i graduated from the harker school in 2020, where i primarily competed in policy debate. second semester senior year, i qualled to the toc in ld/made late elims at a few tournaments. i'm now a second-year at uchicago and coach/judge for harker.
please put me on the email chain – email@example.com
i like technical, smart debating, particularly of policy arguments. i like even more when these debates are a robustly developed 1-2 off rather than a proliferation of unexplained arguments.
i have come to the conclusion that i do not enjoy watching, nor do i know how to evaluate, ld phil debates, as well as high theory arguments. i'm also not the best judge for a very technical 2ar on theory, especially if the 1ar is fast and/or blippy.
you will almost surely lose if you read tricks, silly theory arguments, spikes, or weird ld arguments using acronyms (including but not limited to rvi, nib, afc, or any spec argument). i will listen to these, but the sillier/less intuitive the argument, the lower my threshold for responses (and your speaks) will be.
online debate notes
please be extra clear & go about 70% speed! after online camp + judging practice rounds, i would probably prefer if you sent analytics, especially theory, t standards, and permutation texts.
if you do not locally record speeches in the event that you drop off a call, i will flow only what i caught. will not let you regive any part of a speech.
more specific thoughts
from miles gray: i think the purpose of any one debate round is to determine whether the benefits of an example of the resolution outweigh its harms and/or opportunity costs. i will, by default and by preference, adopt this position when considering arguments in a debate, and am very skeptical of reasons to evaluate a debate in any other way.
some things that i like seeing in debates
- big picture framing and judge instruction
- nuanced, fully developed arguments rather than "run and gun" strategies
- well-researched strategies that display content mastery
- good disclosure (this does not mean i am a fan of disclosure theory)
some arguments i am likely to be persuaded by
- appeals to reasonability, especially on theory
- plans good/pragmatics arguments vs. nebel t
- judge kick
- framework versus planless affs
- util good & extinction outweighs
some arguments i am unlikely to be persuaded by
- personal callouts
- framing contentions without substantive answers
- process counterplans (but vastly prefer the aff to make competition arguments rather than theory presses)
- conditionality bad, or that any non-condo theory is a reason to reject the team
- anything in the realm of spark or wipeout or warming impact turns
- asking me to ignore large parts of the debate (evaluate after x speech, must concede fw or contention, indexicals, etc.)
- frivolous theory and tricks (the bar for answering these is on the floor)
- inserting rehighlighting is fine
- evidence quality is very important to me. if you have very good cards, tell me, and i will read them! conversely, point out that your opponents' cards are bad (i think the state of evidence in LD is abysmal)
- i feel comfortable voting on clipping/egregiously miscut evidence/other ethics problems even if the other team does not point them out (if it is a novice debate, i will likely not vote on clipping to maximize the educational experience for both debaters)
- please be kind and respectful! there is a distinction between being sassy/sarcastic and being rude – if you cross that line, i will be very unhappy
if i am judging you in public forum
...you can probably ignore most of this paradigm. in high school, i did not compete in pf, but i am familiar with the differences between pf and ld/policy and will try to adapt my judging accordingly. regardless, here a few things that might differentiate me from other pf judges:
- i prefer flow/circuit style debate, and i will make my decision based off of technical drops and extensions. how "pretty" your speeches are will not affect how i evaluate your arguments.
- i firmly believe your evidence should be in the form of direct quotations (ideally cards *with full citations available*). in my mind, paraphrasing has the same weight as analytical arguments, and arguments from the opposing team to discount paraphrased evidence will be very persuasive to me.
- arguments need to be extended in every speech for me to evaluate them at the end of the debate. if something is not extended in summary, you will not be allowed to bring it up in ff. consequently, using summary to choose *a few* important offensive and defensive arguments is in your best interest.
- i care little about pf formalities (who asks the first question, sitting/standing during grand crossfire, etc.)
- speed is fine, but please maintain clarity.