2016 Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV
2016 — NV/US
NCX Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I debated 4 years at Highland High School (UT) in Policy (2010-2014). After high school, I judged for and worked with various Utah teams for about 5 years.
I haven't worked with any teams for the last couple of years, so keep in mind that I am a little rusty. Be sure to speak clearly and annunciate your words. If you start your speeches a little slower and increase speed throughout, it will help me keep up - especially for the first couple of speeches. I also won't be super well versed in newer critical arguments, nor will I have any topic-specific background knowledge, so be sure to explain your args well - don't assume I immediately know anything.
I tended to go for kritikal arguments when I debated, but I have grown to really like policy args. Run whatever you are comfortable with. I'm not against voting for any arguments in particular as long as they are run well. Don't run something you aren't comfortable with or can't explain just because you think I would be more likely to vote on it.
Part of what makes debate a particularly useful activity is that it teaches you to alter how you present your arguments based on who you are speaking to. While I try to be as objective as possible, I am not a blank slate, and no other judge really is either. Please read as much of my paradigm as you can, ask me questions before round, etc. - try to get to know your judge and learn to tailor your arguments accordingly. That being said, note that everything I outline here is simply what I typically like as a judge. The debate is yours, and I recognize that my job isn't to insert my own theories about what "good debate" is on you. I do, however, think it's good for you to know my general leanings so you can make some more informed decisions about what I might find persuasive or not.
The most important thing for any round is that you explain your arguments well. I tend to be truth over tech, meaning a well explained argument goes a lot further than anything else. This means even if the aff drops T, for example, I'm not going to vote on T if the neg doesn't explain why the argument is important.
Some more specific stuff:
K AFFS: I'm fine with kritikal affirmatives as long as there is still some engagement with the topic. Meaning, I need to see a clear reason why the aff was run on this specific topic. Also make sure to explain your aff well. Don't expect me to already know who your authors are or what they are saying.
NEGATIVES GOING AGAINST K AFFS: My chances of voting on T or Theory go way up on K affs. Pay attention to the plan text, what the aff is actually doing, and if they significantly engage with the topic. If their plan could theoretically solve any harm, or their aff could be run on any topic as is, then point it out!
KRITIKS: Like I've said, I'm fine with K's. You should be providing specific links, meaning I need to know how the aff specifically contributes to the harms of the K. As always, explain your arguments. Again, don't just assume I am familiar with any of your authors. I prefer teams leveraging K's as one argument in their neg strat rather than going one-off K. This is mostly because I find teams have a hard time defending this strategy well. If you prefer/feel comfortable doing this, then do, just be aware that you should be articulating why this one issue is so important that it is the only argument you present in the debate.
DA's/CP's: I think the DA/CP strat was super underutilized when I was judging (this may have shifted in the last few years). I prefer unique DA scenarios compared to generic DA's. Like with any argument, articulating your DA in the context of each debate goes a long way with me. Be sure to tell me why you are running this specific DA against this specific aff.
THEORY/Your Baudrillard K: I have a really hard time connecting with HS high theory debate. As someone currently outside of the debate circuit, I can't provide the analysis needed to properly or fairly evaluate these args. Traditional theory args are fine.
Please reach out with any questions:
(pls include me in any email chains)
email: jchoe001 at gmail
Notre Dame 2012 - 2016
Northwestern 2016 - 2020
Judging/coaching for: Notre Dame, New Trier
Overall experience: ~100 varsity policy debates judged including a dozen or so elim rounds
ETHS note: ***I've judged a single tournament on the 2019-2020 topic*** so pls try to avoid acronyms and spend a bit more time than usual on t if you want me to understand your arguments (goes for both aff and neg). This also means that I will be reading more cards after the round than usual - this is only bad news for you if 1. your ev is bad, or 2. your ev says something different than what you/the tag says
The information you came here for:
More Policy than K.
Neg should provide a caselist and impact out their standards (ground is not an impact it's an internal link to terminal, portable impacts like research skills). Likewise, the aff should impact out their offense i.e. overlimiting and reasonability.
I like card-heavy techy T-debates.
Politics DA's are ok. I love it when they're innovative/tricky, but not in the way that people usually define those terms. I don't really like riders, time/focus tradeoff links, and other versions that link off of fiat rather than the substance of the aff
I like reading cards - please have good ev.
Impact calc is my favorite part of disad debate so do that well and you will be rewarded
Anything goes if you can win that your counterplan is legitimate. With that being said, I'm a bit tougher on the neg with counterplan theory than others, so treat the theory debate like a T debate and define your standards, impact it out, explain your model of competition, etc.
I'm often persuaded by sufficiency framing but am not super persuaded by 1% risk of net benefit.
I don't default to judge-kick but I'm more than willing to hear a debate on whether that's a thing I should do.
K debates have been very hit-and-miss in my experience judging. The tend to be either really lackluster or really good. If Ks are your thing and has always been your thing then do your thing don't change anything for me. But also even if you're just experimenting with Ks you can still read it in front of me anyways and I'll make sure to give you lots of feedback. tl;dr not a "k hack"
They're fine. They should probably have something to do with the topic but the meaning of that statement is up for debate. I think that k on k debates are fun and should probably include a discussion of whether aff gets perm. If you're neg, don't throw shit at the wall and see what sticks (I don't have a strict criterion for this but I'll know it when I see it).
I don't think framework is a "generic" vs. k affs. I think with the right nuances, it's probably the best substantive argument. Usually I find the impact debate very lacking from the neg, while it is way too heavily focused on by the aff. I think my judging record on framework vs. k aff is about 60/40.
As a default, I consider conditionality to be the only worthy theory argument to be a voting issue. Doesn't mean I won't vote on other theory arguments - just means that you have to explicitly impact them out more.
I also don't reward gotcha-type theory args that teams extend for 10 seconds every speech. Don't expect me to vote on them.
I don't like performative contradictions but I love perf con debates. I am making this position very explicit in my paradigm to discourage people from reading things like cap k + a politics DA with econ impact and legalism k + agent CP. But this doesn't mean I'll automatically vote aff if the neg reads performatively contradicting positions, it's actually somewhat opposite - affs have a good chance of winning on perf con in front of me but has to actually invest time developing and extending it.
What you need to know:
1.) I'm Kelly. College debater, late to the debate game. Parli sucks; I do it anyway.
2.) If you're funny and/or irreverent, I want to vote for you. I won't without good reason to.
4.) Process Counterplans are gross. I'll hear you out but ew.
5.) Theory=debating about debate. Give me something more substantive than education/fairness please. Impact debate is best debate.
6.) Ignore me though; I'll listen to anything, and I'd rather you tell me both how to vote and what to vote on.
7.) Slow your theory down. Way down.
8.) Don't be a jerk.
9.) Flex prep is obviously fine. Keep each other honest by timing opponents' prep.
10.) I am pretty easy with speaker points. I don't really give out 30's (means there's no room to improve, and there always is). If you're a jerk, I'll drop your speaks a lot. If you jump around the flow and are messy, don't explain things, make my job annoying, I'll drop your speaks a little. But I'm generally pretty generous.
Plan text debate? Yeah. Of course. The more specific, the better though. And yes, all planks are up for debate.
Krit Affs? Yes. Love. You will have a legit hard time convincing me they have no place in debate. Familiar with most of the lit. Go nuts.
Disads? Yeah, of course. Linear, nonlinear, politics, yep.
Counterplans? Covered. Yes, (though conditionality is a thing I like to see, please have this debate if Neg has at least one conditional world) PICs are fine.
P.S. Cross applying your overview to the line-by-line in rebuttal speeches is annoying. And I hate underviews, I don't know why people do this; don't be this person; save a tree.
A word on LD and PoFo though (I get stuck judging these a lot)
DON'T BE A JERK.
FOR LD: Capitalizing on the time differential on the neg by running excessive theory is gross. I won't drop you for running theory mainly. But I kind of wish you wouldn't, and my sympathy will go Aff because I think it's really unfair to capitlize on something your opponent literally can't do anything about.
RVI's aren't a thing. Spreading is not inherently abusive.
FOR PoFo: PoFo=net benefits debate. I honestly don't think there's enough time for a real framework debate in this format, and it's kind of a waste of time.
Updated for KCKCC Fall 2022
I debated at Kapaun Mt. Carmel Catholic High School in Wichita, KS for 4 years, one year at Weber State and 3 years at Kansas State University. I have not been active in debate since I graduated in 2019 so bear with me as I get use to the activity again. These are all just general thoughts and I find myself to be open to more policy oriented arguments now that I've been working outside of debate/college for a few years.
I do still flow on paper so please give me pen time. Also, give me time to adjust to your pace as its been awhile since ive had to deal with spreading. Still love it tho.
I default to an offense/defense paradigm if I am not given another framework for the debate
I do ask that you add me to the email chain. email@example.com
Topicality - robust T debates are some of my favorite debates to judge. Have a super limiting interp that only excludes the aff you are debating? sick. make sure to impact it out. I dont necessarily default to competing interps over reasonabilty. I'd rather let the debate be hashed out then to default one way or another.
Framework - Ill be honest, im not super pursuaded by Framework arguments that say the aff must defend USFG action. Its not unwinnable in front of me but it will be an uphill battle.
Theory - love it. dont be blippy.
Do your thing but be specific. Please tell a compelling link and impact story.
I don't have any biases against specific CP's. Just be able to defend the theory behind said counterplan.
Most (if not all) of my college debate experience was in debating the K against a variety of arguments. These are the debates that I found myself enjoying the most in college, however, I really do love a good policy debate these days. I have not kept up on what has come out in the lit since spring 2019 so if you have some new hot fire to read, please make sure to explain it a bit more since my conceptualization of things like set col and afropess might be stuck in the old days.
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Current: OES (Oregon Episcopal School) 7 years
- Cornell assistant coach
- UW debater
- Interlake debater (long time ago)
1. Open to any argument.
2. Debate is a game. You get to set the rules, except for speech times, speech order, and prep time.
3. Tech > truth. I am deeply suspicious of truth claims in debate. I endeavor to be flow centric in my judging.
4. Don't steal prep.
5. Debate is a scholarly activity. Sharp use of excellent ev is compelling to me.
6. If I seem grumpy, it just means I'm engaged and interested.
Comments on specific lines of argument:
The general rule is that T is great, subject to the exceptions below in the "Substantive arguments" section. Innovative interps or well carded args on T are refreshing.
Theory other than T
I vote for and against theory args.
- Condo / dispo: make no assumptions about the number of neg positions a team gets. Default to dispo (its ok to kick). Need justification for condo (its ok to contradict). Willing to change these defaults.
- Framework / T USFG: sure, but you will be more successful if you also engage substantively with the aff even if you don't ultimately go for those args in the 2NR.
- ASPEC, OSPEC, etc: if they are meaningful arguments, no problem voting for them.
- Novel or resurrected theory: explain it, win it, and the ballot is yours.
Straight forward. A couple of pet peeves:
- "Perm do both" is not an argument. Perms need an explanation of how they function and why they disprove competition.
- "Perms are severance and VI" is not an argument. As a default, perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy, barring an actual shift by the aff.
Mild preference for Ks grounded in the topic or with meaningful links to the aff. Links of omission are usually not persuasive.
I may seem like I am not paying attention but I am listening. I am not very good at small talk so if you have a question just ask me.
To the point:
I am very much a progressive traditionalist when it comes to Public Forum.
What does that mean?
Yes, I believe that parents should be 100% comfortable judging public forum debate at all levels. It is your job as a debater to adapt and NOT the other way around.
Fast talking is fine. Don’t spread. Creative Arguments, I am listening. You are not actually topical, but you are in the direction of the topic, YES, I am still listening.
FRAMING IS THE BEST PART OF PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE. How your team frames the round should be strategic and work in your team’s advantage. A team should only concede framework if they actually believe that they can win the debate under the other team’s framework. Otherwise, defend your framework. If they call you out for “abusive framework” tell me why it’s not and why I should still be voting under it.
While it’s not mandatory, if you are speaking second you should address your opponent’s rebuttal. I don’t expect you to split your time in some specific way, but at the end of the day a speech did happen just moments before yours and you kind of need to engage with it. (Translated: Must respond to your opponent’s case and defend your own)
Rebuttals: cover their case in the context of yours. cross applications are going to be key to get me to sign the ballot in your favor.
I do not flow cross, but I am listening and PRAYING that all the cool things that take place during this time find a place in speeches. Otherwise, all the sweating, panting, and exchanging of evidence was pointless.
If it isn't in Rebuttal, it can't be in Summary. If it isn't in Summary, you can't go for it in Final Focus.
Oh ya, I am bad at speaker points.
As it relates to LD -
Fast talking is acceptable but I cannot deal with spreading for extended periods of time, flow, and be objective. My mind drifts whenever people speak to me in the same cadence for extended periods of time.
Spreading: My brain can’t handle it which is why I generally avoid judging TOC Circuit Varsity LD debates. I do this because I agree that spreading is a skill and I understand that since you are on the circuit you would probably like to have the opportunity to do so. However, if you get the wonderful privilege of having me judge you, I will expect you to do a few things to enhance my involvement in the round. I ask that you not practice spreading in front of me.
“I hear everything when in sensory overload. But it’s not as if I can hear what is being said; rather it is just many, many sounds, unfiltered and loud. It feels like sounds are coming at me from every direction. Lights from all directions also seem to glare in my eyes. Sensory overload is horrible.” — Laura Seil Ruszczyk
I evaluate the framework first. I prefer debates that are topical. That said, I think on most of the resolutions for LD there are lots of topical discussions debaters can engage about race and identity matters.
If they say they are in the direction of the topic and clearly articulate how they are, I would probably agree that they are probably pretty topical. However, I do think T is a real argument.
I prefer students to use cx for questions and answer exchanges, not for extra prep.
I am a Speech and Debate Coach for a High School in Salt Lake City, UT. I occasionally judge both Policy Debate and Individual Events. When I judge Policy Debate I am looking for significant voter issues. I do not choose them myself unless forced. I wait for the debaters in the round to tell me how to vote. I will sometimes have to decide on my own which arguments are most significant but I always prefer the debaters to tell me. I like to think of myself as Tabula Rasa, knowing of course that that is almost impossible. But I do not care if you run a policy, performance, and or Critique, or what you wear or say during the round specifically regarding issues etc. I can adjust. I promise I am smarter than I look. Your debate will have a much bigger impact on the type of judge I am than anything I could say here. However:
1. Be courteous- you can have confidence but don't be a jerk
2. Humor is appreciated
When I judge Individual Events I really like to hear things I haven't heard before. I am looking for a well constructed speech with a flow. But I like stories. Even in Impromptu.