truth matters more are generally structural issues with debate, e.g., barring a drop, you can't tech uniqueness arguments into controlling the direction of the link or a non-competitive advocacy out of the perm. Other than that, I judge with the least possible intervention whatever my (often strong) thoughts on the argument may be. I tend to read VERY little evidence, as few teams actually make sufficient use of their evidence for it to be relevant to my decision. Evidence is an argument support system, not an argument itself, meaning that you need to actually flag a card and focus on its warrants for it to stand a chance at directly coming into my decision.

Far too much impact calculus is incredibly shallow. The majority of rounds, impact calc consists of noting an untouched extinction impact and asserting then asserting an immediate timeframe and 100% probability. This is as silly inside a debate round as it would be in the real world. You're much better served making specific, probabilistic arguments drawing on carded warrants and comparing them to your mitigation of their impacts. Relatedly, too many teams simply let impacts stand untouched, hoping instead to mitigate at the link and uniqueness levels. This tends to result in me having to grumpily parse whether to vote in favor of the side claiming two extinction events that may not be unique or the side claiming three extinction events that may not link. Impact defense and (be still my beating heart!) impact turns therefore tend to result in cleaner, more fun rounds.

CPs: I am extremely aff-leaning on most questions of competition. If your CP competes off the definition of normal means or certainty, it doesn't. That goes for consult, delay, condition, what have you: if perm do the counterplan is in the 2AR, you will almost certainly lose. No, perm do the counterplan as a response to your sweet consult Turkmenistan CP does not sever out of anything. Yes, that does make your CP almost impossible to run.

States CPs are often theoretically illegitimate, but I'm actually unusually sympathetic to them this year. The vast majority of our criminal justice system is controlled by states rather than the feds, meaning that there is an unusually rich literature supporting state-level solutions.

Critiques: I'll openly admit to being one of the least sympathetic judges on the circuit to the theory behind most critical arguments in debate. There's tons of great and interesting philosophy being written and read every day. Unfortunately, almost none of it is what we as a community have decided to use to write our Ks. The vast majority of "high theory" authors are embarrassing hack frauds. Every time I wind up being exposed to Zizek or Baudrillard or the like reminds me of Schopenhauer's famous comments that Hegel "was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense" and wrote "such stuff as madmen tongue and brain not." (Note: if you don't know what I'm talking about, you almost certainly do not have a strong enough background in philosophy to actually understand the arguments you are making.)

That said, I have a slightly above 50% lifetime voting record in favor of the K. Good K debaters make their argument as specific to the aff as possible, something especially easy on the criminal justice topic. You will always be better off engaging with the substance of the aff. Good K debaters also try not to let the round devolve into a seeming stream of consciousness in no particular order. The average high school K 2NC/1NR seems to skip up and down the flow with no regard for structure or responsiveness. Structureless speeches result in messy flows result in frustrated judges trying to parse implicit clash after the round.

Non-traditional/performance: Debate is a game, and the only rule that can't be disputed is the length of your speeches. However, I'm never going to be a particularly good judge for performance affs. All things being equal, the neg will usually have the advantage on T/framework for two reasons: 1) empirically, almost every performance debate is a meta-debate with almost no topic-specific education after the 1AC; and 2) especially on a topic like CJR, virtually everything done by non-traditional affs could also be done topically, requiring actual engagement with your performance. That is to say, no, the aff saying "the USFG should" is not the same thing as roleplaying as the USFG.

Theory: theory arguments outside the "conditionality bad" family are almost never reasons to reject the team. This goes double for blippy little nothing arguments in the middle of a block being labelled an independent voter. However, arguments like severance or floating PIKs are often extremely useful. If you go for a CP/K, I will not compare the plan to the status quo without an extremely compelling argument why I should.

Topicality: Unless told otherwise, I default to evaluating T through a competing interpretations lens. A-spec and similar arguments are rarely a winner.

Theo Van Hof Okemos High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 22, 2024 at 11:37 AM EDT

Theo Van Hof

Assistant Debate Coach, Okemos High School

Michigan State University '24

Please include me on the email chain.

theodebate27@gmail.com

Bio: I am Theo Van Hof, I debated public forum debate for one year at Lincoln Southwest High School and policy debate for two years at Okemos High School, and two years of policy debate at Michigan State. I am now in my fifth year of assistant coaching and judging for Okemos High School. This is also my second year judging for the NSDA tournament.

TL;DR: Read the speaking section. If you don't, I'll know and give you dirty looks the whole round, and I don't want to do that. Recently, I read some god-awful substack article in which the author complained that debate judges bring too much of their own bias into rounds, and that makes debate unfair. Not only is this an extremely stupid argument, but it is also one that is just wrong. This isn't really relevant to anything, it just annoyed me. Anyway, read what you want, however you want. I will vote for anything as long as it isn't actively racist, sexist, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, etc.

Speaking: Speak loudly and clearly (maybe not so loud if it is a morning round). Please have overviews and signpost. Even something as simple as saying "next" will do. If you signpost poorly you will be docked speaker points. Speed is fine as long as I can understand you. I will not flow what I cannot understand, so please do not expect me to go sifting through your cards to figure out what you said. Other than that any style of speaking is great. Do whatever floats your boat.

Bonus speaker points if you are funny. In a persuasion activity, humor can be very effective, and it irritates me that no one seems to care about actually "persuading" me, but I digress.

Aff: Read whatever you want. Creative and unique plan texts are appreciated, but certainly not required.

K Aff: If you are a K Aff team, pref me low! I am a very dumb policy nerd who refuses to learn K Affs out of sheer laziness. With that said, I am more than willing to listen to any and all K Affs and I have voted for them in the past. The ones that I vote for are the ones that are explained the best and don't get bogged down by too many buzzwords and too much silly debate jargon. If you have any performative elements, feel free to instruct me on how you want me to flow things, so I can follow along properly.

Topicality & Theory: I like T as a negative strategy. You can read a couple of T violations if you want, but if you stand up and start reading 5+ T violations, I'm going to start laughing. If you want to win T in the 2NR, make sure your link to the aff is clear, and make sure you impact out why the violation is relevant and why it means you should win. If you don't want to lose on T as an aff, read counter-interps/we meet arguments but do not read an RVI, I will not vote on it and I will start blasting crappy EDM during your speech (not really, but no RVIs please).

Theory is fine but mostly dumb. I will still vote on it, but the burden of proof is definitely on the team running the theory argument.

DAs: Great. Please explain your DAs, primarily your link story, and how they outweigh your opponent. Impact calculus is excellent in the final speeches of the round.

CPs: Great. Please read a plan text other than; "Do the aff". Explain the net benefit(s) and why the CP is better.

K: Generally, simple Ks like Cap or Security will be fine, but more complex Ks are going to need a good amount of explaining. I am not super familiar with a lot of the buzzwords of Ks and will most likely not be able to understand a bunch of jargon. I will vote for your K as long as I can understand it, and just like anything else, you win it.

William Wang H.H. Dow High School 5 rounds

David Zin Okemos High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 6:13 AM EDT

David Zin

Debate Coach, Okemos High School

debate at okemosk12.net

Quick version: If you want to run it, justify it and win it and I'll go for it. I tend to think the resolution is the focus (rather than the plan), but have yet to see a high school round where that was a point with which anybody took issue or advantage. I like succinct tags, but there should be an explanation/warrant or evidence after them. I do pine for the days when debaters would at least say something like "next" when moving from one argument to another. If you run a critical argument, explain it--don't assume I understand the nuances or jargon of your theory. Similarly, the few critical debaters who have delivered succinct tags on their evidence to me have been well-rewarded. Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but I can't flow your 55-70 word tag, and the parts I get might not be the parts you want. I think all four debaters are intelligent beings, so don't be rude to your opponent or your partner, and try not to make c-x a free-for-all, or an opportunity for you to mow over your partner. I like the final rebuttals to compare and evaluate, not just say "we beat on time-frame and magnitude"--give me some explanation, and don't assume you are winning everything on the flow. Anything else, just ask.

The longer version: I'm a dinosaur. I debated in college more than 30 years ago. I coached at Michigan State University for 5 years. I'm old enough I might have coached or debated your parents. I got back into debate because I wanted my children to learn debate.

That history is relevant because I am potentially neither as fast a flow as I used to be (rest assured, you needn't pretend the round is after-dinner speaking) and for years I did not kept pace with many of the argumentative developments that occurred. I know and understand a number of K's, but if you make the assumption I am intimately familiar with some aspect of of your K (especially if it is high theory or particularly esoteric), you may not like the results you get. Go for the idea/theme not the author (always more effective than simply saying Baudrillard or Zizek or Hartman or Sexton). If you like to use the word "subjectivity" a lot on your K argumentation, you might explain what you mean. Same thing for policy and K debaters alike when they like to argue "violence".

Default Perspective:

Having discussed my inadequacies as a judge, here is my default position for judging rounds: Absent other argumentation, I view the focus of the round as the resolution. The resolution may implicitly shrink to the affirmative if that is the only representation discussed. If I sign the ballot affirmative, I am generally voting to accept the resolution, and if the affirmative is the only representation, then it is as embodied by the affirmative. However, I like the debaters to essentially have free rein--making me somewhat tabula rosa. So if you prefer a more resolution focus rather than plan focus, I'm there. I also like cases that have essential content and theory elements (stock issues), but if one is missing or bad, the negative needs to bring it up and win it to win. I do generally view my role as a policy maker, in that I am trying to evaluate the merits of a policy that will be applied to the real world--but that evaluation is being done in a format that has strong gamelike aspects and strong "cognitive laboratory" aspects. A policymaker perspective does not preclude examining critical/epistemological questions...but ultimately when I do so, I feel it's still through some sort of policy making perspective (educational policy, social policy, or "am I thinking about this correctly" when considering my view on the policy question: if my epistemology is a geocentric universe and the plan wants to send a mission to Mars, do I have the right knowledge system to guarantee the rocket arrives in the right place). I will accept counter-intuitive arguments (e.g. extinction is good) and vote on them--although you will have to justify/win such an approach if it is challenged and in many cases there is a bit of a natural bias against such arguments.

I say "absent other argumentation" because if you want me to use another process, I all ears. I'm pretty open-minded about arguments (even counter-intuitive ones), so if you want to run something, either theoretical or substantive, justify it, argue it, and if you win it, I'll vote for it.

Weighing Arguments:

The biggest problem I observed when I did judge college rounds, and at the high school level, is that debates about how I should evaluate the round are often incomplete and/or muddled, such as justifying the use of some deontological criteria on utilitarian grounds. While such consequentialism is certainly an option in evaluating deontological positions, I struggle to see how I'm not ultimately just deciding a round on some utilitarian risk-based decision calculus like I would ordinarily use. I've had this statement in my philosophy for years and no one seems to understand it: if I reject cap, or the state, or racism, or violations of human rights, or whatever because it leads to extinction/war/whatever, am I really being deontological--or just letting you access extinction via a perspective (using utilitarian consequences to justify your impacts, and some strategy or rhetoric to simply exclude utilitarian impacts that might counter your position). That fine if that's why you want it, but I think it makes "reject every instance" quite difficult, since every instance probably has solvency issues and certainly creates some low internal link probabilities. If you do truly argue something deontologically, having some sort of hierarchy so I can see where the other team's impacts fit would be helpful--especially if they are arguing an deontological position as well. Applying your position might be helpful: think how you would reconcile the classic argument of "you can't have rights if you are dead, yet many have been willing to give their life for rights". Sorting out that statement does an awful lot for you in a deontology vs. utilitarianism round. Why is your argument the case for one or the other?

Given my hypothesis-testing tendencies, conditionality can be fine. However, as indicated above, by default I view the round as a policy-making choice. If you run three conditional counterplans, that's fine but I need to know what they are conditional upon or I don't know what policy I am voting for when I sign the ballot—or if I even need to evaluate them. I prefer, although almost never get it, that conditionality should be based on a substantive argument in the round, preferably a claim the other team made. Related to that, you can probably tell I'm not a fan of judge kick for condo. If you have it in 2NR, my perspective is that is your advocacy option...and if it isn't internally consistent, you may have problems. Similarly, if you are aff and your plan merely restates the resolution but your solvency evidence and position clearly are relying on something more nuanced (and obviously you don't have it in your plan), you make it difficult for me to give you a lot of solvency credibility if the neg is hitting you hard on it (if they aren't, well that's their poor choice and you get to skim by).

Theory and K's:

I can like both theory args, especially T, when the debate unfolds with real analysis, not a ton of 3-5 word tags that people rip through. Theory arguments (including T) can be very rewarding, and often are a place where the best debaters can show their skills. However, debaters often provide poorly developed arguments and the debate often lacks real analysis. I do not like theory arguments that eliminate ground for one side or the other, are patently abusive, or patently time sucks. I like theory arguments but want them treated well. Those who know me are aware I like a good T argument/debate more than most...I'm just complaining that I rarely see a good T debate.

I'm not a fan of K's, but they definitely have a place in debate. I will vote on one (and have voted for them numerous times) if two things happen: 1) I understand it and 2) you win it. That's a relatively low threshold, but if you babble author names, jargon, or have tags longer than most policy teams' plans, you make it much harder for me.

Style Stuff:

As for argument preferences, I'll vote on things that do not meet my criteria, although I dislike being put in the position of having to reconcile two incomprehensible positions. I'll vote on anything you can justify and win. If you want me in a specific paradigm, justify it and win that I should use it. I like a 2ar/2nr that ties up loose ends and evaluates (read: compares)--recognizing that they probably aren't winning everything on the flow.

I don't like to ask for cards after the round, or reviewing the evidence in pocketbox, etc. and will not ask for a card I couldn't understand because you were unintelligible. If there is a debate over what a card really says or signifies, or it seems to contain a nuance highlighted in the round that is worth checking, I may take a look at the evidence.

I traditionally rely on providing nonverbal feedback—if I'm not writing anything, or I'm looking at you with a confused expression, I'm probably not getting what you are saying for one reason or another.

Debate is still a communication activity, even if we rip along at several hundred words a minute. If I missed something in your speech, that is your fault--either because you did not emphasize it adequately in the round or you were unintelligible. If you are a gasper, you'll probably get better points if you slow down a bit. I tend to dislike prompting on content, but keeping your partner on pace is fine. I'd prefer you ask/answer your own c-x questions. I like numbering and organization, even though much has apparently died. At this point, even hearing "next" when going to the next tag would be a breath of fresh air (especially when it isn't being read off of a block). Similarly, I'll reward you if you have clear tags that would fit on a bumper sticker I could read without tailgating. Humor is a highly successful way to improve your speaker points. If you are organized, intelligible and funny, the much-sought-after 30 is something I have given. I haven't given many, but that reflects the debaters I've heard, not some unreasonable predisposition or threshold.

If you have questions about anything not on here, just ask.

Sonya Zin Okemos High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 8:03 AM EDT

Debated at Okemos High School 2016-2020

Debated at KU 2020-2022

Coaching at Blue Valley

sonyaazin@gmail.com

T - fine

FW - fine

DA's - fine

CP's - fine

K's - I love these, so definitely fine; race theory/pomo/gender and or sexual orientation

K-Affs - ^^^^

Theory - fine

not much lit base for K's (or much of any arg) on this topic so just explain the link, I/L, and impact.

Non-TLDR

Run whatever you want, be clear, signpost and warrant out all arguments you want me to vote on. If it isn't in the 2nr/2ar, I will not vote on it. A dropped argument is a concession but make sure you point it out and EXPLAIN why it matters. I'm familiar with a fair amount of K literature but some of the heavy pomo/race theory stuff should be explained and warranted.

LBL should be a little more in depth and have a lot more warranted analysis than I've seen recently.

TLDR

Args I've run consistently: Cap, Militarism, Set Col, Antimilitarism K-aff, Set Col K-aff, FW/T-USFG

Args I'm familiar with: Fem, Set Col (and it's varients), Afropess (and it's varients), Psycho, Black Psycho, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Death Good.

K stuff

Link: make sure it's something unique to the aff, something that the aff does or supports through direct evidence or analysis. "Aff does _____ with ____ which causes ______" A link doesn't have to be a direct quote but it does have to be a direct mechanism or flaw with the aff/resolution. If you're critiquing the resolution then at least tie your theory into whatever your are dismantling/restructuring. Other than that, I don't have too much of a high threshold for the topicality of the K or the K aff.

Alt/Solvency for K-Aff's: I have a little more leniency with alt's on a K than an alternative/mode of solvency for a K aff because in my opinion, when critiquing an aff, it should honestly be enough to say that the aff's epistemology is flawed, therefor we shouldn't invest any energy into debating about it, and they should lose. If you're critiquing the resolution though, you need to have some concrete way of doing something about what you've critiqued. A lot of K-affs just kind of say the rez sucks and then do quite literally nothing about it. Even in round education can beat a lot of other off case offense, but you have to explain how reading your aff in debate spills out into something that changes our relationship to the rez. Even in a world without fiat, I need to know why the scholarship of the aff is net better than any scholarship the neg would have access to in a debate under different circumstances.

Case and Case v K Stuff

At the end of a round in which I vote aff, I need to be able to coherently describe the mechanism of the aff, the impacts, and how the aff solves the impacts. If the 2ar doesn't have this or spends a minute doing some sloppy LBL with unintelligible spreading on case and then moves on to answering 4 minutes of the K/FW, I'm probably not going to vote for you. I understand that sometimes people feel like they know their case very well and the "premise" of the aff "should" solve the residual offense, but it gets muddled or you get rushed because you're running out of time on the K. So just be mindful. Explain the warrants of the LBL.

T stuff

Do whatever you want, but I don't really believe in voting on T as a reverse voter but under some special circumstances, I can see myself doing so, assuming the Aff can clearly explain a voter and standards that prove they lost ground by having T run on them (for some reason I have a fear of this, don't ask). Slow down a little on standards and block stuff.

FW stuff

If you don't extend your interp throughout each speech then I probs will have a harder time voting for you, so make sure to do so. Other than that though, do whatever the hell you want. Standards and/or Impact turns being gone for should be extrapolated and contextualized to the type of advocacy/education in the round. Read all the disads you want. Make sure to tell me why policy education might be better vs. critical education in the long run for a certain case scenario. Keep FW separate from framing on case but MAKE CONNECTIONS.

CP stuff

I mean if you want. I tend to give condo more weight when there are 3 + conditional advocacies, including the K, so be a bit careful there.

Impact stuff

IMPACT FRAMING!!!!!! 2ar/1ar as well Block/2nr need to be solid about what impacts/offense is/are being gone for in the debate. There's obviously going to be concessions on both sides at the end of the debate but where are they, why do they matter, and what does this mean for other arguments on the flow? 2ar's/2nr's that write the ballot at the top of the rebuttles>>>>>>

Spreading Stuff

Pls enunciate the tags and don't spread through blocks at the rate of a lawnmower on drugs, especially when/if they're not in the doc. I have a sore spot from a round with clipping so I'll probably say clear like 5 times, and if there's still an issue after that I'll mention something at the end of the speech. If it keeps happening, there will probably be more severe consequences.

Speaks

I'll probably give you better speaks if you're slower and have good arguments than if you're fast and make little strategic arguments. If you're fast and make good args, I'll definitely give you the extra speaker points.

The vibes I'd like us all to strive for are ????????????, preferably in that order. ???? does not include derogatory lanague or disrespect. Rock on!

Login to Tabroom

Groves Falcon Invitational

2019 — Beverly Hills, MI/US

Policy Paradigm List

Judges