Tim Alderete - The Meadows School

-It's either Aff prep or Neg prep - No one preps for free.

-Text, from a debater I just judged to their coach, who is a friend of mine: “What is your friend on? He started my timer early because I took a deep breath.” Me: I'm gonna put that in my Paradigm!

-I do want to be on the email chain, but I won't be reading along with your speech doc - timalderete@yahoo.com

-I am cantankerous about Prep time - for me, it ends when you hit Send on the Email.

-The majority of my decisions will revolve around a lack of flowing or line by line structure.

-I will vote for most any coherent argument. A "coherent" argument must be one that I can defend to the team or debater who lost. Many think this makes me interventionist, but you don't pref me anyway.

-I not the best judge for bad arguments, the Politics Disad, or dumb theory. I will try to take them as seriously as you do, but everyone has their limits. (For example, I have never voted for disclosure theory, because I have never heard an intelligent argument defending it.)

-I do not vote for unethical arguments. The "Contact Information Disclosure" argument is dangerous and unethical because it abets online predators. It will receive a loss and minimum points.

-I don't give great speaker points. To compensate, if you show me decent flows you can get up to an extra point. Please do this Before I enter the ballot.

-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will only call "Clearer" once or twice if you are unclear.

-I have judged and coached a lot of LD rounds – I like philosophical arguments more than you may expect.

-I have judged and coached a lot of Policy rounds – I tend to think like a Policy debater.

Update:
I haven't judged since 2018, I dont think my opinions on debate have changed but maybe slow down for me as I get back into this. You definitely should slow down on texts (plant texts, alts, interps etc.) and author names pls. My email is amestoy.monica@gmail.com

Background:
My name is Monica Amestoy. I graduated in 2013 and debated for Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy in La Canada, CA. I qualified for TOC my senior year, coached a few debaters who did very well at the TOC and have taught at VBI, NSD, PDI and BFI. I also debated in college. Overview: I will do my best to evaluate the round the way you tell me to. I will try to be as objective as possible, but I think that it is impossible to be a completely "tab" judge. So instead of pretending that I will vote like a blank slate my paradigm is to let you know about some of my opinions on certain aspects of debate. Also I haven’t really edited the rest of this paradigm in a while so feel free to ask questions.

Short version: I like policy style arguments, non topical argument, Ks and theory. Read whatever you feel you are best at and when in doubt weigh. I will straight up drop you if you make racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic arguments.

Theory: I really enjoy good theory debates.

Ks:
I hesitate to tell you about my love for the K debate because I’m scared people will think that means they have to run their K in front of me. I obviously love the K but you should run what you think you will do your best with. That being said, I have found that I am more compelled by critical arguments so if you are responding to one of these types of positions or feel that you would perform better under a different paradigm of debate then I think you should probably address questions of what fairness is and for whom/what it means in the debate space.

CPs, Perms, Plans and DAs:
Go for it
Is condo good? Bad? Idk you should tell me these things in your speech

People need to slow down for their plan/cp texts. -Slow down for card names. I think judges lie way too much about how good they are at flowing. I'm just okay.

Things I will drop your speaks for (a lot):
1. Formatting your case in a way that makes it difficult for your opponent to read: multiple colors, fonts, highlighting or lack of spacing. (honestly win the round because your arguments or ballot story is better not because your opponent has a hard time reading your case)
2. Being really rude
3. Stealing prep
4. Lying
Just have fun and read what makes you happy.

To sum up my paradigm in one phrase, it would be "reasons to prefer". The thing I look for most in a round is not a mere restating of facts/analysis/evidence that I have already been told, but a clear reason as to why that argument is more important or more accurate than your opponents. As a judge, it's impossible to sign the ballot if the debaters were ships passing in the night; debate evolves from clash, and clash is derived from reasons to prefer.

For event specific paradigms:

POLICY

I don't believe in interfering in the round in order to make a decision on the ballot. Because of this, I'm open to any sort of argument that you choose to run, provided that you can tell me why that argument matters and why I should vote on it. It's not my place to decide whether or not a K, CP, or DA should be run; that's your choice. As long as you give me reasons to vote on your argument, I will.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

I am a traditional judge. Having done Policy, I definitely see the advantage (and even the beauty) to progressive styles, but I believe they should stay in Policy. I believe that having a clear division between the debate events is crucial to sustaining debate in the future.

The Value/Criterion debate is perhaps the most important part of the round for me. In the end, I want to be told which framework I should use to evaluate the round and why. Reasons to prefer are critical. Once that debate is decided, then everything else can be filtered through that perspective.

PUBLIC FORUM

As stated before, I believe in traditional style Public Forum. In many ways, I enjoy being treated like a lay-judge when viewing a PF round; after all, PF was designed to be the layman's debate. Argumentation should revolve around real-world analysis and pragmatism, and should be delivered in a professional, easy-to-understand manner. Line-by-line argumentation is important, but not necessary as the round progresses into the rebuttals/final focuses.

Sam Bemis

Background: 2 years CX and 1 year LD for Hillcrest High School, currently coaching for Jordan High School

(Because I'm only judging LD for Silver and Black, my paradigm will only cover LD for now)

Overview: I value both traditional and progressive debate; my only preference is that you debate the form with which you are most comfortable. That being said, I believe that debaters should be able to run all types of arguments, so I am willing to vote on anything as long as it is clearly explained, defended, and impacted (or whatever your framework says it has to be). I rely heavily on my flow, so if you are organized and prove to me how you win on the flow I am most likely going to vote for you.

Specifics:

Speed: Judges lie about how fast they can flow, so slow down on your taglines. If I say "CLEAR" more than two times, I will stop writing. 

Prep: Flex prep is fine. If you don't use all your time I will think you are pompous. Prep ends when your USB leaves the port.

CP: Great! You need a plan text, and be ready to prove competition.

Theory: I believe theory is a legitimate way to check abuse, so if you are unable to prove in-round abuse or don't clearly explain your voters, you probably won't win that argument. Theory debates, when correctly structured and warranted, can be very interesting and useful, but it makes me sad when it is used as a time suck. 

Framework: Insofar as I've seen, framework or Value/Criterion is underutilized. When frameworks are argued and impacted, my heart smiles. Be sure to tell me why you've won the framework debate, and how that puts the ballot in your favor. 

Kritiks: I think K's are fantastic, but please don't expect me to know your obscure Kritik right away. If you can't get me to understand it in-round, then you probably shouldn't be running it. In my opinion, which has been heavily influenced by my Policy background, and argument is not a Kritik unless it has an alternative. If you run a "critical" argument but don't have an alternative, I will evaluate it as a DA to the case (which is what it is, really).

Traditional: I love a good traditional debate! Debating "traditionally" doesn't exclude you from theoretical or highly philosophical argumentation, it really just means you are speaking more slowly and avoiding technical jargon. I have seen some highly-skilled traditional debaters beat progressive debaters, and that is exciting.

Speaker points: Speaker points are more a reflection of your speaking style and organization. If you are professional, considerate, organized, and make intelligent arguments, you will get high speaker points. 30 means you were close to flawless, 29.5 means you were probably the best I've seen in a tournament, 29 is impressive, 28 is close to great, 27 is average, 26 means you didn't impress me, and 25 and below means you probably have some things to work on and/or were rude.

Body Language: I try to give non-verbal feedback. I will nod if I agree, roll my eyes or make a scrunched face if I disagree, roll my eyes or tap my pen if I think you should move on, and flow vigorously when you are saying things of importance. 

Miscellaneous: Please don't shake my hand! I love that everyone is friendly, but sickness is not something I would like to share.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to email me: bemissam@gmail.com

I look forward to judging you! I believe that judges are obligated to work, learn, and listen in a round, and everyone in that round deserves to be respected and appreciated. Debate is a fantastic space and activity, and I hope to facilitate an exciting and educational experience. 

toss me on that email chain: aacchapman2@gmail.com

I graduated from UCLA in 2019. I coached LD for 4 years at Harker. I work in a volunteer capacity with the Heights now. That said, I have always had a lower threshold for speed. I'll yell slow twice then I stop flowing until I can comprehend the argument.

I am the most familiar with policy/framework/theory arguments. I won't vote on an RVI on T

Practices Trigger Warnings

Debaters reading positions about suicide, depression/specific mental health, sexual violence, or any similarly traumatic issue, the onus is on them to ask those in the room permission to read the position. Spectators may leave, but judges and opponents do not have that option, meaning there is an expectation that if one of them objects to the triggering subject, that the debater will not read that position. If a debater does not adjust their strategy after being asked to, they will start the round with a 25. If you do not ask before round, but someone is triggered, speaks will similarly be docked. If there is no trigger warning but no one is triggered, the round can continue as normal.

The question for what necessitates a trigger warning is difficult to objectively delineate - if you have a reasonable suspicion someone could be negatively impacted by your position, ask before you read it - explicit narratives are probably a good starting point here. Trigger warnings are contentious in debate but I've seen students negatively impacted in rounds because they were not present and have engaged in conversations with other coaches that lead me to conclude something along these lines is necessary. At the very least, debate is (or should be) a 'safe space', and I believe this is a necessary first step towards achieving that goal. Feel free to discuss this before the round if you are worried it will become an issue in round.

This (admittedly strangely) probably means I'm not the judge for "must read a trigger warning" shells - they often make debate rounds uncomfortable and i have seen them leveraged in ways that make debate spaces unsafe - if no one was triggered, don't spend your time on that shell.

https://medium.com/@erikadprice/hey-university-of-chicago-i-am-an-academic-1beda06d692e#.bqv2t7lr6

This article is very good at articulating my views on the importance of trigger warnings
It is not up for debate that if someone was triggered on account of your failure to adequately make use of trigger warnings, you'll be punished through speaks and/or the ballot

[Evidence Ethics]

1. Things I will drop a debater on whether or not their opponent brings it up: Card clipping, mis-representing the authors claims, grossly misrepresenting a cite (Use discretion here - but a completely missing site would seem to qualify here). The round stops if I notice this happen, or if the opponent brings up this claim. If the opponent brings forward this claim, I will evaluate the claim after the round has stopped.
2. Things I believe should be debated out (with the caveat here that it's an uphill battle - I think these are good norms): Other disclosure norms (not including the whole paragraph in a cut card, broken links, etc).
3. If you expect the round to be stopped (Category #1, or Category #2 but its a panel) I expect clear standards/arguments in a doc emailed out laying out the evidence claim, and specifically, why I should vote on it
4. I will not vote on evidence ethics claim that hedge on the TFA constitution. While I respect the TFA executive board and generally agree with most of the constitution, I think it sets a bad precedent in requiring debaters, especially in Texas, to be beholden to overarching academic councils.

[Things I would like written out before a speech]

1. Interps & Counterinterps
2. Perm texts

[Strategies I love]

1. A good internal link debate w/ deep evidence comparison
2. Having a true/stellar response to UQ or Inherency
3. Nuanced T
4. A unique plan aff that is extended the whole round & leveraged correctly

[Strategies I don't love]

1. Tricks
2. Dense Phil
3. Analytical args
4. Dense critical lit

Very traditional, if you spew or i cant understand you, you will lose. Do the work for me. I want to know why you won the arguments, and impacts.

Background

I was not involved in debate in High School, so I don't have a lot of that type of background. I got involved in judging tournaments in 2014 when my oldest son starting debating. He was involved in Lincoln Douglas, so I tried judging those rounds when I attended. I am an Electrical Engineer, 20 years of experience. I have been very active in politics over the years, being county and state delegate several years for the local political party, representing my district. I have judged a lot of rounds over the last year and a half; probably 40 or more. I am familiar with the process of a LD Debate and I know more than a bit about the topics presented as my son and I discuss topics and debate philosophies quite a bit at home.

Judging style and process

My judging philosophy follows the Value/Criteria/Contention flow. Being an engineer, I have made a spreadsheet to help me in my judging. Since I type much faster than I write, I use my laptop to help me keep track of the flow of the debate. I want to know what your Value, Criteria, and all of your Contentions are and very clearly. I enter those in my spreadsheet and then track how you and your opponent make points or attacks on those contentions. I have devised a number scheme to score each contention and then add (or take away) points from that score based on your ability to convince me of the validity of your contention (or to get me to agree to your attacks on your opponent's contentions). At the end of the debate, I use these scores to help me determine who won the debate, because that debater convinced me the most of his contentions (or attacks on opponent's contentions).

If you like to talk fast, I am fine with it, to a point. I have tried to judge policy debates where "spewing" is the norm. I don't like spewing. Fast talking is one thing, but spewing is for the birds (I'll never judge a policy debate again). One thing you better be sure of is that I get your value, criteria, and contentions; to do that SPEAK THOSE CLEARLY AND CONCISELY! I find contentions to be very weak if I can't understand what you are contending. Obviously, if I get a speech or two into the round and I still don't know your contention, you are going to score weaker on those contentions.

I also track dropped contentions and score them very highly for your opponent when they are dropped. If you miss them, I assume you mean you agree with them, which is a big score for your opponent. I score higher when you pick up and make a big deal of your opponent dropping (if they do). I also tend to give Affirm the benefit of the doubt because of the disadvantage in speech times, in the interest of fairness. However, I also tend to hit Neg harder if they miss because of their time advantage on speeches. That by no means implies I agree more often with Affirm or Neg; just a little benefit of the doubt in the interest of fairness.

I consider most topics to be optimal with 3 contentions. Less than that doesn't seem to cover enough to prove a position, while more than that seems to cause time problems with speeches. You certainly are free to use as many contentions as you like, but in my opinion, 3 is about right.

Timing of speeches

I am fine with you timing your own speeches. I keep time, and my timer is law, be it faster or slower than your timer. I also claim the right to allow someone to finish a sentence or question after the timer goes off. But, again, it's my call. If you keep talking after the timer, I wont stop you. I just start knocking off speaker points.

Disclosure

Most tournaments don't allow judges to disclose or provide feedback. I don't care if they do or not; I don't disclose or provide verbal feedback. Tournaments go way too long as it is without extra time expended in disclosure or feedback. Additionally, if you lost, you almost certainly consider me a fool and worthy of adamant debate proving you are more than worthy of winning. I don't come to tournaments to debate you. Just judge. So even if you see me wandering around afterwards and ask me how you did, I am going to tell you I don't remember (which is probably true), and either way, I don't want to debate. Even if you are sincere and would take constructive criticism, my memory (and desire) just isn't good enough to give you want you seek. Take my written remarks on the ballot for what they are and that will be what you get. I will make an effort to be as detailed as I can as to why I voted for or against you. Sometimes it is obvious who won; sometimes it is a hard choice and I wish I didn't have to make either of you lose. But there can only be one winner and one of you will hate me for my position. I prefer to be well within the confines of anonymity when you find out what I said bad about you.

Speaker Points

I generally take the 30 points you receive and break them down by speech (Affirm has 4 speeches, 1 cross ex, so 6 points per event. Neg has 3 and 1 cross ex,, so 7.5 per event). Depending on your performance during that event, I rate you based on performance in that event. I may dock points for being disorganized, being rude, being belligerent, not speaking clearly, etc. based on how you perform in each event. I rarely take off more than 1 point per event. So a good solid performance in each event will garner a good speaker point score.

Major annoyances

Most techniques of debate I am fine with. Contention is fine, but rudeness rubs me wrong. Some inadvertant rudness can be expected and it grates me a bit, but I won't nail you too hard. Unless you are really bad. One thing really irritates me in debates: the "straw man" technique. If you don't know what that is, look it up. It really gets my goat. One debate I judged, a debater deployed the straw man technique and I stopped caring what either person's criteria or points even were. Straw man is dishonest, unfair, and wrong! If you use it in a debate I judge, you guarantee a loss. It can happen inadvertently, and I understand that, but pounding it home will waste your time and mine.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Cowley%2C+Erin

I debated LD for three years in High School and am an Assistant Coach for the Murray High School Debate team and have been for the past two years.

I have competed in all forms of debate so I am familiar with how rounds should be judged for each respective event. 

I enjoy hearing pre-fiat or K based arguements, mainly because I find philosophy fasinating. I am minoring in philosophy, so please don't try to run someone you don't understand, because I will not make ground for you. 

I try to be as Tabular Rosa as possible (I don't think full tabular rosa exists), but I tend not to buy arguements in the realm of Rape good, no racism, etc. Everyone deserves a voice in my opinion. I don't really like to hear Topicality arguements, but if I'm forced to I will vote their. 

Be clear as to what matters in the round and justify it, as the judge I will determine if you meet the burden you set for the round as well as your oponent, basaed on what I flow.

I'm fine with speed, but for the love of god please be clear, I hate making debaters feel slighted because they were going faster than their clarity level and hence did not get their arguemnets on my flow.

If you have any specific questions for me feel free to a. 

P.S. I won't hate you if you try and shake my hand.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fee%2CSean

TFA 2023: I haven't judged much since TOC 18. Prior to that, I was heavily involved in the activity and taught / coached for Harvard Westlake. I'm a civil rights attorney now. I love debate and really don't have that strong of feelings on things. It's your debate, do as you will. Just start a bit slower than you normally would..... it's been awhile.

Hard and Fast Rules:

Flashing counts as prep if you are assembling the document. If everything is in one doc and you are just saving then that is not prep.

You must either flash or email your opponent your docs.

Evasiveness of any kind before round is highly frowned upon. My expectation is that debaters are honest with one another in all their dealings.

In general, I really enjoy judging debate. If you have a well thought out and interesting take on the topic/debate, I will be happy. If you use strategies that reflect a shallow understanding of the arguments you're running that avoid clash i will be less happy.

Toc 18:

Here are 8 things i'd like for you to know:

1.I keep a good flow. I will hold you to what you say. I do not mind justifying my decisions after the debate by reading back to you what i have on my flow.

2. I will read your evidence and compare it to your explanation in round. Putting powerful spin on your ev is good and highly encouraged. Falsely representing what your evidence says is not. Similarly, having good ev but explaining it poorly will also hurt you.

3. I like philosophical debates. I majored in philosophy. I read ethics, philosophy of mind, political theory in my free time. But i have found that i do not like "phil debaters" because debaters who identify as such seem much more inclined to try to obscure clash and rely on spikes/tricks. If you debate philosophy straight up and have read primary source material to enhance your explanations, I might be the best judge for you. If you intend to read a million analytics and use trickery, i would be a terrible judge for you.

4. On K's, I start from the perspective of "why are the aff and alt different?" This means i focus my decision on 1. links application to the aff and how they turn case or gut aff solvency. 2. does the alt solve the k or the case?

i tend to think the AFF gets to "weigh" the case in the sense that the plan is some what relevant. I think framework arguments best indict how i evaluate the plan and impact calc more broadly. I think the aff commonly drops a lot of 1NC f/w arguments, but negs rarely capitalize on these drops in persuasive ways.

5. I research the topic a lot. I like debates about the topic grounded in a robust academic/theoretical/philosophical/critical perspective.

6. I think debate is both a game and contains an important educational aspect. I do not lean either way of "must defend the topic" but i tend to believe the topic has a role to be played in the community and shouldn't be totally ignored. How that belief plays out in a given round is much more hard to say. I think my record is about 50/50 on non-T AFF's vs topicality.

7. I like CX. You can't use it as prep.

8. I don't think i've voted in an RVI in like over 2 years. I would consider myself a hard press.

TLDR: You do you. I do what you tell me.

Disclaimer

I strive to judge like a "blank slate" while recognizing that I will never actually be one. Keep this in mind as you read the rest of this paradigm.

Email

carterhenman@gmail.com

If there is an email chain I will want to be on it. I would be glad to answer any questions you have.

Accommodations

Disclose as much or as little as you want to me or anyone else in the room. Either way, I am committed to making the debate rounds I judge safe and accessible.

Experience

I competed in LD in high school (2009-2013) in Wyoming and northern Colorado with some national circuit exposure.

I competed in policy at the University of Wyoming (2013-2018) and qualified to the NDT twice. I loved reading complicated courts affirmatives, bold impact turns, and Ks with specific and nuanced justifications for why they are competitive with the aff. I wish I had had the courage to go for theory in the 2AR more often. I studied (mostly analytic) philosophy and some critical disability theory to earn my bachelor's degree.

Style: agnostic.

All debate is performative. I can be persuaded that one performance is contingently more valuable (ethically, aesthetically, educationally, etc.) than another, but it would be arbitrary and unethical on my part to categorically exclude any particular style.

That being said, I am not agnostic when it comes to form. An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I do not care how you give me those three things, but if you do not, then you have not made an argument and my RFD will probably reflect that. This cuts in many directions: I hate K overviews that make sweeping ontological claims and then describe implications for the case without explaining why the original claim might be true; I equally detest when anyone simply asserts that "uniqueness determines the direction of the link".

Organization matters. However, I do not think organization is synonymous with what a lot of people mean when they say "line by line". It means demonstrating a holistic awareness of the debate and effectively communicating how any given argument you are making interacts with your opponents'. Therefore, when adjudicating whether something is a "dropped argument" I will parse between (a) reasonably predictable and intelligibly executed cross-applications and (b) superficial line-by-line infractions. Giving conceptual labels to your arguments and using your opponents' language when addressing theirs can help you get on the right side of this distinction.

Evidence matters. A lot. Again, I do not mean what a lot of people mean when they talk about evidence in debate. It is about a lot more than cards. It is also about personal experience and preparation, historical consciousness, and even forcing your opponents to make a strategic concession (by the way, I flow cross-examination). I read cards only when I have to and tend to defer to what was said in the debate regarding how to interpret them and determine their quality. Thus, I will hold the 2NR/2AR to relatively high thresholds for explanation.

I flow on paper. This means I need pen time. It also magnifies the importance of organization since I cannot drag and drop cells on a spreadsheet. Because I flow the "internals" of evidence (cards or otherwise), you will benefit enormously from clarity if you are fast and will not necessarily be at a disadvantage against very fast teams if you are slow but efficient with your tag lines.

Substance: mostly agnostic.

Hate and disrespect are never conducive to education and growth. I presume that the need to disincentivize abusive speech and other behaviors overrides my desire to reward skill with a ballot, but it never hurts for debaters to remind me of why this is true if you are up to it. This includes card clipping and other ethics violations. In general, I will stop the round if I notice it on my own. Otherwise, you have two options: (1) stop the round, stake the debate on it (you may lose if you are wrong, but they will certainly lose and receive no speaker points if you are right), and let me be final arbiter or (2) keep the issue alive throughout the debate, but leave open the option to go for substance. I think this is the most fair way for me to address this as an educator, but please do not think option two gives you license to go for "a risk of an ethics violation" in the final rebuttals or to read a generic "clipping bad" shell in every one of your 1NC/2ACs. That's icky.

There is no right way to affirm the topic. There are wrong ways to affirm the topic. I can be sold on the notion that the aff did it the wrong way. I can also be convinced that the wrong way is better than the right way. It may yet be easiest to convince me that your counter-interpretation of the right way to affirm the topic is just as good as, or better than, theirs.

Theory is mis- and underutilized. You get to debate the very rules of your debate! Current conventions regarding negative fiat, for example, will inevitably make me smirk when you read "no neg fiat." Still, if you invest enough thought, before and during and after debates (not merely regurgitating somebody else's blocks at an unintelligible rate), into any theory argument I am going to be eager to vote on it.

Update for MS TOC 2024 (the only important updates are PF-specific for MS TOC)

Updated March 2023 (note this is partially from Greg Achten's paradigm - an update for Kandi King RR 2023)

Email: huntshania@gmail.com-please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Overview [updated MS TOC 24]

I've done debate for over a decade now, and I think it's a really awesome activity when we share similar value in the activity. Please be kind and respectful to each other, and have fun debating! Feel free to ask any questions/clarifications before you debate. Some quick background, I competed the longest in LD in high school (elims of NSDA, 4th speaker / quarters at TOC, championed Greenhill, Co-championed Cal Berkeley Round Robin and Finals at Cal Berkeley Tournament my senior year). I've also competed in a lot of other events besides LD (WSDC, Impromptu, Extemp, Oratory, PF, Congress) and other notable achievements include being runner-up at NSDA 2013 in Extemp Debate and debating for the USA on the NSDA's inaugural USA Debate team my senior year in WSDC. I've coached a lot of students at this point, I was an assistant coach for Northland, Harvard-Westlake for 4 years, The Harker School for 3 years as the MS Director of Speech and Debate and currently as an assistant coach/law student, and am presently one of the head coaches for the USA Debate Team through the NSDA. Good luck, have fun, and best effort!

Paradigm[Updated March 2023]

[**Note I copied this paradigm from my colleague, Greg Achten at The Harker School when my paradigm was deleted in March 2023.]

I enjoy engaging debates where debaters actively respond to their opponent's arguments, use cross-examination effectively, and strategically adapt throughout the debate. I typically will reward well-explained, intellectually stimulating arguments, ones that are rooted in well-grounded reasoning, and result in creativity and strategic arguments. The best debates for me to judge will either do a stand up job explaining their arguments or read something policy-based. I love a new argument, but I just caution all debaters in general from reading arguments your judge may not have a background in that requires some level of understanding how it functions (that often debaters assume judges know, then are shocked when they get the L because the judge didn't know that thing).

I haven't judged consistently in awhile, and what that practically means it'd be wise to:

(1) ask questions about anything you may be concerned about

(2) avoid topic-specific acronyms that are not household acronyms (e.g., ASEAN, NATO, WHO, etc.)

(3) explain each argument with a claim/warrant/impact - if you explain the function of your evidence, I'll know what you want me to do with that evidence. Without that explanation, I may overlook something important (e.g., offense, defense, perm, or "X card controls the link to..", etc)

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: Overall, not what I read often in debates, but you'll likely do fine if you err on the side of extra explanation, extending and explaining your arguments, directly responding to your opponents arguments, etc. I try my best to flow, understand more nuanced arguments, etc. But, I don't have a background in critical studies so that will need extra explanation (especially links, framing arguments, alternatives).

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Often the arguments are quickly skimmed over, the impact of these arguments is lost, and are generally underdeveloped. I need clear arguments on how to evaluate theory - how do I evaluate the standards? What impacts matter? What do I do if you win theory? How does your opponent engage?

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.Speaker points: for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery, quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points.

Also a note on flowing: I will periodically spot check the speech doc for clipping but do not flow from it. I will not vote on an argument I was unable to flow. I will say clear once or twice but beyond that you risk me missing many arguments.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

this is the first tournament i've judged in 2 years

i was a K debater in policy and LD and ran nontopical affs all the time so if you've got something "weird" you wanna run i'd love to see it

currently expecting to just hear about nuke war nonstop for two days so i'd love for that to not happen

Contact info: jeff@immigrationissues.com

I coach debate so I am comfortable with most debate styles. I coach LD and am more familiar with LD, but also did policy in college and assist in coaching it now. I am qualified to judge both events.

Debate is fun. I value wit and humor. Debate is educational. I value scissor-sharp logic. Debate is a chance for high school students to make radical arguments for change. Don't be afraid to be yourself and express your opinion in any method you choose.

I like well-developed, persuasive and interesting cases with strong internal links and warrants and interesting and novel approaches to the resolution.

I believe that debate is, at its core, a thought experience. As a debater, you get to approach each debate round as your debate round. You get to set the rules. You get to debate what you find educational and valuable. To me that is the greatest thing about debate. To that extent, I like creative arguments and the arguments do not have to be conventional. However, you have to persuade me that there is a reason to vote for you, and you have to be prepared to justify that what you are debating is fair and educational to your opponent. To that extent, your opponent also gets to set the rules and play the game the way he or she wants to as well. That means that I am open to theory/topicality arguments on either side in order to set the ground rules for the debate.

I value cross-examination. It shows how a debater thinks on his or her feet, how well he or she understands the resolution and case and how well he or she uses rhetoric and logic. Use it effectively. I want you to answer your opponent's questions and not blow off cross ex. I flow cross-ex and consider statements made in CX as binding.

I will vote on textual arguments, Ks, policy arguments, theory, narratives and performative debate as long as you present an overall persuasive case.

In terms of layering, Theory/Topicality is evaluated as the first layer in debate. I have to first determine that the game is being played fairly before I consider the substance of the arguments. To that extent, I am open to theory arguments. If you are going to make theory arguments, please set forth an interpretation, standards and voters. Don't just claim your opponent is being unfair. If you are are arguing against the theory argument, please provide a counterinterpretation or show me that no counterinterpretation is necessary because you meet the interpretation and do not violate. I am open to RVI arguments and will evaluate those arguments, but only if you prove the theory is frivolous, time suck or strat suck. So RVIs will be considered but you have to show me that the theory argument, itself, was abusive. I will not consider an RVI just because you blip it out. Neg does not get reciprocity on RVIs.

After theory, I next evaluate ROTB, ROTJ and framework arguments. ROTB and ROTJ tells me that there is a role that I play that transcends the debate round. As such, I evaluate ROTB and ROTJ equally with other more traditional framework arguments. If you tell me what my role is, I will accept that as my role. That means the opponent has to come up with a counter ROTB, or show how he or she accesses your ROTB or how your ROTB is somehow bad or that your framework is superior. Same with arguments that you tell me are a priori, prior questions or decision rules. If you tell me there are, justify it, provide rationale. It is then up to your opponent to counter that. Your counter ROTB can be as simple as you should vote for the better debater, but don't just drop it because you assume that traditional framework (weighing case) comes first.

After framework, I will evaluate the contention level. Ks, narratives and performative arguments will be evaluated equally with other arguments but you have to provide the layering for me and tell me how to evaluate those arguments in the round.

Great weighing of arguments is your best route to high speaks. Don't just extend args. Please make sure it is clear to me how your arguments function in the round and how those arguments interact with the other side. I will evaluate all arguments that are not blatantly offensive. But it is up to you to tell my why those arguments are voters. The worst rounds are rounds where there is no weighing, or limited argument interaction. Please make the round clear to me. If an argument is dropped, don't just tell me it is dropped. Tell me why it matters. The more work you do telling me how arguments function in the round, the easier it will be to evaluate the round. I like extensions to be clearer than just a card name; you have to extend an argument, but I also value extensions that are highly efficient. Therefore, summarize your warrants and impacts in a clear and efficient way. Most importantly, please make sure you are very clear on how the argument functions in the round. And, don't go for everything. The best debaters are the ones who are able to succinctly crystalize the key issues in the round and collapse down to those key issues and tell me why they win the debate.

Kritiks: I love them and I love how they are progressing in debate. This includes narratives/performance arguments. Some of the best debates I have seen are good perfomative Kritiks. I will evaluate Ks equally with other positions. However, I have a few ground rules for Ks. First, if you are going to do a K, clearly explain your alt, ROTB and methodology and do not stray from it. It is a pet peeve when someone runs a K and then cannot justify it in CX or is snarky about answering questions about it in CX. If you are criticizing something, you have to be able to explain it under pressure. Second pet peeve: Your method/performance must go in the same direction as the K. If you are running Bifo (semiocapitalism) and then spread without giving your entire speech document to your opponent, I find that to be a performative contradiction. This will not end well for you. On a K explain whether you claim pre-fiat or post-fiat solvency and clearly how your discourse preempts other arguments in the round and weigh your discourse against your opponents framework. If you are doing a narrative or performative argument, you should be able to clearly articulate your methodology for your performance in the round. I know that I bring my own biases in the round, but I try my best to leave them at the door of the debate room and approach narratives and performative arguments with a blank slate. I appreciate hearing your voice in the round. If you are running fem rage or queer rage I want to hear it in the round. I want to hear your voice. That, to me, is the point of using the debate space for performance and narrative. So, I expect you to be able to clearly articulate your methodology and narrative and answer questions about how your opponent interacts with the methodology in the round. If you run a narrative but fumble over how that narrative and methodology works in the debate space, I find it less credible.

Policy arguments (Plans, CPs, DAs) are all evaluated. If you're running a DA, make sure the link debate and impacts are clear. Make sure you are doing good impact calculus on timeframe, magnitude, probability, reversability, etc. I will consider all impact scenarios. It is up to your opponent to tell me why those impact scenarios are outweighed.

Spikes, tricks and Other "Abusive" Arguments: I am not a fan of "tricks," spikes and blippy arguments and struggle to evaluate these strategies, so if your strategy is to go for underview blips and extensions of spikes and blips in your case that are barely on my flow to begin with, whether those arguments are philosophical or theoretical, I am going to have a lower threshold for responses. That means if your opponent has a halfway coherent response to them I am likely to drop the argument. I know that tricks are a new and sexy thing in debate. I just hate them.

Speed: I can flow speed. However, I like to be included in the email chain or pocketbox. Also if your analytics are not on the document, I will try my best to keep up, but don't blame me if you spread through them and I miss something. It is up to you to make the argument explicitly enough that I flow it and extend it. I like to review the evidence, so if you speed, I will follow along as I flow. Make sure the tags and card tags are are slightly slower and are clear. My issue is most often with enunciation, not actual speed, so please make sure you are enunciating as clearly as possible. No speed at the cost of understanding.

Points--(Note that these points have changed as of the ASU 2018 tournament)

30--You have a chance of winning this tournament and are one of the best debaters I have seen in a while.

29.0-29.5 - You are in the top 10% of the tournament and will definitely break.

28.5.-29.0 - You should break at this tournament.

28.0-28.5 - My default speaks. This is for a good and above average debater.

27.5-28.0 - You are average compared to other debaters in the tournament.

27.0-27.5 You are learning and have significant areas of improvement.

<27 This is the lowest I will go. You have done something unfair, offensive or unethical in the round.

Alta 2022 Judging Philosophy

Email: stevejknell@gmail.com

Education:

- DMA, University of Texas at Austin (2019)

- MM, University of Georgia (2013)

- BMus, University of Utah (2011)

Debate experience:

- Harvard Westlake School––Upper School LD Assistant; Middle School Head Coach (2014–2016)

- DebateLA––MS Parli and LD Instructor (2014–2016)

- Weber State Debate Institute––Director of LD Debate (2014)

- Wasatch Mountain Debate––Founder and LD Instructor (2013–2014)

- Rowland Hall-St. Marks––LD Coach (2013–2014)

- Bingham High School––LD Coach (2007–2011)

- Sun Country Forensics Institute––LD Instructor (2010–2011)

- Debated for Cottonwood High School––4A Utah State Champion in LD (2004–2007)

Foreword: I have judged a lot of circuit debates, but it’s been six years since I judged my last round. I’m not up-to-date on trends or new jargon in the activity, and otherwise rusty on jargon I knew in the past. You should probably not read at your top speed. I have not seen any rounds on the topic, nor coached/researched it.

TL;DR philosophy: I have over a decade of experience in LD and should be able to handle any style or argument you throw at me. I view resolutions as normative statements that are tested through some kind of evaluative standard––straight-up util, more nuanced meta-ethical frameworks, etc.––and offense which funnels through that standard. The rest is up to you, with a few exceptions:

- I will not vote on moral skepticism.

- This is new for people who know my philosophy:

o I don’t think judges have jurisdiction to evaluate the out-of-round implications of what happens in the debate. My ballot has no role except to inform the tab room of the winner of the debate.

o I also don’t think judges have jurisdiction to make an in-round decision about anything that might occur/might have occurred out-of-round. I will not vote for positions that ask me to evaluate people and not arguments.

- I will not vote for arguments endorsing or justifying any pernicious “-isms” or “-phobias,” like racism, homophobia, etc.

More things consider:

- Policymaking: These tend to be my favorite debates. Plans are great. Counterplans must be competitive and should probably negate the resolution. PICs are okay but I think they are generally bad and/or poorly executed arguments.

- Kritiks: Ks are fine, but these debates tend to be at once dense and poorly explained, and thus require good storytelling and clarity.

- T/Theory: I default to competing interpretations but will hear arguments to the contrary. Topicality and theory debates are, to my mind, the most boring variety, and uniquely challenging to judge, so I may not be the best judge for complex theory debates. High threshold for RVIs, especially for T; having said that, if the shell is clearly ridiculous and merely designed to suck your time so it can be kicked in the 2N, feel free to go hard for the RVI.

- Speed: It’s not my job to tell you how fast you should talk, but I’ve been out of the activity for years, so anything close to your top speed isn’t advisable. You’re responsible for my understanding of your arguments; if I miss a game-changing argument, you weren’t clear enough. I’ll say “clear” or “slow” twice; after that, you’re on your own. Overviews are excellent. Please don’t speak at any speed at which your opponent can’t understand what you’re saying.

- Speaker points: 27.5 is my guidepost for the "average" debater at a given tournament and I go up/down from there. I rarely go lower than 26.5 unless you are disrespectful. You can earn higher speaks through clarity, savvy strategic execution, good management of the macro-level of the debate (i.e., good storytelling), and respectful conduct.

- Presumption: Neg gets presumption, though you can always argue why that shouldn’t be the case. Please don't make me vote on presumption.

- Odds and ends: I have heard there are new arguments floating around asking the judge to decide the round after a speech which is not the 2AR––I will not vote for these arguments. Suspected evidence ethics violations must be flagged immediately, clearly verifiable, and will be a win-lose issue for both parties.

-Questions are fine, but I am wholly uninterested in arguing with you (or your coach) after the round.

Feel free to ask any questions you have, or shoot me an email before the round.

I coach at Eagle High School in Idaho.  Our team participates in CX, LD and PF.  I hold no preferences regarding the style of LD ran in the round.  However, I do possess certain preferences about debate in general as well as what I expect for specific styles of LD.

In all rounds, clarity is crucial.  I do not oppose introducing lots of arguments, but I need to comprehend what a debater is advocating.  Articulation—especially on tags—is essential.  Regardless of the number of arguments introduced in the round, I expect debaters to sign post and respond line-by-line on the flow.  The only exception to this falls in rebuttals when I expect clear voters for why I should prefer one position over another; I still want debaters to address significant points from the line-by-line as they summarize the flow.  I strongly dislike interventionists who make arguments on the ballot for the debaters to make their RFD; even more disconcerting are rounds in which the debaters force me to become an interventionist because they do not provide impact calculus.  If I spend a lot of time filling out the ballot after the round, I probably am deciding how I should weigh the impacts while attempting to intervene as little as possible.

With traditional LD, I do not like cases which give the appearance of a value/criterion approach but actually provide a plan (criterion) and solvency (value).  If debaters prefer policy style cases they should run them rather than masking them in a traditional case.  I expect the criterion to provide a weighing mechanism to analyze which of two values/actions/positions proves superior.  Thus, debaters should weigh all arguments introduced in the round and provide me with impact calculus so that I know which of the two positions I should prefer.  If topicality becomes an issue, I expect the negative to follow a CX approach (counter interpretation, violation, standards and voters).

I do not hold preconceived notions on the structure to which a progressive case should adhere, but I do expect debaters to demonstrate a strong understanding of them (especially during cross-examination).  Any critical cases or kritiks need a clear link to the resolution and a clear story so I can actually follow your position.  (I realize that a plethora of pressing issues prove worthy of discussion, but I come to the round expecting to actually learn about the topic.)  I tend to vote more on post fiat implications and impacts—because it permits me to weigh both debaters’ arguments—but understand that some circumstances call for pre-fiat or theory implications.  I will vote on such kritiks or theory arguments, but I will hold them to a very high standard if it means that by accepting them I must exclude weighing both debaters’ impacts to reach my decision.

I welcome questions before the round for clarification.

I debated at Northland Christian School on the Texas circuit and national circuit. I attended TFA State 4 times and TOC 3 times. I graduated in 2015.

I am fine with just about any arguments (obviously nothing morally repugnant). Speed is fine. I do struggle with dense philosophical positions, so slow down on tags or give me a quick overview in the rebuttal. As a debater, I enjoyed theory and util debates and feel most comfortable evaluating similar arguments, but proceed as you wish. Ask me any questions before the round and have fun!

Experience: 3 Years (Local and National Circuit)
I am fine with anything, as long as its well warranted and impacted throughout the round.
As a debater I favored the K, I'm not a fan of theory but will vote off of it if the abuse scenario is clear.

Plans, CP, DA, T- all are perfectly fine
Ks- Love a good K, prefer the K to be specific rather than general. Slow down on tags and alts. Dont assume I know every weird philosophy.
Theory- Default competing interps and no rvi. Slow down so I can understand the shell. I prefer abuse thats already happened.

Things I like-
Sass, Specific cases, comprehensive overviews and good roadmaps.

Things I don't like-
Needless hostility, Racism, Sexism, Xenophobia, Polls, Disclosure Theory

Have fun :)

Updated: Buffalo Battles 2021

This will be my 11th year in the debate community. I competed for 4 years in high school, 2 in middle school, and three years in college. I've done various judging and coaching jobs since. I'm not familiar with the literature on this years policy topic at all.

When it comes to a preference of arguments I really am open to anything as long as it isn’t morally repugnant: sexist, racist, homophobic ect. arguments.

I ran pretty much every type of argument out there. I have a preference to Kritikal debate. I have a low threshold for T. I have a deep love of performance debate. Give me reasons why you aren't going to debate the topic if you're going to ignore it. I'm super game for that type of debate but I need to see the reasoning behind why your performance should supersede the topic. Given that policy has a year long topic I'm very receptive to arguments that talk about the importance of this tournament or location of tournament. That said I have a love for traditional debate as well. If you want to give me a plan on counterplan debate I'm absolutely open to hearing it.

I evaluate the round through framework. Just because you lose this part of the debate does not mean you lose the debate as a whole. As long as you can prove that you fit the winning framework better than your opponent I will give you the ballot. In fact I find kicking out of arguments to be an extremely effective way to win debate rounds.

VOTERS!!! At the end of the round please give me voters. When I sign the ballot I don’t generally write that one person just won everything on the flow. Give me a couple options as to why I should vote for you instead of going over everything. You could lose all but 1 or 2 arguments but as long as you can show me that that argument or arguments outweigh when looking to the framework I will still pick you up. I love impact calc. Please do the work for me; I don’t want to be left at the end of the round trying to decide whether econ collapse outweighs 10,000 people dying. Tell me specifically WHY yours outweighs. Probability, Timeframe, Magnitude typically are the way I've seen this done.

LD Specific
Traditional v. Progressive. I really don’t have a preference as to which form of debate is better. As long as it is organized and well developed I believe anyone can beat anyone regardless of their form of debate. I love to see a good value value criterion debate. Though a poor one makes me really sad. As above, winning the framework of the debate will be extremely important to how I view the round. I find that LD debaters tend to forget to debate the framework even though that is what separates LD from other types of debate is it's specific focus on framework.

Speaker points. Most of the time I give high speaks based on how well you debate in your particular style. For example if you are a progressive debater I probably won’t be judging you too much on eye contact. And the same goes for the other side, if you are a traditional debater I won’t be judging you on how many cards or how fast you go. Across the board as long as you’re making great arguments and debating your style well you will get high speaks.

If you have any specific questions, please ask in round.

I don't disclose. I don't ask for evidence. I don't accept post-rounding. The round should be controlled by debaters, and anything that you feel is important to earning my ballot needs to be addressed in the round. Once completed, the round is out of sight and mind. Any critiques I have will go on the ballot. No one's opinion is worth an additional ten minutes of hearing themselves talk.

While I am flexible in terms of argumentation style, for PF and LD, I prefer traditional arguments. It's super easy to rest on jargon and to vomit a case. Brevity is becoming a lost skill in debate, and I like seeing it. If you think you can win on progressive arguments regardless, please present them.

In Policy and PF, I judge almost entirely on impact and framework. In LD, VC gets a little more weight, naturally. Voters are super helpful. Anything you drop is weighed against you.

Topicality is annoying, so please avoid running it. If you think you can swing Theory, do your darnedest. Kritiks are cool, too.

If you want to do speed, that's fine, but anything I can't understand can't go on my flow, and I'm not gonna correct you. You're in charge of your own performance.

FLASHING COMES OUT OF PREP, unless done before the 1AC. Also, if your preflow takes more than five minutes, I will dock speaks for each additional minute.

Clashing and some aggressiveness is fine, but if you're scoffing or snickering at any opponent, I'm going to be especially motivated to find reasons to drop you, obviously. Even if I like your argument or pick you up, I'm probably going to give you really low speaks. Respect the fact that your opponents also work hard to be in the same room as you.

When I call "time," nothing you say gets added to the flow. Simply stop speaking, because it's not going to be counted. No exceptions.

Most of all, if you have me as your judge, relax. It is debate. You're not defusing a bomb. You're not performing neurosurgery. You'll make it out of the round alive, and you'll probably go on to debate many other rounds. You want to do well, and a lot goes into that. You will be okay, regardless of how I vote.

Miscellaneous items that won't decide around, but could garner higher speaks

-Uses of the words, and various thereof, "flummoxed," "cantankerous," "trill," "inconceivable, "verisimilitude," and "betwixt"

-Quotes from television series Community, Steven Universe, Friday Night Lights, Arrested Development, and 30 Rock

-Knowing the difference between "asocial" and "antisocial"

-Rhyming

11/10/19

Haven't gotten around to building my new paradigm yet as my old judge philosophy got lost in Al Gore's internet.

For now, a few things:

--Truth over tech.

--I am a debate coach. I am also a professional educator. I care about education, not just the game of debate.

--I flow. I have been in grad school recently and not judging much so I may be a bit rusty.

--Signpost the flow religiously.

--Framework is just another argument. You don't just auto win the round because they dropped framework arguments.

--I do not hear well. Be loud and clear as much as you can.

--Feel free to ask my any questions before the round other than, "Do you have any preferences?" Specific questions are better!

Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS

Questions left unanswered by this document should be addressed to zmoss@bishopodowd.org

Short Paradigm:

tl;dr: Don't read conditional advocacies, do impact calculus, compare arguments, read warrants, try to be nice

It is highly unlikely you will ever convince me to vote for NET-Spec, Util-spec, basically any theory argument which claims it's unfair for the aff to read a weighing method. Just read a counter weighing method and offense against their weighing method.

I think the most important thing for competitors to remember is that while debate is a competitive exercise it is supposed to be an educational activity and everyone involved should act with the same respect they desire from others in a classroom.

Speaks: You start the debate at 27.5 and go up or down from there. If you do not take a question in the first constructive on your side after the other team requests a question I will top your speaks at 26 or the equivalent. Yes, I include taking questions at the end of your speech as "not taking a question after the other team requests it."

Don't call points of order, I protect teams from new arguments in the rebuttals. If you call a point of order I will expect you to know the protocol for adjudicating a POO.

I don't vote on unwarranted claims, if you want me to vote for your arguments make sure to read warrants for them in the first speech you have the opportunity to do so.

Long Paradigm:

I try to keep my judging paradigm as neutral as possible, but I do believe debate is still supposed to be an educational activity; you should assume I am not a debate argument evaluation machine and instead remember I am a teacher/argumentation coach. I think the debaters should identify what they think the important issues are within the resolution and the affirmative will offer a way to address these issues while the negative should attempt to show why what the aff did was a bad idea. This means link warranting & explanation are crucial components of constructive speeches, and impact analysis and warrant comparison are critical in the rebuttals. Your claims should be examined in comparison with the opposing teams, not merely in the vacuum of your own argumentation. Explaining why your argument is true based on the warrants you have provided, comparing those arguments with what your opponents are saying and then explaining why your argument is more important than your opponents' is the simplest way to win my ballot.

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?
My baseline is 27.5, if you show up and make arguments you'll get at least that many points. I save scores below 27 for debaters who are irresponsible with their rhetorical choices or treat their opponents poorly. Debaters can improve their speaker points through humor, strategic decision-making, rhetorical flourish, SSSGs, smart overviewing and impact calculus.

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I approach critically framed arguments in the same way I approach other arguments, is there a link, what is the impact, and how do the teams resolve the impact? Functionally all framework arguments do is provide impact calculus ahead of time, so as a result, your framework should have a role of the ballot explanation either in the 1NC or the block. Beyond that, my preference is for kritiks which interrogate the material conditions which surround the debaters/debate round/topic/etc. as opposed to kritiks which attempt to view the round from a purely theoretical stance since their link is usually of stronger substance, the alternative solvency is easier to explain and the impact framing applies at the in-round level. Ultimately though you should do what you know; I would like to believe I am pretty well read in the literature which debaters have been reading for kritiks, but as a result I'm less willing to do the work for debaters who blip over the important concepts they're describing in round. There are probably words you'll use in a way only the philosopher you're drawing from uses them, so it's a good idea to explain those concepts and how they interact in the round at some point.
Affirmative kritiks are still required to be resolutional, though the process by which they do that is up for debate. T & framework often intersect as a result, so both teams should be precise in any delineations or differences between those.

Negative arguments can be contradictory of one another but teams should be prepared to resolve the question of whether they should be contradictory on the conditionality flow. Also affirmative teams can and should link negative arguments to one another in order to generate offense.

Performance based arguments
Teams that want to have performance debates: Yes, please. Make some arguments on how I should evaluate your performance, why your performance is different from the other team's performance and how that performance resolves the impacts you identify.
Teams that don't want to have performance debates: Go for it? I think you have a lot of options for how to answer performance debates and while plenty of those are theoretical and frameworky arguments it behooves you to at least address the substance of their argument at some point either through a discussion of the other team's performance or an explanation of your own performance.

Topicality

To vote on topicality I need an interpretation, a reason to prefer (standard/s) and a voting issue (impact). In round abuse can be leveraged as a reason why your standards are preferable to your opponents, but it is not a requirement. I don't think that time skew is a reverse voting issue but I'm open to hearing reasons why topicality is bad for debate or replicates things which link to the kritik you read on the aff/read in the 2AC. At the same time, I think that specific justifications for why topicality is necessary for the negative can be quite responsive on the question, these debates are usually resolved with impact calculus of the standards.
FX-T & X-T: For me these are most strategically leveraged as standards for a T interp on a specific word but there are situations where these arguments would have to be read on their own, I think in those situations it's very important to have a tight interpretation which doesn't give the aff a lot of lateral movement within your interpretation. These theory arguments are still a search for the best definition/interpretation so make sure you have all the pieces to justify that at the end of the debate.

Counterplans
Functional competition is necessary, textual competition is debatable, but I don't really think text comp is relevant unless the negative attempts to pic out of something which isn't intrinsic to the text. If you don't want to lose text comp debates while negative in front of me on the negative you should have normal means arguments prepared for the block to show how the CP is different from how the plan would normally be resolved. I think severence/intrinsic perm debates are only a reason to reject the perm absent a round level voter warrant, and are not automatically a neg leaning argument. Delay and study counterplans are pretty abusive, please don't read them in front of me if you can avoid it. If you have a good explanation for why consultation is not normal means then you can consider reading consult, but I err pretty strongly aff on consult is normal means. Conditions counterplans are on the border of being theoretically illegitimate as well, so a good normal means explanation is pretty much necessary.
Condo debates: On the continuum of judges I am probably closer to the conditionality bad pole than 99% of the rest of pool. If you're aff I think "contradictory condo bad" is a much better option than generic "condo bad". Basically if you can win that two (or more) neg advocacies are contradictory and extend it through your speeches I will vote aff.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering)?
Given absolutely no impact calculus I will err towards the argument with the most warrants and details. For example if a team says T is a priori with no warrants or explanation for why that is true or why it is necessary an aff could still outweigh through the number of people it effects (T only effects the two people in the round, arguments about T spillover are the impact calc which is missing in the above explanation). What I'm really saying here is do impact calculus.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I err towards systemic impacts absent impact calculus by the debaters. But seriously, do your impact calculus. I don't care if you use the words probability, magnitude, timeframe and reversability, just make arguments as to why your impact is more important.

Cross-X: Please don't shout at each other if it can be avoided, I know that sometimes you have to push your opponents to actually answer the question you are asking but I think it can be done at a moderate volume. Other than that, do whatever you want in cross ex, I'll listen (since it's binding).

Debated for three years on the high school policy debate circuit. broke to NFL and NCFL and broke into quarter finals at NCFL. Now a coach at Hunter High School in West Valley City, Utah.

I understand both LD and Policy Debate stylistics and I am fine with both traditional and progressive debate.

Overall philosophy:

I am fine with mostly anything you run as long as you justify each of your arguments well enough with warrants although there are a few nitpicky things that I prefer when it comes to debating, especially in the last few rebuttals. I have to add though that I enjoy listening and judging critical arguments more than traditional arguments but that doesn't mean that I would base my vote on it. When it comes down to it no matter how you debate I will vote on who debated better.

For me judge intervention should be prevented at all costs, this means that within the last rebuttals you should lay down to me where am I voting and why I am voting on it.

First off, slow down on taglines and authors, not extensively slow but just a quick brisk pace on the taglines will do just fine, other then that, go as fast as you'd like.
Secondly, if you're going to run a theory argument where I have to reject the opposing team, prove to me some type of abuse scenario, preferably in-round abuse, or else I will be hesitant to vote for it lest the other team does not answer it or drops it.
Thirdly, vague alts justify vague perms. As a judge who enjoys kritikal debating, it would be awesome if you could delineate to me how your advocacy specifically solves for the harms that you are trying to criticize. Advocacies, solvency, and methodologies are a necessity when it comes to kritiks of any type, justify each of these within your kritik and I will be a happy camper.
Fourth, when it comes to impact calculus don't just read a bunch of premade blocks make sure you have competing impact calculus with the opposing team. Apparently in the debate space people feel that just reading a bunch of cards and blocks will save them and do the work for them. Although premade blocks are awesome don't solely rely on them, I want actual debating and critical thinking, not just some kid reading off of their computer excessively in the 2NR.
Tag team is fine, but be warned that speaker points not only reflect the speeches but also reflect who does most of the work in CX as well. So think wisely before answering or asking all the questions while your partner remains silent.
Prep ends when you tell me it does unless it takes an excessive amount of time to "flash" your speech over to your opponents then I will be forced to end prep when the flash leaves your computer.

When it comes to Post-Fiat v. Pre-Fiat I tend to do whatever the debaters tell me via their framework or preferences based off of whether one arg encompasses/entrenches the opposing teams impacts, etc. I don't really err towards one side but generally if it comes down to the debate if I have to decide whether I should vote on something because it's a prerequisite to solvency of the impact(Pre-Fiat) compared to whether I actually solve for the impacts given to me in a post-fiat world (Post-Fiat) I have to err towards post-fiat because, in my sense, even if the K is a prerequisite to the impacts of the 1AC (or whatever instance you give to me) any risk of solvency for the impacts of the aff outweigh some type of solvency deficit given to me by the prereq args on the neg. of course these claims I give are debateable and if you prove to me that pre-fiat should be weighed over post-fiat in the round then I will definitely weigh it especially if thats what the round comes down to. But if you're going to have a post-fiat/pre-fiat debate make sure to emphasize the theoretical reasons why I should prefer either. 

DOs:

CLASH CLASH CLASH CLASH CLASH

Run args that you feel powerful about, pathos is an awesome tool use it to your advantage

DON'Ts:

some (and by some I mean that some words I despise and other words I'm just like meh) forms of bad language - I HATE THE WORD RETARDED

I don't mind saying "guys" i feel like it's colloquialized to the extent that it includes the female body but even if, you can still run G-Lang and if you prove to me enough how this bad language is inherently bad then I will vote on it.

Don't Post-Round me I will dock your speaks!

Specific stuff

Topicality: I am not a huge fan of topicality especially generic ones because the majority of the time these generic topicalities are only ran for time skew which is totally fine but if you plan on going for topicality in the 2NR then I want you to articulate specifically 1. how they are untopical 2. why is this bad for the debate or debate in general. I am huge on standard debates if you run a topicality argument make sure to specify to me as the judge why these standards are important for debate or for you as a team and how the other team delegimitizes these standards. This doesn't mean that I won't vote for Topicality it just means I have a high threshold on it. However, if you're going to go for T in the 2NR make sure to spend 5 whole minutes on T not to split it because obviously if T is an apriori concern to me then it should be the only argument in your 2NR decision.

As the AFF I'm not big on RVIs unless you can prove that the other team is abusive through their topicality. Competing interpretations and counter standards are your best friends.

Counterplans: I don't really have much to say on this part. Just make sure to specify what the counterplan solves for specifically, how it solves, and how it doesn't trigger the net benefit.

On the aff, articulation of permutation solvency and net benefits to the permutations are a must if you plan on permutating the CP. I don't want some random perm being read without articulation of what the permutation is actually doing and how it solves.

Disadvantages: like the Counterplan section I really have little to say on this part. Most of the time disadvantages come down to impact calculus debates. whether doing the aff advocacy is good or not so this is where my competitive impact calculus statements come in. Articulate how the impacts of doing the plan are more disadvantageous than beneficial and vice versa for the aff

Criticisms: I really enjoy critical debates I think they're entertaining and really bring out the more personal aspects of debate. I thoroughly enjoy identity and biopolitics kritiks. one thing that I would emphasize for kritik is alternative solvency and the mechanism for which you use to solve the harms for which you are trying to criticize. I enjoy good role of the ballot and framework debates and why me as a judge signing a piece of paper is so crucial (or not crucial depending on if you are aff or neg) to your solvency/args.

Theory: I don't really vote on theory arguments unless I actually get proven an abuse scenario I find them to be a bit whiny at times and aren't very beneficial to debate unless there are actual harms being presented from the other team.

Body Language: I make faces, a lot of them; use it to your advantage.

saying "it's lit" might or might not get you more speaker points. depending on the context

Experience (2010-2016):

I debated all three years of high school in Utah, first at Olympus high school then at Bingham high school. After that, I debated for three years at Weber State University.  

 TL/DR---

 *Berkeley Edit–I haven't judged many rounds on this topic, please keep that in mind while explaining topic-specific arguments

Debate the way that you want to debate, I'm comfortable with both straight up and kritikal debate. Don't be a brat to the other team, and if you are going to win theory/T/FW, you need to prove abuse and impact it out accordingly. 

Argument Specific Preferences:

Affirmatives:

Straight-Up: I have a lot of experience with them, I was a 2A in high school the majority of the time, just make sure that you use your evidence.

Kritikal: Go for it. I'm 100% cool with it, just make sure to use your impacts and the warrants in those lovely pieces of evidence you have. Since starting debating in college I've read only kritikal affirmatives including--

War Powers: Agamben SOE

Legalization: Mary Magdelene (God), and Lady Serial Killers (Fem Rage)

Military Presence: Black Feminist Criticism (Uganda Specifically) 

Topicality: I love a good T debate, just make sure to answer the "Why should I care?" in the 2NR or it's not going to be a very compelling argument. Compare interps! Tell me what they justify! Impact out the argument! 

Disadvantages: I value good link and uniqueness evidence on disadvantages, but I have no irreverence to them.

Counterplans: I only vote on competitive counterplans, PICS are a thing, I can and will still vote on any CP if you win a good enough net benefit. That being said, please have a net benefit for your counter plan, I'll even accept case turns as a net benefit if you frame it the right way, but keep in mind if the negative reads a counterplan presumption can easily change.

Kritiks: I find K debates the most compelling if it still has an air of technicality to it, line by line doesn't have to go away! I also think that if you are going to win a kritik in the 2NR there has to be some quality impact calculus, thorough explanation of the alternative, and comparison to make it more compelling, but I'm fairly in to the lit and a variety of it at that. If you have specific questions about my experience with a type of argument feel free to email me/ask me before the debate. 

Framework: It's a good thing, I'm a firm believer that debate is constantly changing, and I find arguments about that change. if it's a good thing or if it's a bad thing, to be really entertaining to watch. I don't really have a predetermined idea of what debate is and how it should be evaluated, because I think that's something that the debater gets to do in the round that is also constantly changing.

Theory: This is tricky. I tend to evaluate theory similar to how I evaluate topicality, it's something that can win you a round, if you run it properly, a quick blippy thing in the 2AR that is similar to, "Plus they were conditional and that's bad so don't vote for them", is not a round winner. I find in round abuse scenarios, actual impacts, and consistency very compelling when it comes down to it. All of that being said, I believe that conditionality is probably a good thing.

Answers to FAQ:

Do you count prep time for flashing? Not inherently, but if I feel like your prepping still I'll start the clock and if it's taking forever I'll get irritated.

Do you allow tag team cross x? Yes, but don't just take over your partner's cross x.

Are you okay with speed? Yes, but that being said I will never vote a team down on the sole reason that they weren't "fast enough" for me, and if you aren't fast enough and feel like you're being outspread grouping is your new best friend.

Position Notes:

2A/1N

• I was a 2A for three years, I appreciate a good 2AC block file, and taking minimal prep time for the 2AC always shows you're prepared.
• Don't feel like all you have to do as a 1N is read cards, the 1NR is still something the 2N can go for so still take it seriously, make smart args
• The 2AR can lie a little bit, but trust me I'm flowing and just because you tell me they, "TOTALLY FORGOT THE PERM" doesn't mean I'll scratch it from my flow, use that time to tell me why I should prefer the perm etc.

2N/1A

• Use the 2NR to pre-empt 2AR analysis, I will understand that you don't get a 3NR, but that's no excuse to just ignore what they could say for 5 minutes.
• The 1AR is one of the hardest speeches to give, extend what you need to, but be smart about grouping.
• START THE IMPACT COMPARISON EARLY

Pet Peeves:

• Being disrespectful to your partner and/or the other team
• Gendered/Offensive language
• Taking forever to flash documents
• Prep stealing
• Reading ahead in speech docs and then being surprised when you miss the round winning analytic
• Not flowing in general
• Lack of clarity when speaking, you can read as many cards as you want but if I can't understand them it's irrelevant, you'll get two warnings.
• Just make a differential between cards, "NEXT", "AND", "#3....#4" etc.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me at anneolsen43@gmail.com

***Edit for Silver and Black*** I have some experience judging Lincoln Douglas, from that experience I have decided I have a very high threshold for theory arguments. I need an actual external impact that is well explained, if you are going to go for theory go all in. Also you need to actually prove abuse, I'm not going to be very convinced by arguments like the aff shouldn't get a permutation because it makes it hard to be neg etc. 

(Updated 10/14/15)
Asst LD Coach @ Loyola High School
Coached Loyola the past 10 years.
Judged numerous TOC level outrounds including the TOC and TOC outrounds as well.

Flashing/Prep
I will give an extra minute of prep for flashing/emailing but it is included in prep.

Speed
It's important to know that I flow by hand. The arguments show up on my flow in proportion to the amount of understanding I have of them, which is directly proportional to the amount of time you spend making the argument.

RFDs
At the end of the day my decision is almost entirely technical. I formulate my RFDs in almost an entirely technical manner. I vote for the side with more offense to the relevant framework.

Argument Evaluation
If there's more than one framework, layer the frameworks. If you're not the only one with offense to that framework THEN WEIGH THE OFFENSE. I absolutely abhor injecting my own beliefs into the debate round. Ideally, my RFD will just be me saying back to you only things that have been said in the round. I generally do as little embedded clash as possible because it involves what I believe to be intervention. Thus, you should take it upon yourself to do as much argument comparison as possible.

Rebuttals
I highly recommends that you start with framework debate at the beginning of your rebuttals. It will make my decision easier. Also have solid overviews that evaluate the issues of the round. The overview should predict the answers to the questions I will have at the end of the round. For example, does Fairness come before the K? Does their turn link to your Deont framework? etc. Generally, the rebuttals should collapse. I'm not particularly fond of new offs in the rebuttals. The best 2ARs I've seen so far collapse to the positions the neg collapsed to and spend the 2AR weighing offense.

T/Theory
My least favorite part of judging debate rounds is T/Theory. There are two reasons. First, if you're spreading analytics its almost impossible to flow by hand. Please power tag your analytics (at least the important ones) with one or two words that I can write down. Second, no one evaluates or weighs standards level offense. Please tell me what to do with offense under each standard, for both sides. Please tell me which standard comes first and why. Then please tell me which voter comes first.

ROB
Please tell me how the ROB relates to all other frameworks. Is it pre-fiat and weighs against T? Or is it post fiat and precludes ethical frameworks. Lastly, tell me what offense links and doesn't link and how it weighs out. (Am I sounding like a broken record yet?).

Speaks
Persuasive styles, strategy, solid and compelling overviews, dominant cross-ex's, ease of decision and less prep time use.

I've been a debate coach for many years and have a good understanding of how each event should be done.

I believe that a good debate is one that focuses on the intention of the resolution. I'm not a big fan of definition-based debates that try to win based on how one team interprets the resolution over another.

Evidence is also key. All evidence should be properly cited and relevant. It should also be presented in a way that maintains the original positions of the author(s).

Respect is key. Debate is a civil event. There is never a need to shout or use foul language. You should treat your opponent with respect and remember that we can only hold debates if there are individuals willing to do the activity. Speaking poorly about someone, either in round or outside of a round is uncalled for.

In speech events, I respect originality. I'm not too much of a fan of speaking given solely to create shock and discomfort. I believe that serious issues can be discussed without having to focus on how negative everything is.

If you have any specific questions feel free to ask.

Experiance:

I have debated for 4 years - 2 in highschool and this is my 2nd year debating college. That doesn't sound like a lot but I fell in love with policy debate the second I started and dove right in learning as much as i could. I am currently a debater for Weber State University.

Style/ways to improve your speaks:

I'm great with speed as long as you are clear - you must slow down on tags, i will attempt to flow them but if you don't it makes it harder for me and you will probably lose speaker points. please say something like "NEXT" or "AND" to indicate that you are going to your next card. Don't just tell me "next off" I or "1st off, second off," Tell me T, or onto the kritik. tell me what the page is supposed to be.

Kritiks:g

I have no problem with you debating kritiks - I wrote and ran a critical cartographies aff my senior year of high school and am running  - and am pimarily a K debater. so I am no stranger to complicated arguments. This does not mean that i wont vote for Policy teams. It just means that you should debate the way that works best for you, and don't be afraid to debate the k or against the K.

Straigh up:

I do not have a prefrense for you reading straight up plans and neg strats or a full blown kritik based debate. Please just run what you feel comfortable with. Don't try and run certain kritiks or strats just to impress me, it will do nothing. 

Topicality/Framework:

It's really hard for me to vote on these when they aren't impacted, or that the impacts are not explained well in the last speech.

How I will Judge and voting tips:

I will judge the round on how the debators tell me to judge - with that though, for a good debate you shouldn't leave anything up to me, i will not do work for you. If your opponent makes a contradictory argument every time they open their mouths, it is the opposing teams job to call them out on it and punish them for it.

Please don't forget the 1ac - bad debate is debate in where the affirmative team only reads the aff in the 1ac and thats it or in just the first and last speach.

Explin yourself - chances are i know what your kritik is about, but it's your job to show me that you do. Too many times I see teams who are just running an argument that their varsity or alumni has giving to them. In the end, if I don't know what you are talking about, then I better by the end of the debate.

I will not tolerate offensive behavor that personally attacks another team - i will drop you instently and award you zero speakerpoints. 

In the end - give me a good debate and you do you

FAQ:

Yes I allow tag team cross ex.

Yes I'm okay with spreading, just be clear, slow down on tags, say "AND" or "NEXT" between arguments.

Normally no I don't care to be on the email chain or to be flashed the evidence, if you have any reason you want me to be on it (like you have an acent or are sometimes hard to understand) I'd be more than happy to get your evidence to help me follow along. I have done this in the past to help a debater be able to be understood by me and would do it again in a heartbeat.

I have never called for evidence and I hope I never need to. That means that means you should be clear with your warrents and if cards are powertaged, make sure I know and convince me that they don't say what the other team is says they do.

FGC (Frequently Given Critiques): remember these are on a case to case basis and may not apply to everyone.

(Neg) Don't go for everything in the last speech, pick a winning strat and sit on it.

Background: I was a policy debater for Dimond High School in Anchorage, AK; in college, I debated in CEDA 4 years for Northwest Nazarene University in Nampa, ID. I have coached policy, LD, and I.E.'s at Meridian High School in Boise, ID, Sammamish High School in Seattle, WA, and currently with Eastside Catholic High School in Sammamish, WA. I have had two textbooks on competitive debate published by National Textbook Company (now McGraw-Hill): Moving from Policy to Value Debate and Debating by Doing. I have coached LD competitors at the 2015 Tournament of Champions and at several NFL Nationals tournaments. I have judged many policy and LD high school debate rounds locally in WA and at national circuit tournaments.

Approach: I see competitive debate as a strategic activity where both sides attempt to exclude the other’s arguments and keep them from functioning. As such, I expect both debaters to argue the evaluative frameworks that apply in this particular round and how they function with regard to the positions that have been advanced.

My Ballot: The better you access my ballot, the more you keep me from intervening. You access my ballot best when you clearly and simply tell me (1) what argument you won, (2) why you won it, and (3) why that means you win the round. Don’t under-estimate the importance of #3: It would be a mistake to assume that all arguments are voters and that winning the argument means you win the round. You need to clearly provide the comparative analysis by which arguments should be weighed or you risk the round by leaving that analysis in my hands. I will not look to evaluate every nuance of the line-by-line; it is your responsibility to tell me which arguments are most relevant and significant to the decision.

Let’s use Theory RVIs as an example. Some judges disfavor these arguments, but in front of me, they are perfectly acceptable. However, the fact that you beat back a theory position from your opponent does not, in and of itself, provide you access to an RVI. To win an RVI posted against a theory position generally requires that you demonstrate that your opponent ran the argument in bad faith (e.g., only as a time suck, without intent to go for the argument), and that the argument caused actual harm in the round. When it comes to potential abuse, I tend to agree with the Supreme Court's view in FCC v. Pacifica: "Invalidating any rule on the basis of its hypothetical application to situations not before the Court is 'strong medicine' to be applied 'sparingly and only as a last resort.'" You certainly can argue for a different evaluative framework for the RVI, but you cannot assume that I already have one.

Think, before you start your rebuttal(s). Ask yourself, what do I have to win in order to win the round? Whatever the answer to that question is, that is where you start and end your speech.

Paradigm: The most important thing I can do in any debate round is to critique the arguments presented in the round. As such, I consider myself very liberal about what you do in a debate round, but conservative about how you do it. What that means for debaters is that you can run just about any argument you like, but you will need to be persuasive and thorough about how you do it. If you run theory, for example, you will need to understand the jurisdictional nature of theory arguments and either provide a compelling argument why the violation is so critical that dropping the debater is the only appropriate remedy or a convincing justification as to why theory should have a low threshold (competing interps). I try very hard not to inject myself into the debate, and I do my best to allow the speakers to develop what they think are the important issues.

Additional Items to Consider:

1. Speed is fine, but don’t chop off the ends of your words, or I will have trouble understanding you. Rapid speech is no excuse for failing to enunciate and emphasize arguments you want to be sure I get on my flow.

 2. Argue competing paradigms. This is true in every form of debate. I am not married to any single framework, but too often, the underlying assumptions of how I need to view the round to give your arguments more impact than those of your opponent go unstated, much less debated. Tell me WHY your argument matters most. It’s okay to shift my paradigm to better access your impacts; just tell me why I should do so and how.

 3. Presumption is a framework issue but is given short shrift almost every time I hear it argued. My default position is to be skeptical of any proposition until there is good and sufficient reason to accept it. That means presumption generally lies against the resolution until the affirmative presents a prima facie case to accept it. If you want to shift presumption so that it lies in a different position (with the prevailing attitude, in favor of fundamental human rights, etc.), then be sure to justify the shift in mindset and clearly explain whether that means we err on the side of the resolution being true or false.

Steven Sanchez

4 Years/Weber State University, 3rd year out.

Overall Philosophy:

• Run whatever you like. I am open to all arguments just as long as you execute them well - I'll provide exact criteria to what that means to me:
• A. You have been able to explain your argument at a basic audience comprehensive level.
• B. You have developed your arguments throughout the debate to adapt and provide the best application to the learning or outcome of the activity and have shown why your argument carries greater significance to what that outcome is.
• C. You have demonstrated a strong understanding of your opponents strengths and weaknesses and have identified why you win and why they lose this debate. I have no problem adapting to your style/preferred strategy. I prefer to evaluate the debate based on what information I am given from you instead of having to assert my own understanding, so please note that my decision rests heavily on the information provided by you on paper.
• Significance is key - this helps me understand what the meaning or outcome of this momentary learning experience at a tournament is about and what the intended purposes of your arguments are. I find that impact comparison oftentimes streamlines a lot of the information provided and helps me understand what the significance of your argument is.
• Bonus points if you have specific links with a strong evidence - I think it shows that you care to research your opponents and demonstrates hard work outside of the round, which enhances your credibility in front of me.
• CX is very important to me. Pressing on the hard questions and using this time wisely to demonstrate your knowledge (or lack of theirs) will earn you additional speaker points. I flow this too.
• I have rarely voted on potential abuse, and I don't find those arguments compelling unless you can prove why the potential margins of error will result in poor debatability/education. Specifically tailored theory arguments are always preferred.
• I always found that technical strategic moves are good - I think that it shows you have game knowledge to finesse on your opponents, so use their non-responsiveness or mishandlings to make the different sheets of paper come together in cohesion and it will be rewarded.
• Make me believe in your argument just as much as you do. Your speaking has a lot of power, so be sure to speak as clearly, assertively, and as passionately as you can. Being an effective speaker will always help you stay ahead/catch up in the debate.

you can always include me on the email distro and/or reach out with any questions- stevengsanchez1@gmail.com

I would like to be on the email chain, my email is jpscoggin at gmail.com

I am the coach of Loyola High School in Los Angeles. I also own and operate Premier Debate along with Bob Overing. I coach Nevin Gera. I prefer a nuanced util debate to anything else.

Arguments

In general, I am not a fan of frivolous theory or non-topical Ks.

High speaker points are awarded for exceptional creativity and margin of victory.

I am fine with speed as long as it is comprehensible.

Procedure

If you are not comfortable disclosing to your opponent at the flip or after pairings are released it is likely in your best interest to strike me. If the tournament has a rule about when that should occur I will defer to that, if not 10 minutes after the pairing is released seems reasonable to me.

Compiling is prep. Prep ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed from your computer.

***If you have me judging on the 2/4/18 there is a large possibility that I will be watching the superbowl instead of flowing your round (Go Patriots!)***

Updated for Golden Desert Public Forum: I am a hardcore policy judge and have next to zero PF experience so pref at your own risk.

I am a coach over at East High School in UT and have been for the past couple years

***+0.5 speaks for any High School Musical References.***

Argument Preference:

I think framework is fairly pointless and will probably end up avoiding evaluating it at all costs, but you do you.

Your contention titles should be clear enough for me to understand your entire argument based on them alone.

I feel like Public Forum all to often ignores offense but this is a huge no-no with me, tell me why each contention individually wins you the round

Plan is ok but make sure to lay out solvency well, remember you don't get fiat here like you do in policy.

I love topicality, so try and work it in when y'all are neg

General:

I only intervene in special situations (i.e. sexism, racism, republicanism, ect.) I will listen to every type of argument except politics because in this climate I think it is fairly pointless.

Will drop a team for suggesting the globe is round and always looking for like minded science allies. Really not a fan of ignorance in general and you can expect low speaks if your speeches come close to a presidential levels falsehoods.

Make sure to be aggressive during cross-ex, I hate hearing "Would you like the first question?", this is a competition take anything you can to get a leg up on your opponent.

Speaks:

Most of the time I give around a 26 but that can change, I have never given a 30 so try and be my first :)

Good Trump impressions +1.0

Bad Trump impressions -2.0

Background: I competed on national and local level LD for all of high school during which I achieved moderate success and qualified to the TOC. I judged consistently throughout college and coached for 3 years on the national level. I have only judged a few times in the past two years. My pronouns are he/him/his.

Email for chain: calenjsmith@gmail.com

Warning: I haven't judged in a bit but find that I am still ok at keeping up in high speed rounds, though the Stanford 2021 tournament is my first virtual tournament so just check in throughout the round.

Speaking: I used to do and coach national circuit debate so I am fine with speed however my tolerance is diminished so I will probably be better at judging medium paced rounds. I will tell you to slow down. If I tell you to slow down I have probably already missed arguments you are making.

Substance: Ill judge any round (K, Theory, Substance, etc) I am probably more adapt at judging framework debates but I enjoy anything that is well explained and am happy to judge kritiks, theory, policy making etc.

In short, I'm a flow judge. I don't care what you put on my flow (types of arguments) or how it gets there (delivery and speed). I want a clear and consistent story on the flow to vote on.

I usually judge LD, but I often judge CX and PF as well. I don't care about your style of debate. I just want a clear reason to vote for you.

I flow and vote from the flow. I want to be able to look at the flow and see a simple, clear, and unbroken story about why you win based on the framework that you provide. Crystallization is important throughout to give me this story. Overviews are often effective. Your last speech should probably include voters if you want to win my ballot.

My experience with T and theory debates are more limited than circuit judges. It doesn't mean that I won't vote for them, as I often do. A blippy T or theory argument is unlikely to get my vote, however. I want the "abuse" clearly explained.

I enjoy good k debates. If you're clear about your k's thesis, its connection to the topic or an argument that your opponent made, and explain how the alternative works, then they're fun and interesting. That also doesn't mean that you should run a k. If you like them and want to run one, go for it. I think that the philosophical ideas in a k can add a lot to discussions of topics. I doubt that I know a ton about your literature on the k, however, so don't expect me to have a lot of background. Of course, usually you just pulled up someone else's k file to write the k anyways.

Framework for why your impacts matter is vital. You can win deontological positions, but you need to give offense under those frameworks too! I default to a cost-benefit analysis if no framework is provided. What else am I supposed to do? I'm open to suggestions, but I'd prefer that you give me a clear framework.

Special note for PF: Please, crossfire time starts when the first person asks the first question that is not, "Do you want the first question?" or "Can I have the first question?" just like we give off-time roadmaps for the order you're going on the flow.

Nancy Smith is the parent of a Juan Diego LD Debater. She has extensive judging experience on the local level and loves evaluating talented, hard-working debaters. 

Focus on persuasiveness, impact comparison, and writing her ballot in the last speech and you will do just fine. 

Most importantly, have fun and be nice. 

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:

30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.

29.5: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.

29: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.

28.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.

28: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.

27.5: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors

Below 26: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

I did LD predominantly in high school, also dabbled in policy. Did parli at the U of Utah for 2 years, and 3 years of policy at Weber State University. I predominantly made arguments about disability, but I have went for heg bad and Marx

Do whatever you're best at, I am not here to dictate content nor form.

I dont judge much anymore, so I am not super up on current changes in debate norms. That being said, i do still have predilections:

Explanation over extension, I am willing to vote off 1 major arg that frames the entirety of a debate over 10 super quick extensions of a card.

I'll believe terminal defense of "they have no internal link between securtizing rhetoric of the internet and thermonuclear war" if you are unable to explain the link between those two things. Just becasue I know a lot of K lit doesn't mean I will do the work for you.

Slowing down helps everyone. I'll tell you when I cant understand, and you will have to adapt. Giving me typing or pen time (espescially on theory) is super important.

I'd prefer to watch a more substantial debate than just theory, but do you. That being said, I dont judge too much theory so you might not always like my deciscion. I default reasonability, but its not that hard to win competeing interps. The more fleshed out warrants you give me the more likely I am to vote for you

Go for less, going for a CP, DA, K and a FW is a lot for an NR and gives the aff a lot of leeway to poke holes in stuff. Going for just a DA allows me to evaluate that much easier versus the aff. The same can be said for the aff, go for less.

I will compare the NR to the 2AR as to the story told and compare arguments. If there is something neither debater can answer, I'll start thinking back to earlier rebuttals and constructive, possibly call for cards, and then try to make a deciscion.

I have judged Policy yearly for the past 15 years. I prefer LD and PF, but I am familiar with the ins and outs, but I don't know them intuitively as I have never competed in Policy. I am willing to try and follow whatever you present. However, I expect you to communicate with me. I am the judge, not your opponent. What that means is this, you need to tell me what you are doing and why. Slow down and communicate with me. When I say slow down, what I mean is this:

1. I don't follow speed. I try, but I won't get most of what you say if you are going a million miles an hour. However, I understand the strategy and need. If you spread, you need to slow down and tell why I should care about what you just said. Give me a quick, slowed down summary of what you said, and why I should care.

2. Make taglines very clear! Don't assume I heard your 'next DA' when you're going a million miles an hour. If you want it on my flow, make it clear what it is and where to put it. Spread the rest, but slow down for taglines and summarize what you just said! This is especially important for the 1AC and 1NC.

3. Email chains are helpful, but not. It is nice to have an email chain, but if I have to read the email to understand what you are saying, why give speeches? Also, trying to follow evidence because I can't understand you makes it difficult for me as a judge. I will refer to reference, but will not pour over it after a round to determine a winner. Doing that means I don't need to hear from you. I could sit at home and read your evidence to determine a winner. Don't rely on chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I prefer traditional LD Debate with a Value/Criterion. I have voted for flex-negs, and other more progressive type arguments, but I prefer debates that use Value/Criterion. Don't spread! If you spread in LD, I won't flow. You can go at a crisp pace. In fact, I prefer a crisp paces, but...spread and you will most likely lose.

I was a head coach for 12 years with 13 years of experience in judging debate.

I will judge on the flow, and I am open to most any kind of argument. I am fine with speed, though I find that sometimes people are not as clear as they think they are. I will say CLEAR if you're not clear.

Lots of clash, please. Make sure you are addressing your opponent's arguments in a meaningful way. Impact your drops... Tell why winning the dropped argument gives you the advantage.

In LD, understand, explain, and link to your standards.

Give me thoughtful and well articulated voters.

Good luck!

Background: sat in on a PF practice once or twice. debated and judged LD for 6 years. 

Debate: should be educational and fair for both sides.

Speaker points: will start you at 27.0 and go from there. extra points for memes. the danker the better.

Paradigm:

impact your claims. weigh arguments.

don't care about speed.

will flow.

will zone out cross fire unless you tell me to listen. 

theory is cool.

get aggressive as possible in cross fire. 

:)