Hi! I'm a sophomore at Harvard, and have done parliamentary debate throughout high school and college. However, I do not have any experience with LD and will not be able to flow if you speak too fast or use inaccessible lingo. 

TLDR: Do what you are best at. All of my predispositions can be overcome by good, well-delivered argument. Fundamentally, policy debate is a game about causation. The team with the most compelling arguments for their causal claims will win.

Non-negotiables: Each debate will have only one winner and one loser. Should the teams chose not to debate, I will award 0 speaks and a double loss. If a double loss is not allowed by the tab room, the team that first proposed not debating will receive a loss. Each team may have a maximum of 2 debaters. Evidence read must be made available to the other team. It should be clear what evidence was read and what was not. Flashing/emailing should occur during prep, not CX.

Kritiks: Most of my favorites debates have had critical elements, but many critical debates lack clash. All parts of the K should be deeply understood by both debaters, and clear articulation of the Link and Alt are pretty much required for me to vote on the K. That is, K’s are complicated and if clear exposition is lacking you should probably go for something else. Most of the time Aff gets permutations, but what exactly that looks like is up for debate. I have a higher threshold for performative links than other judges. Aff’s best response to the K is often K specific.

FW: Neg probably gets K’s. Whether aff gets to weight their impacts is up for debate.

Non-Traditional Debates: In general the aff should in some way affirm the resolution. My presumption is that the burden to prove that a ‘traditional’ version of the aff couldn’t have solved your impacts rests mostly with the aff. Aff should also have a clear articulation of what neg ground exists. If aff does not do this, I am very unlikely to vote for their advocacy.

Theory: My default is to reject the argument not the team unless debating conditionality. If you plan to win on theory make sure you have thought about how to persuade a judge to vote on theory. Extending blocks won’t cut it.

CP: I love CP debates. My presumption is that a counter plan is competitive only if it is better than the aff and better than the aff plus all or part of the CP. Permutations are a logical test of competitiveness so theory arguments about why the Aff doesn’t get them don’t often make sense. If it is relevant, I learned CP’s from Geoff Lundeen, so the internal logic of the CP debate matters more to me than the tech of the theory flow.

T: Not the same as FW. T is about the aff’s relationship to the resolution. There should be limits on the aff to ensure a fair and clash filled debate. Note for less experience debaters: Repeating generic voters is lame. Spend time thinking about why your interp is better and the aff’s is bad.

DA: I really like specific links and reasonable impacts(who doesn't). The story of the DA should be coherent. If you are going to say "DA turns the case" you should probably make case-specific solvency arguments, i.e. a card tagged “DA turns the case” should take about the case.

Evidence: Nothing helps an aff more than sweet solvency evidence, but if you don’t have it don’t overhype it. Most high school teams should read fewer, better, cards and larger church of them.

Things I love: The reverse pit of doom, Hegel, literary references, genuine skepticism.

brown.finn37@gmail.com

Updated Feb 2019

I debated LD for Walt Whitman High School for four years on the local and national circuits and qualified to TOC my junior and senior years. I’m now a senior on the Harvard team.

My goal is to write RFDs based entirely on comparison made by the debaters in the round, so the easiest way to get my ballot is to give me direct comparisons and weighing. I'll say clear/slow as many times as necessary. Plan to slow down for any short analytics, interpretations, or arguments that must be flowed verbatim so they're clear to everyone the first time around.

Feel free to ask me before the round if you have specific questions.

Misc:

- Because the Harvard tournament has a difficult 4-2 break, I will push in-round speaks in a direction that indicates whether I think you should make the break based on the quality of that round.

- If the content of your position is something graphic or reasonably foreseeable as potentially distressing, please be a good person and check whether all the other people in the room are okay hearing it.

- Be polite to people with different debate backgrounds than your own. Dominance and snark are great; you should be able to tell the difference between these and bullying. If you're uncomfortable with how your opponent is treating you, please say something about it. If you're asked by an opponent to be more respectful and don't make any effort, I'll be very unhappy.

- I have a very low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments -- for instance, if substance is conceded, pointing that out is sufficient for me to vote on it.

- Evaluating theory is most straightforward to me under competing interps. I'm happy to use anything else you justify, but you should be clear about what you want me to do with it.

- I will be sad if you use CX for a series of clarification questions, and annoyed if you use it for prep. I'm entertained by clever tricks I haven't seen before.

- Debate is a game—you should make arguments you enjoy and feel good about. If that's not working out, think about reaching out to someone to check in.

I was an APDA (college parliamentary) debater from 2014-18. Between 2016 and 2022, I coached PF, LD, Congress, Extemp, and some other speech events.

Harvard '18; Harrison '14

I debated for Harrison on the national circuit. I used to coach and judge pretty frequently, but have become pretty inactive since 2016.

I have a high threshold for clarity, and I will drop you if I have to keep calling clear--I will not let you just re-explain things in later speeches. Be careful with new literature and debate strategies--I am happy and interested to hear them, but I am likely unfamiliar with them and will be hearing them for the first time when you read them. That means you need to be slower, not just what you think is clear.

I care much less about the types of arguments you run and much more about the way you run them--be clear, crystallize well, and clash with your opponent. I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact, so long as it is not morally repugnant. That being said, I will be much happier with and give higher speaks to debaters who debate the topic and/or show creative, independent thinking. Perceptual dominance, making an attempt at being persuasive, and being kind and respectful will also be good for your speaks.

Ask me about any other specifics before the round.

Updated Jan 2020

tl;dr:
I'm tab and will vote on anything.

General Things:

I debated for four years in high school and continued onto 4 years of college debate. I don't frequently judge on the circuit, so I'd appreciate if you'd slow down. That being said, if I say “louder”, that means speak louder, not slow down. I won’t feel comfortable voting on something that I’m not sure if I heard.

I'm open to a wide variety of argumentative styles and approaches.

I’m tab. I’ll listen to almost anything you tell me, but if I genuinely feel uncomfortable (because you’re saying something racist/sexist/etc.) I’ll stop flowing.

Extensions:

I have an exceedingly low threshhold for extensions.

If something is dropped, I’ll grant you it if you just explicitly point it out.

I’m amenable to voting off of tricks, but if I don’t think the argument was flowable the first time, I’ll listen to responses in the NR/2AR. That being said, I think most arguments are flowable most of the time.

Framework and Ks:

I’m familiar with framework and I studied Philosophy at Harvard. Since leaving high school, I’ve become convinced by Sophia Caldera’s stance on comparing frameworks:

• The round runs into an obvious problem when both debaters tell me some framework warrant "precludes everything." Please give me specific comparison or weighing between framework arguments instead of relying on concessions of overhyped analytics.

I’m interested in well-fleshed out framework debates between framework and the K, as well as well-warranted theory interactions.

I don't know what "link harder into the K" means. Do you mean that your opponent has done or said something that indicates that there is a second, independently sufficient way in which they link into the K? Or do you mean that they're repeating the action that caused them to link into it in the first place? Am I supposed to judge differently if someone links "hard" into the K as opposed to "a moderate amount" or "just a little bit"? Be clear and specific.

Theory:

Slow down on interps. Please make clear arguments for whatever paradigm issues you want me to use on theory.

I have no preconceptions about whether fairness or education is more important.

For some reason, someone runs disclosure theory in front of me in probably half the rounds I judge. I don't really like disclosure theory, but I find that I often pick it up and speak it well. If it's well-executed and wins the round, I'll pick it up and speak it well. But I still don't like it. That probably tells you something about the kind of judge that I am.

Other:

I don’t like passive aggression in the CX. If you’re gonna critical of your opponent’s arguments, be open about it. If you are passive aggressive, it won’t affect your speaks or whether or not you win or lose, but I might be sarcastic during my RFD.

I do not care about your attire, accent, or school. Be respectful. But also feel free to indict or challenge what exactly "being respectful" means.

I pay attention during CX.

Speech times are probably the only "rule" I'll always enforce. I can be flexible on other things that other judges might take to be unchangeable. For example, you could convince me that you should be allowed to bring up something from the AC in the 2AR even if it wasn't extended in the 1AR, if it's well explained (in the AC, or maybe even the 1AR).

Have questions? Ask me.

There’s a rumor going around (started by me, here) that I’ll give you slightly higher speaks for referencing RuPaul’s Drag Race.

I <3 debate

I'm a freshman at GW majoring in political science. I debate for GW in the American Parliamentary Debate Association league. I graduated from North Allegheny High School in PA, where I debated for four years--mainly national circuit PF, but I also have experience in policy, LD, congress, and extemp. I currently coach PF for Cypress Woods High School in Texas. 

Speed is fine, but I don't prefer it. Any argument goes. But please be careful to not be offensive--watch the way you talk about sensitive issues, and if your case happens to discuss something like domestic violence, abuse, or anything else that may be triggering, please provide a trigger warning to your opponents before the round to make sure they are comfortable discussing it. 

I vote on the flow. But if your argument doesn't have a warrant I won't write it down. 

If you want good speaks, be cognizant of your organization and the way you use evidence in round. After the first time you read a piece of evidence, whenever you reference it again say the author+institution+a reminder of what it says. 

Please be polite in crossfire. In particular, please do not try to "dominate" a female opponent by speaking louder than her, unnecessarily cutting her off, etc.

Don't hesitate to ask me any questions before the round. 

I will give full disclosure after the round if I can. 

Bring me food before the round for higher speaks. 

I did PF for 4 years and am currently a freshman in college dabbling in parli. It's my first time judging VLD. I can handle a bit of speed but spreading will definitely be too much. I am unfamiliar with the LD jargons so you'll have to explain them to me. 99% sure I won't be able to evaluate theory and K's in the ways you want me to. Please don't assume that I'm familiar with all the morality frameworks beyond basic one – for example, I will understand util, deont, but if you argue that there is epistemic duty for action, please tell me what that means.

I'm a sophmore at Tufts in my second year of collegiate debate. I do parlimentary debate, so I won't weigh cards as heavily as other judges might.

The most important things to me are:

Argumentation - your argument needs to be well warranted and impacted so I can understand the logic behind it as well its affect

Weighing - tell me why your issue is the most important one in the round

Presentation - don't spread, make sure I can hear your points and that they are delivered clearly and consistently

Updated 12/24/13 

Conflicts: Harvard-Westlake (CA), PV Peninsula (CA). 

General:

• I strongly prefer positional debating. Ideally, have a thesis, avoid defensive arguments and spikes in constructive speeches, connect arguments back to the thesis, and be reasonable.
• I don't prefer any particular criterion/burden structure, but I'd rather the neg be something other than “not the aff.”
• I am generally opposed to voting on defense.

Speed/Clarity:

• I likely have a higher threshold for clarity than most judges.
• I'll yell clear, slower, etc.
• I will not give you leeway on arguments I didn't flow just because you have lots of bids.
• I don't think I'm a worse flower than the average judge, but I do think the average judge overestimates his or her flowing ability.
• Seriously if you don't pause after author names or if you ignore me when I tell you to slow down/be clearer you are not getting above a 28.5 even if your speeches are otherwise perfect.

Theory:

Theory defaults:

• Competing interps
• Reject the argument

Topicality defaults:

• Competing interps
• Reject the debater
• Comes prior to other theory

Other:

• I dislike frivolous theory. There's obviously no brightline for this, but trying to bait a theory debate or run theory against a reasonable, stock aff will hurt your speaks.
• Fairness and education are reasons to at least drop the argument.
• Winning "fairness is a larger impact than education," just like winning "terrorism is worse than civil war," doesn't mean I will ignore one of the impacts. It depends on the strength of link.
• I don't think the neg has to answer aff spikes until they are applied. Same goes for theory arguments in the AC without a violation.

Framework:

• I strongly prefer frameworks that facilitate a discussion about the topic. This doesn't mean I prefer a "policy" style framework, it just means you should try to engage the topic literature how actual academics (philosophers, researchers) would.
• I dislike attempts to avoid framework debate (such as triggers and AEC/AFC).

Ks:

• Same treatment as any other argument.
• I am skeptical of pre-fiat positions, especially micro-politics, but saying things like "the judge can't vote on this because the judge has to vote on the topic, it's jurisdictional etc etc" is unpersuasive. You need to give a counter-advocacy or different way of evaluating the round.
• I am sympathetic to the idea that it's unreasonable to force someone to debate an issue on which they would normally agree with you.
• Please don't complicate your arguments/rhetoric on purpose.

Speaks:

I will not disclose speaks.

Higher speaks for debating positionally, being clear and pleasant to listen to, engaging arguments, being open/honest with your opponent, disclosing cases online, making the round an educational experience for younger debaters, etc. Lower speaks for being evasive, unclear, rude, crushing a novice, doing things that make me mad, etc.


Past speaks: 

Average: 27.8
Low: 26.8 
High: 29.3 


Tournaments included: Blake 

Miscellaneous:

• I will not vote on any argument that the debater defending it agrees justifies or does not condemn awful things like genocide, rape, racism, etc.
• I will be very annoyed if you use dirty tricks. Don’t make your cases unreadable. Don’t mislabel arguments on purpose. Don’t steal time.