If you're being judged by me you're in trouble, I retired from debate in 2018. Good luck!

John W. Arnold

Howard High School
Ellicott City, Maryland

I have been competing in forensics since middle school! I have taught public speaking, coached and judged IE, LD, CX and Public Forum debate since 2006.

Public Forum Debate Judging Philosophy

I find Debate to be much like a game of chess. A good clash of ideas makes a most enjoyable debate for me. So, don’t be afraid to take risks and be passionate about your arguments, so long as you support, defend, and explain them. PFD is a debate of currently relevant events; therefore, please make sure that your arguments and evidence reflect that current relevance.

Communication skills and the resolution of substantive issues are equally important to me. Speed has the potential to harm your communicative ability. If you are reading too fast, I will let you know, and expect you to adapt to my request. Your speaker points are based solely on your ability to communicate with me. Please remember that you are trying to persuade me to vote in your favor. Therefore, it is in your best interest to make sure that I can understand you.

Teach me, explain and apply the evidence to me, don’t just read it. The quality of your evidence is much more important to me than sheer quantity of evidence. You must be able to use--weigh, impact, link, extend—your evidence, showing me that you know and understand it.

Absent a framework being established, I will evaluate the debate on the voting issues presented in the Summaries and Final Foci. Be sure to use those speeches to explain and convince me of what the debate boils down to, and why I should believe you over your opponent -- be sure to warrant these assertions!

Crossfire, especially Grand Crossfire, should remain civil.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Judging Philosophy

I will not intervene during the debate, nor ask to see evidence after the debate. Feel free to ask any questions prior to the round.

I enjoy judging LD rounds when the debaters focus on communicating with each other and educating me. This is the basis on which I assign speaker points. Don’t be afraid to clash, in fact, clash intentionally, but with civility.

I prefer a clear standard with which I can evaluate the round. Make sure that you link and impact back to the standard. Don’t just tell me that they do, prove it. I am definitely listening for claim—warrant—impact in the presentation of evidence and logical argumentation. I’d rather LD debaters did not spread, but as long as your speed does not affect your articulation and comprehensibility, I am fine with it. Make it easy for me with road maps and signposting. Both AFF and NEG should be sure to clearly and effectively crystallize their position in their final speeches.

My decision is based on my review of what I have on my flow at the end of the round.


Policy Debate Judging Philosophy

I find Debate to be much like a game of chess. A good clash of ideas makes a most enjoyable debate for me. So, don’t be afraid to take risks and be passionate about your arguments, so long as you support and defend them.

Communication skills and the resolution of substantive issues are equally important to me. Speed has the potential to harm your communicative ability. If you are reading too fast, I will let you know, and expect you to adapt to my request. Your speaker points are based solely on your ability to communicate with me. Please remember that you are trying to persuade me to vote in your favor. Therefore, it is in your best interest to make sure that I can understand you. Teach me, explain and apply the evidence to me, don’t just read it. The quality of your evidence is much more important to me than sheer quantity of evidence. You must be able to use--weigh, impact, link, extend—your evidence, showing me that you know and understand it. I’d rather not evaluate the debate in topicality issues, but will if forced to. Absent an in-round framework being established, I will evaluate the debate on whether or not the topical plan would be a good idea. I don’t think kritiks provide for the best debates, but will listen to them and consider them, if given a clearly articulated and warranted reason to.

Argue what you believe in, are passionate about and are good at. Enjoy what you are spending so much time doing!

Years debated : 4
Last POLICY debate – 2013
Judging HS Policy Debate since: 2012

I debated as a 2A/1N for most of my debate career. I have run all arguments but gravitate towards arguments that discuss race and gender, as these are important subjects to me. However, I appreciate a good straight "policy" debate and have no problem watching non-critical debates. Creative, logically presented and well executed arguments are ultimately easier and more enjoyable to watch than a debate lacking criteria for analysis, or a framework that allows both teams to state what they believe to be the truth without analysis or comparison.
I try to be a blank sheet and let you decide how I should vote, but I will naturally compare what you say to what I know or believe to be true. This means that if you say something I consider to be factually incorrect, it decreases your ethos. That does not mean that I don't think you can educate ME in a debate. I am mostly flow oriented in my decision making and do my absolute best not to vote you down for things the other team does not say. But, be detailed - my understanding of certain literature might allow me to understand the unstated intricacies an argument, but my lack of knowledge on another might mean that i do NOT catch the nuances of your argument the way you hope. Don't JUST use buzzwords. The best way to make sure I don’t intervene is to make sure I UNDERSTAND your argument, so EXPLAIN. This is particularly important on the micro level when debating PICs, ADV Cps, etc. 

I believe in looking at ways to solve problems at the micro and macro level. It's awesome to discuss the broder aspects, but you can use things that are inevitable for the greater good. In other words, you can fight the battle and the war. 

Warrant and compare your your arguments, close as many doors as you can in the debate. and be clear about it. Impact calc and internal link contestations and explanation are the key things i look at in determining who won.

I understand the idea of debate as a performance in multiple ways: 1) The debate space can allow for music, poetry, etc but as said above, please establish a framework or lens that allows me to determine why you should get the ballot, and why your debate is important, and why/how you meet that burden. 2) On a broader scale, switch side debate and changing what you argue is an example of performance in which you have to get someone else to believe with certainty what you are saying. Despite being flow oriented I expect to be convinced that your arguments are better than your opponent's, rather than making a decision based off technical issues.
I will be honest I hate theory debates (with the exception of topicality) only because I find them awful to flow and even more awful to evaluate the 16 sub points are often not fleshed out or compared in a way that offers a compelling conclusion. In this case, esp if the theory debate is shallow, I tend to err aff. I hate having that bias but my voting record speaks for itself.
I look to evidence for two reasons – to make sure the warrants you're extending are true and in cases where the debate isn’t fleshed out enough, to determine who is (more) correct in their analysis. 

I appreciate a lively debate in which people seem passionate, and love humor to alleviate the sometimes overly aggressive atmosphere in debates. Just some ideas if you are looking for ways to get good speaks with me.
As a general rule, I defer to an offense-defense paradigm, unless told otherwise.I think debate is GOOD, unless told otherwise.Debates should be fair and educational. You might want to tell me what "fairness" an "education" actually are, though.
Yes, speed is fine.
Yes, you can go to the bathroom. 
No, I will not be timing your speeches or prep.

Affiliation: Capitol Debate (High school) and Liberty University (College)
Experience: I've been involved in debate for 12 years now. I debated competitively in Policy Debate primarily (I dabbled in LD and Congress in HS). I have coached Public Forum on the MS and HS level for the last 6 years.

Basic Philosophy: (Novice/Middle School)

As with anyone, I enjoy high quality debates. I find that this comes from students debating how THEY feel comfortable and not trying to appease my every desire in the round. I debated from strictly policy to performative/critical argumentation. I say all that to say that no matter what you do i'll probably be open to it. My below comments will be pretty vague as I judge/coach many types of debate

My Specific Preferences:

1) Impact and Link turns hold my heart. A well executed turn debate always grabs my attention and you will see that reflected in both my interest and your speaker points.

2) I'm lazy, Tell me what do do. At the end of the debate don't just say "They dropped X so we win the debate." Tell me why! What does it mean for the rest of the debate? How should I weigh this against the sea of other arguments at play.

3) I love evidence. I love debaters who explain their evidence and pull out the warrants even more.

4) If you decide to take a more critical/non-traditional route, don't assume I know your literature base. While I am open to hearing it doesn't mean I understand what you are saying. Make sure you explain things in-depth.

5) I am pretty expressive in debates. USE THIS TO YOUR ADVANTAGE! If I look like I don't get it...chances are I don't. If you say "They dropped X" and I am shaking my head no then chances are, on my flow, it's not dropped.

6) Don't be a jerk. I hate it and my expressions and your speaks will reflect it.

Advanced Philosophy(Varsity)

Topicality-- I default to competing interpretations . To make these debates even close to enjoyable for me this requires an explicit list of what specific cases your interpretation permits and why this is beneficial for the activity. As for "Kritiks of T": I tend not to view these as RVIs, but instead as counter-standards that privilege an alternate debate curriculum that is more important than traditional conceptions. Negatives that plan on defending T against these criticisms should not only maintain that the 1AC does not meet what they view as fair and educational debate, but also need to go into a more specific discussion that impacts why their vision of a fair and educational debate is good and why the negative's alternate curriculum is worse in comparison. In round abuse is key for me. It's what you do not what you justify

Theory-- pretty similar to T debates but the one difference is that I will default to "reject the argument, not the team" unless given a reason otherwise. I have been known to go for cheapshots, but these require fulfilling a high standard of execution (a fully warranted and impacted explanation of your cheapshot, and closing the doors on any cross-applications the aff can make from other flows). Stylistically speaking, slowing down in these debates will help me put more ink on your side of the flow--otherwise I may miss a part of your argument that you find important. Additionally, a well-thought out interpretation and 3 warranted arguments regarding why a particular practice in debate is bad is significantly stronger than a blippy, generic re-hashing of a 10-point block.

Straight-up Strategies-- My favorite strategies often involve more than one or more of the following: an advantage counterplan, topic specific DA(s), and a solid amount of time allocated to case turns/defense. I am obviously open to hear and evaluate more generic arguments like politics, dip cap, delay counterplans, and process counterplans if that is your thing, and you should obviously go for what you are winning.

K and Performance Strategies-- I enjoy philosophy and have spent a significant chunk of my free time reading/understanding K and performance arguments. My familiarity with this style of debating makes it a double-edged sword. I will be very impressed if you command significant knowledge about the theory at hand and are able to apply them to the case through examples from popular culture or empirical/historical situations. On the other hand, if you fail to explain basic theoretical ideas within the scope of the K or fail to engage particular points of contention presented by the affirmative, I will be thoroughly unimpressed. Similarly, when opposing a K or performance, I am much more interested in arguments (analytics and cards) that not only substantively engage the K but thoroughly defend why your theorization of politics and interaction with the social should be preferred, rather than a generic 50 point survey of claims that are made by positivist thinkers. This is not to say that generic "greatest hits" style arguments have no value, but they certainly need to be backed up with a defense of the conceptual framing of your 1AC (eg, if the negative wins that the kritik turns the case or a no v2l claim, I'm not sure what "predictions good" or "cede the political" does for the affirmative). In terms of a theory/framework debate, I am much less likely to be persuaded by generic "wrong forum" claims but will be more likely to be compelled by arguments pointing to abusive sections of the specific K that is being run (eg, the nature of the alt).

It's also important to defend your impacts thoroughly. My favorite straight up affirmatives to read when I debated had big hegemony advantages. My favorite K authors to read are Wilderson (Afro-Pessimism) and other forms of Black liberation startegies. As a result, I am unlikely be swayed or guilted into voting for you if the only argument you make is a moralizing reference to people suffering/dying. This is NOT to say that I won't vote for you if you choose a strategy that relies on these impacts. However if these impacts are challenged either through impact turns or comparisons, I will not hack for you; I require an adequate refutation of why their impact calculation or understanding of suffering/death is false/incomplete and reasons for why I should prefer your framing. In other words, if the opposing team says "hegemony good and outweighs your K" or alternatively, reads a "suffering/death good" style kritik and your only comeback is "you link to our arguments and people are oppressed" without much other refutation, you will lose. When your moral high ground is challenged, own up to it and refute their assumptions/explanations.

Speaks-- Largely subjective, but I will generally stick to what's outlined below (in the open division). Other things that may influence speaker points include (but are not limited to): clarity, stealing prep, being excessively mean, humor, the strength of your CX

< 25: You really got on my nerves and you deserve an equally obnoxious number on the 0-25 part of the scale 25: You showed up but didn't really make an argument past the 1AC/1NC, and didn't ever acknowledge the fact that there were opponents making arguments in your speech 26: You showed up and made some claims (mostly without warrants) that occasionally clashed with your opponents 27: You made a variety of claims in the debate (some backed up with warrants) but had a variety of severe strategic mishaps and/or failed to impact your claims 28: You made a variety of claims in the debate (most of them backed up with warrants), but you were occasionally playing with fire and had questionable strategic maneuvers 28.5: You are solid. Your claims are backed up with warrants and you have a strategic vision that you are attempting to accomplish. 29: I feel like you will be in the late elims of the tournament that I am judging at 29.5: I feel like you are one of the top few debaters I've judged that year. 30: I feel that you are the best debater I've seen that year.

Most of my background is in Policy debate (1984-2015). I started coaching PF in 2015ish.

I read a lot about the topics and I'm familiar with the arguments.

I think you should read direct quotes, minimize (at best) paraphrasing and not make up total lies and B.S.

My decision will come down to the arguments and whether or not voting for the Pro/the resolution is on-balance desirable.

I flow and if you notice I'm not flowing it's because you are repeating yourself.

Former debater (high school LD/PF and college Parli), current attorney/ PF coach.

I vote based on framework and the flow. Do not drop points.

I want extension and impacts throughout. PLEASE weigh for me. There is nothing that displeases me more than having to use my own weighing mechanism. 

In terms of arguments, I will buy any kind of crazy (literally) you are willing to sell as long as it is warranted and linked.

Speed, however fast, is okay as long as you are speaking clearly. 

I am an experianced lay judge for LD as well as PF.  I do not like spreading as I feel this skill would never be used in the real world.  Your job is to debate the issue, build and defend your case clearly, with evidence, logic, and confidence.  Speaking fast is acceptable if it is understandable and I can flow the material.

Cross X should not be used to verify what you should have taken notes on during your opponents speech.  It should be used to get to the details of your opponents case and to gain insight as to how you can attack that case.

Tell me your Value, Value Criterion that will be used to measure how you achieve the value.  Tie your case back to the framework as often as you can.  Clearly tell me Contention 1, 2, 3 etc (and give me the tag line) and use meaningful quotes, evidence and logic to solidify that contention.  Show the clash, use time wisely and do not drop any points from your opponent.  KVI's will be helpful in close rounds.

Do not question the decision, it is over at that point.

Good luck to all debaters

 

 

 

I am very laid back judge, but here are a few things I would love to see:

1. Give me a roadmap; even something as simple as "it's going to be aff then neg" is greatly appreciated. If your speech is going to jump all over flow, be transparent about that at the top and signpost as you go. Overall, please be purposeful about signposting/claims and slow down for those statements. I need to be able to follow on the flow as this is the primary factor in my decision.

2. If anyone is using a framework, do NOT drop it post constructive or rebuttal. Once framework is introduced, how each side weighs into that throughout the round is crucial.

3. Utilize crossfire. Do not use that time to solely ask clarifying questions. Be offensive (even in the first cross), that's what we're here for. It's not going to win you the round, but it'll give the round depth.

4. FOR PF FIRST SPEAKERS SPECIFICALLY: The summary speech is the easiest way to win your round. Do NOT just merely extend every little thing your second speaker said; that's useless. Do NOT spend the entire time simply refuting your opponent's responses to your case. Give me a worlds/comparative analysis & weigh every impact. Defending your case can be integrated into these big picture analyses. This speech needs to only hone in on a handful of essential arguments. Be intentional with those two minutes.

5. Second speaking team, first speakers: if you want to dedicate some time in your constructive to rebuttal, DO IT. Keep the round entertaining.

6. Keep track of your prep time. I will also be keeping track, but you should be keeping track of each other as well.

7. If anyone is using hands off prep to get a piece of evidence, DO NOT PREP. I will down you.

8. Avoid blippy responses. I value the quality of your argument over the quantity.

9. If an argument seems to be a wash between opposing pieces of evidence, be prepared to show me the evidence at the end of the round.

10. I vote based on a combination of who won the flow, who outweighed, and who was the most intentional with their time.

If any of this is confusing, just ask me for clarification before the round! :)

I competed for 4 years on the TFA and a bit on the National Circuit in Congress, OO, and DX. I qualified to TFA State three years (3x in Congress, once in OO and DX) and broke to semis in Congress twice. I qualified to the TOC in Congress my junior year and received the at large my senior year. I also received a total of seven NIETOC bids.

Policy:

I started in policy, but only did it intermittently and attended a few tournaments here and there. So, I don't have a ton to offer in the way of paradigms other than:

• I like to think I'm a 7 or 8 on speed, but being so far removed from policy, I'm probably closer to a 4 or a 5. You will need to enunciate clearly. I will yell "clear" if you're not clear enough and "slow" if I've yelled "clear" a few times and your speaking isn't getting better. If you're unresponsive, after a few time, I'll put my pen down and stop flowing if I can't understand you. I don't flow what I can't understand.
• Open CX and flex prep is fine
• Flashing is not a part of prep, but don't abuse it
• Give clear voters
• I always appreciate good theory and topicality arguments and they are voters always voters on my ballot
• Make sure your link chains are clear
• Dress professionally - I don't care for the movement towards progressively more casual attire
• Be respectful - name calling, personal attacks and / or cursing will result in the lowest speaks the tournament will allow me to award and excessive use may lead to an instant loss; note that I take respect very seriously and at tournaments that don't allow me to give low-point wins, you will also lose the round.
• Be clear on the flow - tell me where to flow things (especially if you want me to flow them on more than one argument), tell me what to star and what to extend through - I will listen and if you make my job easier, I will like you more.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I've only done LD once, but it was big in Texas so I've sat through quite a few rounds and helped edit and prep out a lot of cases.

• If you're reading complicated / dense philosophy, slow down and explain it to me.
• Run what you want, but be clear with your links and voters
• Tell me what to vote on
• Minimal judge intervention - if you don't tell me something is wrong or clearly contradictory, I won't vote on it unless I have to. And if I have to, I will be annoyed.
• I don't care for jargon because it's largely misused
• Prioritization of arguments: framework, substance, topicality, Role of the Ballot, theory
• I don't care for dramatic impacts (eg. extinction, genocide, etc), but I'll evaluate them if they go unanswered

Public Forum:

I never competed in Public Forum, but it's largely what I have judged. I am a traditionalist when it comes to the purpose of PF and its function in the debate consortium.

• I don't like dramatic impacts (eg. extinction, genocide, etc) - that's not what PF is supposed to be. Give me reasonable impacts with lots of impact calculus and weigh your impacts against your opponents'.
• I don't like morality / ethical frameworks. PF should be quantitative with either hard numbers or strong, qualified logical arguments
• Roadmap and signpost throughout but your roadmap shouldn't be more than "first my opponents' case, then my own". I don't need to hear what contentions you're addressing specifically, this event is just not that complex structurally - just signpost well
• The Role of the Ballot in outrounds is to determine which team progresses - a team might lose the flow but win my ballot holistically (ie. better speakers and better analysis).
• No plans or counterplans
• I flow everything - you have to address flaws you want me to catch. My job is to evaluate the round, not the cases.
• The final focus should not be used to run down both flows - focus on a couple arguments and tell me why they're voters. The rest won't be considered "drop"

Congressional Debate:

Congress was my main event in high school. I primarily spoke my first two years and presided my second two. I am very particular with what I like.

Congress if you're speaking:

• Rebuttal is exceptionally important, especially if you're giving one of the last speeches on an item
• Be aware of the difference between a resolution and a bill and address them accordingly
• Be clear and concise
• Avoid falling into the trap of the standard speaking pattern - it's really, really boring
• Avoid really long intros as you're getting up. A simple "is everyone ready?" will do. I especially don't want you to ask if everyone individually is prepared. If I tell you I am always ready, don't wait for me or ask me. I will stop you if I'm not.
• Stay within your time frame, you should not be starting an argument when the PO gavels thirty seconds left
• CLAIM-WARRANT-IMPACT is exceptionally important
• Put your placard where everyone can see it (I don't want to misspell your name and confuse tab).
• Be nice. Ad hominem attacks will NOT be tolerated - expect to be dropped from my top 8 if you attack individuals personally
• Memorized speeches don't impress me and might lead me to fact checking all of your sources
• I love roleplaying. Telling me about your last year in office or going to lunch with Representative ________ is part of the magic for me.

Congress if you're presiding:

• NB: I reward good POing generously.
• A good PO is one I forget about until I look at my precedence chart and realize you didn't speak because you were presiding. In other words, I shouldn't even notice that you're there.
• Encouraging those who haven't spoken to speak is fine, just don't be excessive about it. Don't mention names. If they're not speaking even after being prompted, feel free to talk to them during recess. (I love seeing a PO care about their room and the success of everyone in the room but calling people out by name only makes them more uncomfortable - they know who they are).
• Use a gavel. It's more professional. Reflective time signals are an older style and ineffective. I will provide one most of the if you don't have one
• Be clear with your preferences and don't go back on them. I recommend making a list to run down quickly at the beginning of the round
• Have a policy on when standing for a speech is acceptable. A lot of POs will say "whoever I see first before precedence is established" but don't mention when standing is acceptable. For example, is it okay for people to stand as you're calling for speakers? Or would you like speakers to stay seated until you finish the call? (My personal policy was that no one can stand until after the gavel which happened after I said "Aff speakers rise now"). Be consistent. If you're not, you're being very unfair to the respectful person in the room. I will stop you and correct you on this and if you don't change within a few speeches, You will be dropped a few places on my ballot.
• I don't care for little procedural issues. Yes, voting issues are a problem. If the votes don't add up, please recount (and use the nationals "everyone voting aff stand and sit down when I point to you with a number"). But, the difference between "agenda nominations" and "docket nominations" is negligible. Move on. Little procedural games hurt younger debaters, don't progress education and are largely useless and used by POs to show off. If you do this to embarrass someone in the room or to look better, you will earn yourself comments on the ballot. If it's excessive, I will drop you ranks. (As I mentioned above though, I don't mind and in fact encourage PO's to talk to people between rounds about small errors - feel free to pull someone aside during recess with a "hey, it's not a huge deal but in case you face a stricter PO in the future...")
• I shouldn't have to correct you on precedence more than a few times. I understand slip ups happen, but if they're happening that often, you shouldn't be POing. POing is very exhausting - I recommend you ask for recesses if you find your performance is lacking because you're tired.
• Be confident and run the room. Women: feel free to be assertive and strong. I know first hand what it's like to be called "bitchy" for doing what my male counterparts would be commended for - I am aware of this and will do my best to ensure that you are not unfairly marked for it.
• Gavel at a responsible volume.

Things you should do:

• Slow down on card names, tags, claims, authors and anything else you want me to pay attention to
• Give clear voting issues
• Follow my paradigm (especially if you ask for it again in round)
• Take cues from my facial expressions (it's pretty obvious, respond accordingly)
• Be nice to new / younger debaters
• Ask questions about my decision (if I disclose), especially if it's an important rounds in terms of a bid or state points
• Speak well - debate is, on face, about communication. If you're flailing or gasping for air (with the exception of very fast spreading - in which case I'm probably not judging you), you will lose speaker points

Things you shouldn't do:

• Be rude
• Win on some kind of technicality and be tricky - I like fair rounds and will intervene if this becomes a problem
• Be rude
• Miscut / lie about / misrepresent / not be able to produce evidence

Conflicts: Clear Lake, Clear Springs, Richard Wright PCS, and anyone I may be good friends with / am coaching at the time

I am friendly and I love debate! I firmly believe it's the best thing that happened to me! I coach and judge because I believe it changed my life. I want to help you and my goal is to make sure you have the most productive round possible. Please email me at aarzu.maknojia@gmail.com if you have any questions!

For both LD and PF, I am a very traditional judge. Extreme speed, overuse of jargon, and trickery are not appreciated and could cost you the round. Win the round on the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation. I will disclose ONLY if required by the tournament host. I will offer no oral critiques. Both of those are the purpose of the ballot.

Background:

Pace Academy '15

Georgetown University '19

Debated nationally for 6 years between high school and college. I have been out of debate for a few years but with the pivot to online format I have been judging a lot more recently.

Big Picture:

Tech>Truth in general, usually "false" arguments are easily defeated technically

Topicality: Highly relevant, more in the fairness/clash camp than the decision making/skills camp

Conditionality: People do not go for conditionality bad often enough, if there are 3+ options it should definitely be viable

States CP: Alright for it

Other Theory: Usually consider theory in the context of the literature, if the specific conditions CP is well-evidenced (in the context of the aff) and relevant, I am more likely to consider it theoretically legitimate

Impact Turns: Probably my favorite, especially ones that exploit theoretical inconsistencies of the opponent's arguments (e.g. dedev against an aff that reads econ and warming advantages)

Disads/CPs: Great

Kritks: Went for these less often, but open to all arguments. I find I usually vote aff on some combination of case O/w+perm+framework and neg if the neg wins a broader framing issue/uniqueness argument. I view these as disads with a uniqueness counterplan, oftentimes the problem with this argument structure is that the perm solves because "the kritik" lacks a specific link

Please feel free to email me at clyde.shepherd.2@gmail.com with any questions.

My name is Amanda Tobey. I debated for J.P. Taravella High School, for UCF and George Washington. If you are reading this I am probably coaching/judging for GDS. Use this as a guideline for what to run in front of me, and the end of the day most debaters will do what they do best anyway so just do it well and I’ll vote off of what you tell me to.

 

I am now retired. I recently taught middle school policy and public forum for GDS, but as they are novices with no circuit to compete in, I am not that caught up on literature for any current topics. You have been warned*

If you have questions for me: Amandathetobey (at) gmail (dot) com.

 

GDS Invite: updated 9/23/17

Sorry for the late update! Some of this was on the wiki. I just updated this to make my disad and K preferences more open. 

PFD THINGS

At the heart of things, I am a Policy debater who is very comfortable with PFD as I have taught and competed in it a bit. I value tech over truth.

 

• You need warrants
• You need links and internal links
• You need impacts
• If you are extending something you need all of the above
• weigh stuff/impact analysis

 

 

 

Policy Things

After judging a few debates on the 2015-2016 topic these are things I've been saying after every round:

1. Perm texts should be specific

2. SHORT o/v's in rebuttals are your friend (and mine)

3. Organization counts

4. Impact out f/w, T, and theory if you want me to vote on it.

Short but not so sweet:

Love: theory, T, topic specific (IR) disads, and high theory/regular k’s.

Like: case, adv cps, pics.

Tolerate: politics, identity-based args (ask me about this if unclear)

Hate: any spec arg (you will lose speaks), card clipping (potential loss if proven)

  Theory(Framework):

I love theory, I think learning about why we debate the way we debate is important. I was both a cheating 2N and a lying 2A so you do you. I think theory is fluid and changes round to round. I default to competing interps. I like to hear the history of the arguments (i.e. condo and how in the 70’s one off was abuse but in 2002 seven off was the norm) this is important to understand why my ballot matters in these rounds. Please highlight things in these debates that I should focus on (i.e. examples of non-abuse, examples of in round abuse) and/or try not to make these debates messy. RVI’s are almost always shitty. DO NOT RUN SPEC ARGUMENTS IN FRONT OF ME- even if you win on something else your speaks will go down for it. Front-lining is your friend. I default aff framing for framework and this may or may not be a pre-req to theory or T- please keep at least part of these debate alive in the last rebuttals because this is an important questions that should be resolved by the debaters. (look to counterplans for exceptions)

 

Topicality:

As with theory, topicality is awesome. I used to run really abusive affs and I loved slamming affs for being abusive. I have a medium threshold for voting on extra-t/effects-t, just spend time on it. I’m slightly more truth oriented on T than theory but I still rely heavily on my flow. Affs should have a plan txt that is enacted by the USFG- I am more amiable to wacky plan txts than straight up plan advocacies. Whether that plan txt has to be fiated…..is debatable. I default to competing interpretations and I am very impressed with teams that keep T debates clean.

 

Case:

If you need another sheet of paper for something like an overview- tell me please. I love card analysis more than new cards. Smart arguments are good arguments, and I will evaluate smart analytics against bad cards. Be clear in overviews, this is your aff, you know it better, don’t forget that. I’m also fine with squirrely things like not going for your aff, case arguments used in theory debates, ect.

 

CP:

Counterplans are counterplans.if you want me to judge kick you have to tell me and then justify it depending on the theory in the round. I am slightly against multiple plank counterplans and think theory can check back. That along with 50 states and Lopez, I think theory has a good place and I slightly favor an aff ballot. All other counterplans are completely tab and fair game. Please don’t rattle off perms like it’s your job, they should be separate; they should have specific texts with cards if you want to make me super happy. That being said, I sometimes lean pro aff on most all perm theory (except severance).

 

Disads:

Oy. So I i used to be pretty meh on politics disads. Now,  I am a lot more open. I really love a good topic disad. That being said, I will totally vote for any disad, you just must: 1. Keep the debate clean 2. Spend time on it and the entire story 3. Write my rfd. Not one sentence (They dropped the link debate). I mean tell me the impact of that and how that means the 2ar is screwed and has been since the 2ac. I know cutting hyper-specific link cards is a pain, but it goes a long way.

 

Kritik:

My small amount of time in college made me more disillusioned with the K but I am getting over it. I am most familiar with security, cap, GBTL, and Nietzsch. I have no issues voting for k's.  Including high theory stuff.

Performance: I think debate is an academic space and a unique one. Only in this space do academics spread ideas, talk about foreign policy, flow, fiat stuff, ect. I think we can talk about x’s rights anywhere to anyone, but policy prescriptions are unique to this space. Thus, I do not like things that take away from the precious time and space that is policy debate. You should justify how it’s policy prescription or relates to it. General performance and identity don’t meet that standard and I will be very likely to (but not definitely) vote on framework in these rounds. (edit: given our current political climate I can see a world in which this is more "policy" and this I am more open to it)

Exceptions: If someone is racist/sexist in a round, you have impacts that are fiated, or if you are responding to a team that is performance with “but you don’t include me”

 

Cheating:

I encourage you to record rounds, if someone is clipping cards or cheating in any other way, I will punish them. Bring it up during the round. Make a theory arg.

 

Tech:

Jumping isn’t prep, all teams must have access to all evidence. I will allow 2 minutes per team per computer malfunction, after that it’s prep. I keep prep, you keep prep, we all keep prep! You may have to remind me of high school times. Act like you know how to work your computer/stand/space even if you don’t. I may have my computer out in rounds. I will not record anything without your permission and will give you my FULL attention during all cx’s and speeches.

 

Speaks and other important things you should know (and speaks):

My name is Amanda, this is policy debate, please don’t call me Mrs. Tobey or “judge”. Be friendly, act like you've known your opponent your whole life. I like a “cool” style of debate. That being said I was also very passive-aggressive and sarcastic which is fine by me, but should you get too aggressive and make me uncomfortable, speaks will go down. If you want warning for anything tell me- I think it’s noble to know what you need to work on and would love to help but after one warning, if it is something that is bugging me, it will affect speaks. I view speaks as 75% how you say something (clarity, ect.) and the structure you say it with (2ac’s shouldn’t put T at the bottom) and 25% actual smart arguments (that impact turn was a good idea). 

Partnering- I very much value my partner and I expect you to, too. I’m fine with open cross but do not cut your partner off if it’s their cross, do not over tool your partner, do not be a dick to your partner please.

Finally, if you ask me something that I already put here (not including clarification) I will be annoyed which is not a good way to start the round. I took the time to write this so you have the best chance of adapting, take the time to read it. If you show me good flows after the round (like as soon as the 2ar ends) I will add .2 to speaks.

 

So I basically stole this form Shree Awsare- I think it's a good representation of speaks.

< 25: You were offensive or obnoxious and deserve this.

25: No arguments past constructives, no spreading or bad spreading, no strategic thought of usage of the aff/neg constructive.

26: You showed up and made some claims (mostly without warrants) that occasionally clashed with your opponents- bad ethos and bad spreading.

27: You made a variety of claims in the debate (some backed up with warrants) but had a variety of severe strategic mishaps and/or failed to impact your claims- badish ethos, okay spreading.

28: You made a variety of claims in the debate (most of them backed up with warrants), but you were occasionally playing with fire and had questionable strategic maneuvers. okay ethos, good spreading.

28.5: You are solid. Your claims are backed up with warrants and you have a strategic vision that you are attempting to accomplish. Solid spreading, okay ethos. You use examples and don't just read pre-written blocks, you contextualize.

29+: You've done everything needed for a 28.5, but you sounded really, really good while you were doing it. This probably includes: you had excellent ethos/pathos, you were incredibly clear, and your strategic vision was executed nearly flawlessly.

30- You did all of the above and you made a connection. Somewhere in the debate (or at multiple points) you looked at me and made a topical one-liner or said something that changed the way I viewed the debate.

          

 

I really like a properly ran cap K. Down with capitalism!!

Feel free to run anything in front of me, but I would ~prefer~ that you not run frivolous theory.

I believe disclosure is very good unless you give me a reason to believe otherwise.

Topical puns in you speech will increase the speaker points you get.

I have previous LD and PF and Policy experience but I was not a tricks debater.

I won't vote on the K if the alt is unclear - same goes for policy advocacies. Clear solvency please.

awelton001@gmail.com for questions