Email Chain: Varad.Agarwala@gmail.com

Graduated in 2016 from Greenhill. Debate is an competitive activity where we use scholarly evidence and real experiences as tools in order to gain a ballot. I don't particularly care about the content of your argumentation nor the form. Just establish an evaluative mechanism and win offense back to said mechanism and I will render my decision like a calculator receiving inputs of numbers and symbols.

To answer the only question you care about, "In the rare occasion Varad judges again, how do I win and get a 30?"

Be memorable. Make your round interesting, creative; cause a break in the monotony that is high school debate.

Maggie Berthiaume Woodward Academy

Current Coach — Woodward Academy (2011-present)
Former Coach — Lexington High School (2006-2008), Chattahoochee High School (2008-2011)
College Debater — Dartmouth College (2001-2005)
High School Debater — Blake (1997-2001)
maggiekb@gmail.com for email chains, please.

Meta Comments

1. Please be nice. If you don't want to be kind to others (the other team, your partner, me, the novice flowing the debate in the back of the room), please don’t prefer me.

2. I'm a high school teacher and believe that debates should be something I could enthusiastically show to my students, their families, or my principal. What does that mean? If your high school teachers would find your presentation inappropriate, I am likely to as well.

3. Please be clear. I will call "clear" if I can't understand you, but debate is primarily a communication activity. Do your best to connect on meaningful arguments.

4. Conduct your own CX as much as possible. CX is an important time for judge impression formation, and if one partner does all asking and answering for the team, it is very difficult to evaluate both debaters. Certainly the partner not involved in CX can get involved in an emergency, but that should be brief and rare if both debaters want good points.

5. If you like to be trolly with your speech docs (read on paper to prevent sharing, remove analyticals, etc.), please don't. See "speech documents" below for a longer justification and explanation.

6. I am not willing or able to adjudicate issues that happened outside of the bounds of the debate itself — ex. previous debates, social media issues, etc.

7. In debates involving minors, I am a mandated reporter — as are all judges of debates involving minors!

8. I’ve coached and judged for a long time now, and the reason I keep doing it is that I think debate is valuable. Students who demonstrate that they appreciate the opportunity to debate and are passionate and excited about the issues they are discussing are a joy to watch — they give judges a reason to listen even when we’re sick or tired or judging the 5th debate of the day on the 4th weekend that month. Be that student!

9. "Maggie" (or "Ms. B." if you prefer), not "judge."

What does a good debate look like?

Everyone wants to judge “good debates.” To me, that means two excellently-prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues related to the policy presented by the affirmative. The best debates allow four students to demonstrate that they have researched a topic and know a lot about it — they are debates over issues that experts in the field would understand and appreciate. The worst debates involve obfuscation and tangents. Good debates usually come down to a small number of issues that are well-explained by both sides. The best final rebuttals have clearly explained ballot and a response to the best reason to vote for the opposing team.

I have not decided to implement the Shunta Jordan "no more than 5 off" rule, but I understand why she has it, and I agree with the sentiment. I'm not establishing a specific number, but I would like to encourage negative teams to read fully developed positions in the 1NC (with internal links and solvency advocates as needed). (Here's what she says: "There is no world where the Negative needs to read more than 5 off case arguments. SO if you say 6+, I'm only flowing 5 and you get to choose which you want me to flow.") If you're thinking "nbd, we'll just read the other four DAs on the case," I think you're missing the point. :) It's not about the specific number, it's about the depth of argument.

Do you read evidence?

Yes, in nearly every debate. I will certainly read evidence that is contested by both sides to resolve who is correct in their characterizations. The more you explain your evidence, the more likely I am to read it. For me, the team that tells the better story that seems to incorporate both sets of evidence will almost always win. This means that instead of reading yet another card, you should take the time to explain why the context of the evidence means that your position is better than that of the other team. This is particularly true in close uniqueness and case debates.

Please read rehighlightings out loud rather than inserting them.

Do I have to be topical?

Yes. Affirmatives are certainly welcome to defend the resolution in interesting and creative ways, but that defense should be tied to a topical plan to ensure that both sides have the opportunity to prepare for a topic that is announced in advance. Affirmatives certainly do not need to “role play” or “pretend to be the USFG” to suggest that the USFG should change a policy, however.

I enjoy topicality debates more than the average judge as long as they are detailed and well-researched. Examples of this include “intelligence gathering” on Surveillance, “health care” on Social Services, and “economic engagement” on Latin America. Debaters who do a good job of describing what debates would look like under their interpretation (aff or neg) are likely to win. I've judged several "substantial" debates in recent years that I've greatly enjoyed.

Can I read [X ridiculous counterplan]?

If you have a solvency advocate, by all means. If not, consider a little longer. See: “what does as good debate look like?” above. Affs should not be afraid to go for theory against contrived counterplans that lack a solvency advocate. On the flip side, if the aff is reading non-intrinsic advantages, the "logical" counterplan or one that uses aff solvency evidence for the CP is much appreciated.

What about my generic kritik?

Topic or plan specific critiques are absolutely an important component of “excellently prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues.” Kritiks that can be read in every debate, regardless of the topic or affirmative plan, are usually not.

Given that the aff usually has specific solvency evidence, I think the neg needs to win that the aff makes things worse (not just “doesn’t solve” or “is a mask for X”). Neg – Please spend the time to make specific links to the aff — the best links are often not more evidence but examples from the 1AC or aff evidence.

What about offense/defense?

I do believe there is absolute defense and vote for it often.

Do you take prep for emailing/flashing?

Once the doc is saved, your prep time ends.

I have some questions about speech documents...

One speech document per speech (before the speech). Any additional cards added to the end of the speech should be sent out as soon as feasible.

Teams that remove analytical arguments like permutation texts, counter-interpretations, etc. from their speech documents before sending to the other team should be aware that they are also removing them from the version I will read at the end of the debate — this means that I will be unable to verify the wording of their arguments and will have to rely on the short-hand version on my flow. This rarely if ever benefits the team making those arguments.

Speech documents should be provided to the other team as the speech begins. The only exception to this is a team who debates entirely off paper. Teams should not use paper to circumvent norms of argument-sharing.

I will not consider any evidence that did not include a tag in the document provided to the other team.

LD Addendum

I don't judge LD as much as I used to (I coached it, once upon a time), but I think most of the above applies. If you are going to make reference to norms (theory, side bias, etc.), please explain them. Otherwise, just debate!

PF Addendum

This is very similar to the LD addendum with the caveat that I strongly prefer evidence be presented as cards rather than paraphrasing. I find it incredibly difficult to evaluate the quality of evidence when I have to locate the original source for every issue, and as a result, I am likely to discount that evidence compared to evidence where I can clearly view the surrounding sentence/paragraph/context.

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2023-2024 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last two years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

Hey, I’m Michael I did LD for four years at Lake Highland graduating in 2016. I qualled to the TOC twice with 6 career bids making it to octos my senior year. I have no real preference for one type of argument, just do whatever you’re best at. The only arguments I won’t vote for are ones that are blatantly offensive (i.e. racism good) and ones that lack a warrant entirely. Also if no arguments for presumption are made by either debater I'll default to presuming aff. This default can easily be changed with in round arguments it only exists if literally no arguments are made by either debater about presumption. One thing to note is that I’ve been out of the activity for a while so it would be best to start at half speed in front of me if you choose to spread and then work up to your top speed. Other than that if you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round or email me at cordermic@gmail.com

I am a PhD student in philosophy at MIT.

I debated from 2012-2016 and coached actively from 2016-2021.

Since the 2020-21 season, I have done very little meaningful coaching/judging. I have attended 1-2 tournaments per year and have not judged many debates at those tournaments. If I am judging you at Harvard, then I have not listened to spreading in almost a year and you should not expect me to know much (anything) about the topic, nor about recent trends in debate. I am quite confident that I can still follow most debates and render competent decisions about them, but it does fall to you to slow down some, explain key bits of jargon, etc.

Email: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com

Here is an older and longer version of my paradigm. Everything on the longer version remains true.

Short version: If you are aff, you should read a well-researched affirmative that defends someone doing something. If you are neg, you should read something that meaningfully engages with the aff.

Here are some things that it will be useful to know if I am judging you.

[1] I don’t flow author names.

[2] Please slow down on analytics, probably more than you think you need to.

[3] I am best suited to judge well-researched debates about a clear point of contestation in which both sides are clear about what they’re defending. Policy-style, K, T, 'phil,' and many theory debates are all fine.

[4] I will not vote for exceptionally bad theory arguments. Exceptionally bad arguments include but are not limited to: so-called "role of the ballot spec," "neg may only make 2 arguments," "must spec CP status in speech," "must read an explicit standard text," "must contest the aff framework," and "must spec what you meant when you said 'competing interps.'" By contrast, arguments that are fair game are CP theory, plans good/bad, stuff like that.

If you’re unsure whether an argument counts as exceptionally bad, err on the side of caution. You should err on the side of caution on very specific / demanding disclosure theory arguments.

[5] Other theory predispositions:

I think it's good to keep topics fairly small, which makes me good for the neg in many T debates.

It's pretty hard to convince me that 1 condo is bad. 2 starts to push it, and I think 3+ is probably bad. I'm increasingly convinced PICs should have a solvency advocate. And I'm pretty in the middle with respect to whether process counterplans & the like are good.

[6] No tricks. I won't vote on them. If you think your argument might count as a trick, don't read it. If you do go for tricks, you will not win and your speaks will not exceed 26.

[7] I value explanation a lot. I vote aff in a lot of debates in which the neg goes for a ton of arguments, each of which could be a winning 2NR but end up getting very under-explained. I have also voted for a lot of debaters whose evidence is not amazing but who give very good explanations/spin for that evidence.

[8] I am unlikely to be convinced that something categorically outweighs something else (e.g. extinction outweighs regardless of probability, tiny unfairness outweighs all education no matter what, etc.). Weighing arguments should be contextual and comparative.

[9] No "inserting highlighting" or inserting a list of what the aff defends. You have to read it.

[10] Debaters should disclose, and the aff should tell the neg what aff they’re reading before the debate unless it is new. No one should lie when disclosing. It is very hard to convince me that disclosure isn’t good.

[11] Clipping and reading miscut evidence will result in an automatic loss, regardless of whether your opponent notices / mentions it. More on that here.

[12] I will not vote on: tricks (broadly construed), "paradox" tricks (e.g. Zeno's Paradox, the "Good Samaritan" Paradox), a prioris, oppression good (if you concede that your position entails that oppression is good, then your position is that oppression is good), skepticism ("both frameworks are wrong; therefore, 'permissibility'" is skep), trivialism, arguments that the other side cannot make arguments / that I should evaluate (any part of) the debate at the end of a speech other than the 2AR, or awful theory arguments. These arguments are bad for debate.

Preferred E-mail:

janet.esco@gmail.com

Debate Experience:

Georgia State University (Atlanta, GA)3-ish years (Policy)

Bradley Tech High School (in Milwaukee, WI)- 4 yrs (Policy), Assistant Debate Coach - 1Yr (LD & PF)

Current Position: Head Coach at Oak Grove HS, Kipp San Jose Collegiate, and Downtown College Prep-El Primero

I'm only writing this so I don't get fined. J.K.

If I said I'm trying to be as clean of a slate as possible when judging, I'd be lying. I vote on mostly everything as long as there are good arguments made and carried through the final speeches.

Things that will aggravate me and make me want to hurt a puppy (May apply to National circuit LD and PF debates when applicable):

• The spray and pray (You just make random args with no content just for the sake of making them) -_-
• Race arguments executed badly, ESPECIALLY from someone that has never experienced racial discrimination a day in their lives. You will get stale-faced, and I will make sure my ancestors haunt you in your dreams. -__________________-
• When you run topicality when you're constrained to a packet and use abuse as a voter -__-
• When you run arguments incompletely, and decide to go for it (i.e. Counterplans with no CP text, DAs with no link or uniqueness or impact, T with no standards or voters)
• When you argue with me and you know you're wrong. Don't do it. I'm not the one, I promise you.

I love clash, clash is fun. I can't be mad at a passive-aggresive CX or debate because I was notorious for that, but when you show your whole behind then it gets awkward and I will probably dock your speaks if it's unwarranted.

The one thing I love more than clash is when the debater does the work for me. This is often achieved through good line by lines and impact calcs.

I am okay with speed as long as you're clear. If you know you are an uncler spreader, then don't do it to me or to yourself. I will yell clear twice and stop flowing if it continues and give you the death glare.

K debates, performance debates, T, and weird alts are fine.

Theory and framework debates- I need you to definately slow down on these arguments if you want me to flow everything and get a good understanding of the arguments. These also need an impact calculus.

I will not vote on oncase arguments alone on the neg, I need some sort of off case to go with it.

Lincoln-Douglass:

Same applies. Don't make me want to kick a puppy in your name. I love impact arguments and extending those impact arguments. Whether its extinction, dehum, etc. I need Impacts and I'll love you for using them.

Framework: Will vote on it if you tell me why I should vote on it with clear impacts.

T and theory: same

DA's and CPs: they neeeedd to have impacts and your counterplans need to be mutually exclusive either on their own or through a net benefit.

I value more the quality of the argument than the amount. I like efficiency.

line by lines make me happy.

Dont be condescending in round or when giving my RFD. If you do, I can't promise that I won't embarrass you.

I am a fairly progressive judge, I am open to most arguments and stay as objective as possible.

update: toc 23'

Email chain: chris@alterethosdebate.com

TLDR

Debaters ought to determine the procedural limits and educational value of each topic by defending their interpretations in the round. I ought to vote for the team that does the best job of that in the debate.

I mostly care about warranting arguments and engaging with opponent's through analysis and impact comparison. The team that does the better job justifying my vote at the end of the debate will win.

Debaters should not do any of the following:

Clip cards

Steal prep

Ignore reasonable things like showing up on time and maintaining speech times and speaking order.

Disregard reasonable personal request of their opponents. If you don’t wish to comply with opponent requests, you ought to have a good reason why.

Misgender folks

Say or do racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist things.

Read pessimism args from identities they don't identify as.

Argumentative Preferences

WARRANTS & EXPLANATIONS over blippiness.

Education > Fairness

Breadth = Depth ---> both are important please make warrants here.

K’s don’t need to win an alt to win.

Reasonable disclosure practices should be followed.

Analytic > Low quality evidence

Specific Stuff

Theory

Disclosing before the round is a reasonable thing to do. That being said, I come in with a slight bias against theory arguments in LD. Lots of frivolity in this space right now.

To adapt for this bias teams can read theory that actually has the potential to improve debates or read shells that will have clear and significant violations. Running theory as an exploit of tech judges makes debates less enjoyable for me and I am inclined to vote against them at the smallest of responses. Affirmative teams should feel comfortable reading fewer spikes and more substance.

t/framework

Neg teams ought to engage with plan free or non-topical affirmatives. Affirmative teams should advocate for some departure from the status quo within the context of the topic. The more an aff is steeped in topic literature, the less likely I am to vote against it as a procedural issues, so strong topic links are crucial. I generally think education is a more important element of debate than fairness and that an inability to prepare against an argument doesn't inherently mean that argument is unfair.

Topicality

I default to reasonability because I think it incentivizes innovative research by the aff and expands the limits of the topic in a good way.

Perf Con.

I'm good with multiple worlds but think perf cons make for less enjoyable debates and I am inclined to vote against 1NC's that read cap and the econ da in the same speech.

Counter Plans

If you have a solvency advocate, its legit.

PIC’s are generally good because they force the affirmative to more deeply examine their advocacy, I want them to be excluding something substantial and to have a solvency advocate of some kind.

Conditionality

Neg definitely gets to be conditional. Limited conditionality is the most reasonable interp.

DA's

I like topic DA's, and find most politics and econ based internal links implausible. But, I won't vote against them on face, I let your opponent make those arguments.

Presumption

Neg walks in with presumption. Neg teams should still make presumption analysis in the round though.

*If I haven't mentioned it here, ask me. It has been a minute since I've judged.

I began coaching in 1969 and coached high school and college debate, mostly policy, until 1997. Having retired from university teaching and administration, I returned to coaching high school Lincoln-Douglas debate in October 2015.  As a judge I prefer for the debaters to present their arguments and to explain why said arguments should win the debate. An argument must have a claim, support (data) and a warrant. I find that many LD debaters think they can simply assert information for the data--I want to hear a source and expect the student to have the full citation available if it is requested. As a value debate activity, each side needs to present a value and a value criterion. Not only should they present them, but it is necessary to explain why and how your position is superior in the debate. While I expect the negative debater to have his/her own position, I prefer to have clash in the debate and believe that arguments applied directly against the affirmative case are stronger and more persuasive that one presented as a negative contention. I also am not a fan of arguments being presented that are not relevant to the opponents's case. I also am not apt to vote for a kritik. In terms of speed, I flow what I can understand. If I can't grasp the argument due to speed, it is not my fault. I strongly believe that debate is a communication activity and therefore it is the debater's responsibility to adapt to the judge. If you see that I am not flowing, I suggest you slow down. I do find it annoying to have a student fly through the speech only to end up with time left over. Debate should be fun and debaters should enjoy the activity. I don't like rudeness in the debate.

Updated for Harvard Tournament 2020:

Background:

I am currently a senior in college. I spent four years debating for Mountain Brook High School and competed on the local and national circuits in LD and PF. Since graduating, I've worked with CX teams in the Boston Urban Debate League but have done zero work on the current LD/PF topics. Please explain any of the more common topic-specific terms/acronyms because I am not familiar with the literature.

LD preferences:

• Write my ballot for me. Give me voters in your last speech. Weigh your arguments and actually engage with your opponent's arguments. I don't want to vote off a technicality.
• I like plans, CPs, and DAs. I ran a lot of these when I was on the circuit. I also did a fair amount of traditional debate so am always happy to judge a classic V/VC case.
• I don't like tricks or frivolous theory. Please don't run theory unless there's actual abuse in the round.
• You can run Ks and analytic philosophy but I'm not very familiar with the literature.
• Other types arguments: Feel free to ask me for my thoughts before the round. In general, I'll vote for just about anything as long as you can explain your argument well and how it functions within the debate.
• Extensions must include a claim, warrant, and impact. This includes extensions for dropped arguments.
• It's been nearly four years since I left LD, so speak a bit more slowly than you normally would. Definitely slow down for tags and authors.
• Don't be rude to your opponent and don't run offensive arguments.

PF preferences:

• My decisions are largely based off of the final focuses. However, in order for me to consider a point brought up in final focus, it also needs to be extended in the summary speech.
• Have all of your evidence readily available for your opponents to read. If you take too long to pull up evidence that your opponents are requesting, I'll dock speaker points. However, ideally you're asking to look at evidence during crossfire so that we're not wasting time waiting for people to search for evidence.
• Evidence comparison is a must if you have evidence that contradicts your opponents' evidence. Without it, I have to intervene and decide for myself which evidence I think is more valid.
• Explain how your arguments link back to the overall framework for the round. This is especially true in the final focus. Make sure you're weighing impacts and thoroughly explaining how they interact with the overall framework.
• Ask questions doing crossfire. Don't use it as more speech time.
• I don't think the second speaker has to address the opponent's arguments against their case during the rebuttal. Feel free to just refute your opponent's case.
• Extensions should generally include a claim/warrant/impact, even if your opponent dropped your argument.
• Speed is fine.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round!

(Updated 12/22/16)

Emory University

School Strikes

Mount Vernon Presbyterian School

PV Peninsula High School

General Information

There was a time when I was really invested in the activity (I did policy) and this paradigm was longer and more nuanced, but those days are pretty far gone. I think the best debates happen when people are both passionate and informed about the arguments they read. The worst debates I’ve ever judged happen when neither side really wants to be there, and I honestly consider those a waste of my time.

I’m a chemistry major and read a LOT of science-related material in my spare time. If you like making arguments that depend on science or data, I expect you to have done the proper background research. If you’re debating against said arguments, disqualifying a source is everything (i.e. “this study doesn’t take into account X”, “that’s not how global warming models are made”, “that’s not how drugs work”, “here’s an article that takes into account Y and concluded the other way”, etc.)

Quality research is as valuable as quality debating

There is such a thing as absolute defense, and “any risk” logic is nonsense. Additionally, I’m skeptical of “shifting qualitative risk,” as I call it. “War is likely” doesn’t magically become “war is inevitable” just because it was dropped.

I lean slightly left-of-center on the economy, slightly right-of-center on trade, and fairly liberal on everything else.

I flow on paper.

While I do love coffee, if you see me with a cup of it in the round, please start slow.

I think affirmatives should actually do things. This is not the same as reading a plan text, though I used to read mostly "traditional" or "soft-left" affs, and I still really like those.

My favorite anime is Bungou Stray Dogs. I highly recommend it. Watch season 2, episodes 1-4 before season 1. Quality references are appreciated.

Case and topic-specific DA debates are cool.

I’m always down for a good theory or T debate. I hate frivolous T/theory arguments (and so should you).

I will not vote for the "ctrl+F language K." I will vote on the “what the fuck, you should never say that again” language K.

LD Specific

"If your strategy involves skep, permissibility, or some logical syllogism that relies upon analytic philosophy showing that the other side can't be proven, you probably don't want me as your judge" –Scott Wheeler

RVIs are an uphill battle. RVIs on T are like mountain climbing. If you don’t know how hard mountain climbing is, I can tell you a cool story about my biochem professor.

Someone told me I should have a line here about flashing, which makes me sad. I will dock 2 points if you intentionally don't provide a copy of your evidence to the other team prior to your speech.

Kant = :(

New parent judge.

GSU '13 will be my first foray into college judging. I have judged high school debates at a rate of 80-120/year for about 10 years now. I debated at the University of Georgia as well as West Georgia. My background in different types of arguments is broad, there aren't many styles of debate I haven't coached or done personally. I feel comfortable with most any style or type of argument that you can cook up.

When judging I do my best to leave the debate up to the debaters. This means I don't have a high propensity for reading cards in rounds, though it is certainly not unheard of. I feel that calling for evidence means one of two things, either there was excellent clash on both sides or there was almost no clash. 

This influences my view of several things in a debate round. I have no strong theory pre-dispositions. I find that debates often come down to team A gaining access to team B's offense better than team B gains access to team A's offense. This can come about in the form of anything from global impact uniqueness to framework issues. 

The best rebuttals are ones that advance a reason why you should win and ALSO refute reasons why your opponent should win. The best line by line technique is one that advances your argument and also says why your opponent is wrong. In doing so you ensure that there is little if any room for intervention, which should be your goal as a communicator Often I find that a team will advance their own position without explaining why it refutes that of their opponent. If you do this and your opponent doesn't you are likely to lose. If both teams do this then some intervention is inevitable and you have not done your job, which is to take the decision out of my hands and to place it beyond the realm of doubt. 

A few details about specific argument types/concerns in the debate

Topicality: under used, under appreciated. If the aff fails to provide a completive definition then they are likely in trouble should the negative articulate why this is a problem and win competing interpretations. On the flip side Aff teams should articulate why any differences between standards of interpretations are pedantic or meaningless and maintain a robust defense of "good is good enough"

DA's: Who doesn't like a disad? DA turns the Case vs Case turns the DA only become relevant if the neg wins the DA and/or the aff wins their case. There can be terminal defense on both DA's and advantages that render the argument moot. Things like Uniqueness controls link/Link controls uniqueness depend on the specific arguments and the framing mechanisms debaters use in the round. 

K's: Best done with minimal jargon. If you can't explain why the aff links, and why that's bad in a way that has a story that makes a degree of sense then you are probably in a rough place. Aff should watch out for K tricks like no value to life, etc. Will I like your K? That depends, the name of your K is someone's last name then probably not. Higher specificity and application to the rhetorical situation you find yourself in increases these odds substantially. K debates can be some of my favorite to evaluate when done with thought and planning and strategy. When they turn into Foucault vs Derrida I think I'd rather see most anything else. K's probably don't need alts, and usually make more sense without them

Affness: Preference for affs that answer the resolutional question with some kind of a "yes" Affs that don't do this are winnable, but have a higher threshold to overcome. The necessity of things like plan texts and defending USFG action are things to be decided in round by debaters.

Counterplans: As I said before, I have no strong leanings one way or the other on theory questions. The more of them you run at one time the more robust defense you should have on your ability to do so. Robustness can also come in the form of nuance rather than quantity, and this is probably better for everyone involved. 

Finally a note on speaker points. Be the best you that you can be. If you're not a very funny person don't try to be funny. If you don't know what sorts of TV shows/Music/Movies I enjoy don't make references, In general points will be awarded based on a combination of strategy, clarity, and fluidity. None of these categories is more dominant than the others in deciding points, a fantastic strategy can give you a boost if you aren't clear, and great clarity can give you a boost if your strategy seems lackluster or poorly thought out. 

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.

Best judge philosophies ever written

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Jaramillo%2C%20Ricardo

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Forslund%2C%20Eric

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Matheson%2C%20Calum

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.

kelvinmaiohmai@gmail.com

I will disclose my decision and give RFD. Will also disclose speaks on request. For every minute you post-round me, I take away one speaker point (asking for legitimate feedback is ok). Please be sure to read my paradigm in its entirety (yes it's long but too much information is always better than too little). I don't mind giving a summary before rounds, but if you neglect to read my paradigm and do something I don't like and then you lose because of it, that's on you. If you're looking for policy, you can skip to the bottom but reading through might help you. If you're looking for PF, skip to the bottom.

Cheating is an auto-drop. I don't care how hard you may be winning everything else, if you are caught cheating you will automatically be dropped.

Prefs:

1: Case, LARPing with an LD framework, philosophy

2: K

2.5 (don't dislike but don't actually like either): Theory (only if actually abusive), LARPing without an LD framework

3:

4 (strike me please): Friv theory, tricks, RVI, etc

Background:
Debated for 3 years in varsity LD at Northview High School from 2012-2015. Have been judging on and off for the past 6 years. Currently working as a quant risk analyst in the banking/financial services industry after finishing my masters in quant risk analysis.

Speed:
I'm ok with speed for the most part. Spreading is generally ok if you are clear, but if you aren't, I will clear you twice before I stop flowing. Don't sacrifice clarity for speed, you'll lose speaks. Make sure you look up once in a while to make sure I'm flowing and understanding your arguments (not an issue with email chains). Slow down a bit for taglines. Not an issue if you do email chains, but make sure you're letting me know which cards you're cutting. If you do email chains, don't forget your clarity still matters for speaks. For online tournaments, there might be difficulties and so I would prefer a generally slower pace in case issues arise.

Prep:
I'm ok with flex prep. Flashing doesn't count towards prep. Don't steal prep. I'm a really lenient and reasonable judge so I'll let you finish your sentence.

CX:

I don't flow cross, so if you want to make a point, make it in a speech.

Roadmap/signpost:

Please do this. It makes it easier to flow the debate and will make it easier for me to give an RFD.

Voters:
Please do this. I want you to write the ballot for me. Tell me EXACTLY why you win, and why I should uphold your framework over your opponent's. I shouldn't be doing the work for you.

ARGUMENTS:

"Tech over truth."

Tabula rasa

***I am a more traditional LD judge who accepts progressive arguments as long as they have a clear LD framework. I believe that the framework in LD is the fundamental difference between LD and policy, and so if you don't have this framework I will default to voting against you. If you only want to run policy framework, you might as well just switch to policy. I'm not asking for a super philosophical debate (although I do know a lot of philosophy and enjoy it), but I am asking for some sort of LD framework. Framework is like 70% of my RFD. Clash is good.

Adjust to your opponent. If you run something like K or theory against a novice, that won't reflect well in your speaks.

Theory and RVIs (3/7/2020 post-GA varsity state update):
I find theory and RVIs incredibly boring to judge, and I honestly don't even get what RVIs are since they weren't really a thing when I debated. Don't read theory shells if your opponent isn't actually being abusive, I'll probably vote you down. If both debaters choose to read theory/RVIs when neither are actually being abusive, I reserve the right to stop flowing and just flip a coin to decide winner. Both speakers will then receive a 27.5 in speaks. Friv theory is an autodrop. Don't waste my time or your opponent's time. Not a fan of tricks either. Don't waste my time with blippy one-liners. Reading the same theory/RVIs for every tournament is incredibly boring for me to listen to.

DAs:
Sure, make sure well-warranted and links to resolution.

K:
I love listening to k. That's not to say I'll always vote for them, but I will understand them and will vote on them if done correctly.

CPs:
Yes. I love CPs as well so I'm ok with them as long as they link and are unique. I will vote on a perm if your CP is non-unique. Kicking a permed CP is going to negatively impact you.

Impact calc:

Impact calc is good. I weigh impacts in the RFD if needed.

Dropped arguments:

Don't just say "extend _____ b/c opponent dropped it." Explain how the dropped argument impacts the debate itself

Above all else, have fun! I believe that if you don't enjoy what you're doing, it's not worth doing, so please have fun and relax. Good luck!

Other prefs based off judging rounds:

If you're going to read arguments on analytics/data science/economics/finance/financial theory/markets, please make sure you at least research the topic. I'm a quant in the banking industry and it can be frustrating to hear people butcher these things so hard. You don't need to have a PhD level of understanding, but please at least do some reading on it.

I've also taken some actuarial theory/insurance mathematics, so if you want to run super technical args about actuarially fair priced insurance/optimal insurance and stuff like that I'll understand.

Don't read identity k arguments while not being a member of that identity AND read a link that your opponent is speaking for others in their advocacy. It comes off as incredibly short-sighted, and if your opponent calls you out and says you link I'll vote you down.

Please no RVIs, this has been in my paradigm for a long time and I still have people try to read them in front of me. I've literally been in a situation of judging a break round where all 3 judges (myself included) did not understand what the heck was going on.

Please stop reading generic theory shells. What's the point of getting excited for new topics if your strat is to find one or two arguments and then stuff theory shells and spikes into your case? Where is the educational value in that (yes, generally I agree that fairness>education but that doesn't mean that education isn't important). If I can clearly tell that what you're reading is 80% the same as what you were reading last topic, you'll probably lose speaks. Only use theory shells if your opponent is actually being abusive.

For the random policy debates I judge here and there:

I'm pretty ok with spreading and args, so it should be fine. If I HAD to pick a paradigm, it would probably be something like case/impacts/DA/CP>K>Topicality>>>>>>>Theory/RVI. This is not set in stone however.

For the random PF debates I judge here and there:

PF is PF, and at its core it should be lay debate. When I judge PF, I will approach the round as if I were a lay judge. If you're going to LARP, you'll probably lose speaks and the debate as well. If you spread, you will lose speaks.

Assistant Director of Debate -- UTD... YOU SHOULD COME DEBATE FOR US BECAUSE WE HAVE SCHOLARSHIPS AVAILABLE

So I really dont want to judge but if you must pref me here's some things you should know.

Arguments I wont vote on ever

Pref Sheets args

Things outside the debate round

Death is good

General thoughts

Tl:Dr- do you just dont violate the things i'll never vote on and do not pref me that'd be great.

Line by Line is important.

I generally give quick RFDs this isnt a insult to anyone but I've spent the entire debate thinking about the round and generally have a good idea where its going by the end.

Clarity over speed (ESP IN THIS ONLINE ENVIRONMENT) if I dont understand you it isnt a argument.

****NEW THOUGHTS FOR THE NDT**** I generally dont think process CPs that result in the aff are competitive -- I'm more likely to vote on perm do both or the PDCP if push comes to shove... could I vote on it sure but I generally lean aff on these cps.

Online edit -- go slower speed and most of your audio setups arent great. (See what I did there)

Only the debaters debating can give speeches.

I catch you clipping I will drop you. So suggest you dont and be clear mumbling after i've said clear risk me pulling the trigger.

ecmathis AT gmail for email chains... but PLEASE DONT PREF ME

Longer thoughts

Can you beat T-USFG in front of me if your not a traditional team.... yes... can you lose it also yes. Procedural fairness is a impact for me. K teams need to give me a reason why I should ignore T if they want to win it. Saying warrantless claims impacted by the 1AC probably isnt good enough.

Aff's that say "Affirm me because it makes me feel better or it helps me" probably not the best in front of me. I just kinda dont believe it.

Reading cards-

I dislike reading cards because I do not fell like reconstructing the debate for one side over another. I will read cards dont get me wrong but rarely will I read cards on args that were not explained or extended well.

K-There fine I like em except the death good ones.

In round behavior- Aggressive is great being a jerk is not. This can and will kill your speaks. Treat your opponents with respect and if they dont you can win a ballot off me saying what they've done in round is problematic. That said if someone says you're arg is (sexist, racist, etc) that isnt the same as (a debater cursing you out because you ran FW or T or a debater telling you to get out of my activity) instant 0 and a loss. i'm not about that life.

LD Paradigm

This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

My email is jacobdnails@gmail.com

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

Parent of a Harvard-Westlake Debater. Judge frequently, mostly novice rounds. Comfortable with jargon and a brisk pace, but should not spread. Advise big picture debate, good weighing, clarity, and polite debate. Best of luck!

I did LD for 3 years at Cambridge Rindge and Latin (MA), graduating in 2016. I almost exclusively competed on the national circuit, and qualled to TOC senior year.

HARVARD 2021 UPDATE: I will not be judging probably any prelims, but I will be in the elim pool. I haven't judged on this topic, so please explain any topic-specific references. I also truly cannot flow anymore, so pref accordingly.

I used to have a fair number of preferences & thoughts about this activity, but I'm far enough out that most of those preferences have faded. I will listen to anything that is not horribly messed up and try to intervene as little as possible. Please be nice to each other!

Extraneous things that may/may not be relevant to you:

• My flowing ability has significantly regressed over time, which means I'm probably not the judge for a very fast tricks debate (though a slow one is fine). Similarly, you should significantly slow down for theory interps and other important analytics.
• I won’t call for cards unless 1) there’s a genuine dispute over what the card says or 2) I fell asleep/experienced a comparable loss of consciousness and missed it
• I read a fair number of Ks back in the day, but you should not take that to mean (a) I know what you're talking about or (b) you do not need to explain your arguments
• The fastest way to lose my ballot is to concede a bunch of preempts in favor of reading a few cards that "implicitly answer" those preempts. Please just make implicit comparisons explicit, so I don't have to drop you on a silly argument because you didn't pay lip service to it. This is particularly relevant to topicality debates.
• I was fairly flex as a debater, and appreciate well-designed neg strategies that capitalize on a variety of styles.
• If you say "game over" in your speech, it's "game over" for your speaks! :)

Have fun, be nice to each other, and feel free to ask me any extra questions before round.

Hi! My name is Margaret Purcell (she/her) and I attend the University of Oklahoma. I did debate on the local and national circuit for 4 years at Northland Christian School in Houston, Texas. I've also taught at GDS for a couple of summers. Please add me to the email chain before the round: margapurcell@gmail.com

General Philosophy:
I prefer a clear and substantive debate that is centered around the topic. Please weigh, make solid extensions (claim, warrant, impact), and tell me how arguments interact in the round. I am not that well versed in a lot of critical literature (Deleuze, Afropess, Bataille, etc), but if it is explained well enough in the round I will feel pretty comfortable voting on it. All this takes is explaining the link/impact story and being comparative with the world of the alt versus the world of the affirmative (or if its a critical aff just being clear about what you're doing). Framing is also super important on this note -- if I don't understand the framing/how arguments function in rounds, I will not vote on them. Every round should have some framework/standard/role of the ballot that it links back to, so make sure everything you go for links back. I love any kind of policy argument, so reading those is a safe bet around me. I'm a pretty expressive judge; if I look confused it's because I am confused. You'll be able to read me pretty well, so just pay attention & you should be good to go. My senior year I became a fan of soft-left affs (cap, colonialism, militarism, etc)! I think that they can be really fun and is something that I really like to see.

Speaker Points:
Be clear, make good arguments, and/or be strategic and you'll get good speaks. Be incomprehensible, read annoying positions filled with spikes and tricks, and/or be rude and you'll get bad speaks! Simple. I'll yell clear a lot, but if you still stay unclear I'll just stop flowing. I love it when people are perceptually dominant in round, but please don't use that as an excuse to be rude to the other debater! You can be loud, but please for the love of all things sacred, DO NOT yell for everything. If you're really passionate about something then you can be loud for it, but just not everything. Giving good, effective overviews is also a good way to see your speaks go up! Also, I appreciate it when people stand instead of sitting :)
TLDR: be nice, don't be stupid, don't read tricks, and be strategic!

T/Theory:
I honestly really like theory debates and I think that they can be used to check back bad positions etc. But I also really hate bad theory debate! If you are running theory for the sake of running theory and it is a BS shell, I'm going to get annoyed (which will lower your speaks :) ). If there are multiple shells, weigh between them and tell me which is the most important in later speeches. Try to quantify the abuse in some way -- this makes t/theory args more compelling for me and more likely to vote for you if I think that the shell is somewhat frivolous.

Policy Arguments:
I'm super comfortable with any of these types of arguments & love it when people read these. Also, I love politics and am really excited for these in the 2019/20 season.

Speed:
Honestly, I'm a couple of years out of debate now, so I'm not as great at listening to super fast debaters. That being said, I can still understand a lot, but maybe don't go top top speed in front of me. For the most part, as long as you are clear, I'll be able to flow you! (HINT: do this for every judge). I don't think that you have to go fast to win, but regardless of your speed be clear and you'll be fine in front of me. I'll yell slow/clear/loud as many times as I need to, but if you don't listen to me then I'll stop saying it and your speaks will suffer lol

Random extras:
- I like it when people are funny or sassy! (keep in mind: being sassy doesn't mean rude...)
- Don't read things that you don't understand, if you don't understand it I'll know. I love it when debaters know every single thing about their position.
- If you're debating someone that is not on your level (i.e. a senior debating a freshman) don't belittle them or poke fun at them for being less experienced! You were there once too, so take it down a notch.
- I'm not a fan to tricks or a lot of spikes, I'll listen to them, but not gonna lie I don't like them and am not the judge for that debate.
- PLEASE don't make the debate round unsafe for anyone inside of it!! (don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc). Try to be inclusive of everyone within the debate space and leave the debate community better than you found it.
- Don't make morally repugnant arguments!!! Including but not limited to: racism good, rape good, genocide good, etc.)

I'll close with a Hannah Montana quote: "Life's what you make it, so let's make it rock!"
Debate is what you make it, so make it rock and read positions that you really care about.

If you have any questions please let me know!

My last paradigm was way overdue for a rehaul. Here are some things:

1. I'm an Emory student majoring in philosophy and biology. I love transhumanism.

2. I hate theory and will almost never vote on it unless it is actual abuse. I have seen rounds where someone runs theory because the aff didn't say resolved, but when asked in cross fire clarified. Don't run theory in front of my unless necessary.

3. Have a value structure.

4. On balance, I prefer traditional debate + speed. However, I understand for the most part this isn't always the case.

5. Impact yourself.

6. If I say clear more than once, I will probably dock speaker points. Also, if something isn't on my flow, I won't vote for it even if you said it.

7. Don't argue with me about my decision. Ask questions, clarifications, but know that my decision is final and can't be changed.

Finally, I understand this isn't really a paradigm, moreso a preference list. Ask me questions if you can intuit the answer from this. :)

I debated for Lake Highland Prep for 5 years.

I have not judged in a while so please start slowly. I will say clear/slow if I am not catching what you are saying.

I'm fine with most types of arguments and will judge the round as best I can but that being said I was never good with theory/t so if thats part of your strategy I would recommend spending extra time on crystallization. Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

Debate should be fun- don't be blatantly offensive or treat your opponent horribly.

Email chain: msigalow61@gmail.com

Conflicts: Lake Highland Preparatory School

Policy at CFL Nationals:

I coached Circuit LD from 2011 until the 2019-2020 School Year and judged very frequently but haven't judged since then (I just graduated law school). My students have done very well. I debated policy for Emory University from 2011-2014 and have a decent knowledge of NDT-level policy debate but my background is in LD. I am not as familiar with the substantive content of many arguments, especially old arguments the community would know but I would not, or new arguments that became popular after my time. In LD, I judged a lot of "clash of civ" debates and am quite comfortable with K debates, although on the team I coached was the guy who did all the topic-relevant plan/disad/T stuff.

Some quick policy debate comments

1. Almost universally, I am unaware of any particular reputation a team might have. Try not to be too chummy with me or the other judges on any panel to which I might be on. I think that's a form of gatekeeping.
2. I have not had to flow speed in a bit, so be a little generous, if you can afford to do so.
3. I don't think permutations need net benefits (I'm not sure if this view is mainstream).
4. If a component of an affirmative is necessary for the affirmative to solve their advantage, then failure to solve it means the affirmative has not solved their advantage. If instead that component is sufficient, a counterplan that solves that component solves the whole advantage. If it is neither, by the end of the debate it should be clear what role that component plays. I will need less explaining on these points. 
5. Bullying is bad (coaches and competitors). Be nice! Also, talking over people or making fun of their appearance is impermissible.
6. I have seen a disproportionate number of Emory IW and Michigan AP speeches. 

Some general comments for this tournament, including LD-focused biases that may impact how I judge 

1. I am not sure what policy is like at CFL Nationals, but I will be keenly aware of the impact the speed could have in a debate where one team can't flow it and the other team and the judges can. I am not sure to what extent these norms exist in policy.
2. It is probably much easier to get me to vote on a theory argument like condo bad or process counterplans bad than it would be for policy folks, because theory is treated differently in LD.
3. If you can convince me an argument is genuinely new, I won't evaluate it.
4. I don't know the topic or its norms so I would be careful of a T debate.
5. Women get talked over in debates far too much. If I believe you are contributing to this problem I may penalize you.

The LD rules below may apply, but they disproportionately arise because LD's very low number of speeches necessitates stating preferences like those because of the inability to call out late-breaking decisional stances, so they are probably not as important.

LD:

1. No new arguments or arguments that are the exact opposites of a previously made argument.
2. Severely mislabeling arguments is extremely bad.
3. I will not evaluate the debate at any point before its end.
4. I default to offense-defense, competing interps, durable fiat, perms test competition, and that the aff defends implementation.

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.

Judge Philosophy

Name: Lisa Willoughby

Current Affiliation: Midtown High School formerly Henry W. Grady High School

Conflicts: AUDL teams

Debate Experience: 1 year debating High School 1978-79, Coaching High School 1984-present

How many rounds have you judged in 2012-13: 50, 2013-2014: 45, 2015-2016: 25, 2016-17 15, 2017-2018: 30, 2018-19: 30, 2019-20:10, 2020-21: 40, 2021-2022: 35, 2022-2023:6

send evidence e-mail chain to quaintt@aol.com

I still view my self as a policy maker unless the debaters specify a different role for my ballot. I love impact comparison between disadvantages and advantages, what Rich Edwards used to call Desirability. I don’t mind the politics disad, but I am open to Kritiks of Politics.

I like Counterplans, especially case specific counterplans. I certainly think that some counterplans are arguably illegitimate; for example, I think that some international counterplans are utopian, and arguably claim advantages beyond the reciprocal scope of the affirmative, and are, therefore, unfair. I think that negatives should offer a solvency advocate for all aspects of their counterplan, and that multi-plank cps are problematic. I think that there are several reasons why consultation counterplans, and the States CP could be unfair. I will not vote unilaterally on any of these theoretical objections; the debaters need to demonstrate for me why a particular counterplan would be unfair.

I have a minor in Philosophy, and love good Kritik debate. Sadly, I have seen a lot of bad Kritik debate. I think that K debaters need to have a strong understanding of the K authors that they embrace. I really want to understand the alternative or the role of my ballot. I have no problem with a K Aff, but am certainly willing to vote on Framework/T against a case that does not have at least a clear advocacy statement that I can understand. I am persuadable on "AFF must be USFG."

I like Topicality, Theory and Framework arguments when they are merited. I want to see fair division of ground or discourse that allows both teams a chance to prepare and be ready to engage the arguments.

I prefer substance to theory; go for the theoretical objections when the abuse is real.

As for style, I love good line-by-line debate. I adore evidence comparison, and argument comparison. I am fairly comfortable with speed, but I like clarity. I have discovered that as I get older, I am very comfortable asking the students to "clear." I enjoy humor; I prefer entertaining cross-examinations to belligerent CX. Warrant your claims with evidence or reasoning.

Ultimately, I demand civility: any rhetoric, language, performance or interactions that demean, dehumanize or trivialize fellow debaters, their arguments or judges would be problematic, and I believe, a voting issue.

An occasional interruption of a partner’s speech or deferring to a more expert partner to answer a CX question is not a problem in my view. Generally only one debater at a time should be speaking. Interruptions of partner speeches or CX that makes one partner merely a ventriloquist for the other are extremely problematic.

Clipping cards is cheating. Quoting authors or evidence out of context, or distorting the original meaning of a text or narrative is both intellectually bankrupt and unfair.

There is no such thing as one ideal form or type of debate. I love the clash of ideas and argumentation. That said, I prefer discourse that is educational, and substantive. I want to walk away from a round, as I often do, feeling reassured that the policy makers, educators, and citizens of the future will seek to do a reasonable and ethical job of running the world.

For Lincoln Douglas debates:

I am "old school" and feel most comfortable in a Value/Criterion Framework, but it is your debate to frame. Because I judge policy frequently, I am comfortable with speed but generally find it is needless. Clarity is paramount. Because of the limited time, I find that I typically err AFF on theoretical objections much more than I would in a policy round.

I believe that any argument that an AFF wants to weigh in the 2AR needs to be in the 1AR. I will vote against new 2AR arguments.

I believe that NEG has an obligation to clash with the AFF. For this reason, a counterplan would only be justified in a round when the AFF argues for a plan; otherwise a counterplan is an argument for the AFF. The NEG must force a decision, and for that reason, I am not fond of what used to be called a 'balance neg.'