I did policy debate at UNLV for four years. I'm in my last semester of law school at UNLV. While I read everything except pomo in my career, I ended my career focusing on traditional policy arguments. I am open to all types of arguments. I'm a bit pursuaded by t/fw, but ultimately i think it comes down the debating done in the round.

K's - I think the only thing worth mentioning is that I have a high threshold for the explanation of the alt (how it solves, what it does, etc). I believe that the best k's are the ones that genuinely interact with the aff. Debate is a game of clash. I think the threshold for alt solvency has dropped far too much in the past couple of years.

Negative strategy – I believe in preserving maximum strategic and theoretical flexibility for negative teams. I don’t believe contradictions are a bad thing early in the debate, as long as the negative block and the 2nr is consistent. Edit: I think k perf con often justifies perm do the alt, especially when the framing on the k is a question of epistemology / scholarship


CPs—The text of the CP (and all perms) should be written out, and I hold them to as high a standard as I do the affirmative plan. I do not think that a negative team should be afraid to CP in the 2NC (it is a constructive, aff gets a CX, and the risk of a straight turn in the 1AR should check any abuse). These 2NC counter plans could be used to make external impact turns or uniqueness takeouts go away.

T- I'm going to steal this from Matt Gomez because I agree with him:
IMPACT YOUR STANDARDS. Education, ground, and fairness are internal links. Decision-making, Advocacy, and research skills are impacts.
Affirmative team: Counter standards and tell me what affs they'd eliminate from the topic and why those affs are good.
Negative Team: What affs do they allow, why are they bad, what affs do you allow, why does that resolve their impacts.

DA's - DA's are awesome.

LD -- I really enjoy an in-depth value/vc debate. If you tell me to evaluate the debate a certain way and have offensive reasons for why that's good; i'll do it. I think it's strategic in framing out offense.

I feel like the best type of debaters to these things consistently:
a) Consistently compare evidence—“our evidence on X argument is better than theirs for the following reasons.” These reasons may include, but are not limited to qualifications, recency, history is on our side, more complete/better warrants, etc.
b) Saying things like, “even if you don’t believe that we are winning argument X, we still win the debate, because…”
c) Consistently engage in effective impact comparison
d) Remember that defensive arguments are still important
e) Be deep on offensive arguments. A few well developed arguments in the block are typically better than 7 or 8 shallowly developed arguments.
f) Are unafraid to make logical arguments forcefully, without necessarily using “cards” as evidence.

cadecottrell@gmail.com

Updated February 2024

Yes I know my philosophy is unbearably long. I keep adding things without removing others, the same reason I was always top heavy when I debated. But I tried to keep it organized so hopefully you can find what you need, ask me questions if not.

For the few college tournaments I judge, understand that my philosophy is geared towards being of use to high school students since that is the vast, vast majority of my judging/coaching. Just use that as a filter when reading.

Seriously, I don't care what you read as long as you do it well. I really don't care if you argue that all K debaters should be banned from debate or argue that anyone who has ever read a plan is innately racist and should be kicked out of the community. If you win it, I'm happy to vote for it.

***Two Minutes Before A Debate Version***

I debated in high school for a school you've never heard of called Lone Peak, and in college for UNLV. I coached Green Valley High School, various Las Vegas schools, as well as helping out as a hired gun at various institutions. I have debated at the NDT, was nationally competitive in high school, and coached a fair share of teams to the TOC if those things matter for your pref sheet (they shouldn't). I genuinely don't have a big bias for either side of the ideological spectrum. I seem to judge a fairly even mix of K vs K, Clash of Civs, and policy debates. I can keep up with any speed as long as its clear, I will inform you if you are not, although don't tread that line because I may miss arguments before I speak up. If you remain unclear I just won't flow it.

Sometimes I look or act cranky. I love debate and I love judging, so don't take it too seriously.

My biases/presumptions (but can of course be persuaded otherwise):

- Tech over Truth, but Logic over Cards

- Quality and Quantity are both useful.

- Condo is generally good

- Generic responses to the K are worse than generic K's

- Politics and States are generally theoretically legitimate (and strategic)

- Smart, logical counterplans don't necessarily need solvency advocates, especially not in the 1NC

- #Team1%Risk

- 2NC's don't read new off case positions often enough

- I believe in aff flexibility (read: more inclusive interpretations of what's topical) more than almost anyone I know. That is demonstrated in almost every aff I've read or coached.

- I'll vote for "rocks are people" if you win it (warrant still needed). Terrible arguments are easily torn apart, but that's the other team's duty, not mine.

***

A Few Notes You Should Know:

Speaker Points: Firstly, I compare my speaker points to the mean after almost every tournament, so I try to stay in line with the community norm. I have had a dilemma with speaker points, and have recently changed my view. I think most judges view speaker points as a combination of style and substance, with one being more valuable than the other depending on the judge. I have found this frustrating as both a debater and coach trying to figure what caused a judge to give out the speaks they did. So I've decided to give out speaker points based solely on style rather than substance. I feel whichever team wins the substance of the debate will get my ballot so you are already rewarded, so I am going to give out speaker points based on the Ethos, Pathos, and Logos of a debater. Logos implies you are still extending good, smart arguments, but it just means that I won't tank speaks based off of technical drops (like floating pics, or a perm, etc) as some judges do, and I won't reward a team's speaker points for going for those arguments if I feel they are worse "speakers", the ballot is reward enough. Functionally all it means is that I probably give more low-point wins than some judges (about one a tournament), but at least you know why when looking at cume sheets after tournaments.

Debate is a rhetorical activity. This means if you want me to flow an argument, it must be intelligible, and warranted. I will not vote on an argument I do not have on my flow in a previous speech. I am a decent flow so don't be too scared but it means that if you are planning on going for your floating pic, a specific standard/trick on theory, a permutation that wasn't answered right in the block, etc. then you should make sure I have that argument written down and that you have explained it previously with sufficient nuance. I might feel bad that I didn't realize you were making a floating pic in the block, but only briefly, and you'll feel worse because ultimately it is my responsibility to judge based off of what is on my flow, so make those things clear. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

(*Update: This is no longer true in online debate tournaments, I look through docs because of potential clairty/tech issues*: I don't look at speech docs during debates except in rare instances. I read much less evidence after debates than most judges, often none at all. If you want me to read evidence, please say so, but also please tell me what I'm looking for. I prefer not to read evidence, so when I do after a round it means one of three things: 1. The debate is exceedingly close and has one or two issues upon which I am trying to determine the truth (rare). 2. You asked me to read the evidence because "its on fire" (somewhat common and potentially a fire hazard). 3. The debate was bad enough that I am trying to figure out what just happened.)

Prep time: I generally let teams handle their own prep, I do prefer if you don't stop prep until the email is sent. Doing so will make me much happier. If you are very blatantly stealing prep, I might call you out on it, or it might affect speaker points a little.

***

Neg: I am very much in favor of depth over breadth. Generally that doesn't affect how I feel about large 1NC's but it means I find myself thinking "I wish they had consolidated more in the block" quite often, and almost never the opposite. If you don't consolidate much, you might be upset with the leeway I give to 1AR/2AR explanations. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate. Pick your best arguments and go to battle.

DA's: I love in-depth disad debates. Teams that beat up on other teams with large topic disads usually have one of two things: A. A large number of pre-written blocks B. A better understanding of the topic than their opponents. If you have both, or the latter, I'll quite enjoy the debate. If you only have the former, then you can still get the ballot but not as much respect (or speaker points). Small disads very specific to the aff are awesome. Small disads that are small in order to be unpredictable are not. I am of the "1% risk" discipline assuming that means the disad is closely debated. I am not of that discipline if your disad is just silly and you are trying to win it is 1% true, know the difference.

CP's: I have a soft spot for tricky counterplans. That doesn't mean I think process/cheating counterplans are legitimate, that just means I'll leave my bias at the door more than most judges if you get into a theory debate. That said, theory is won or lost through explanation, not through having the largest blocks. Generally I think counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive, that doesn't mean you can't win of yours isn't, it just means if it is then you probably have some theoretical high ground. I also think if you have a specific solvency advocate for the counterplan (meaning a piece of evidence that advocates doing the counterplan, not just evidence that says the counterplan "is a thing" [I'm looking at you, Consult CP people]) you should utilize that both as a solvency argument and as a theoretical justification for the counterplan. I am neutral on the judge kick question. If you want me to judge kick, say so in the 2NR/2NC, and if you don't then say so in the 1AR/2AR, that's an argument to be had. However, if no one makes an argument either way, my default is if the 2NR is DA, CP, Case, then I think there is an implicit assumption in that strategy that the squo is an option. If the 2NR is only CP & DA, I think the implicit assumption is aff vs. CP. Advantage counterplans are vastly underutilized. Logical counterplans probably don't need solvency advocates.

T: I think the way reasonability is construed is sad and a disservice to the argument. I perceive competing interpretations as a question of whose interpretation sets the best standard for all future debate, and reasonability as a question of whether the aff harmed the negative's fairness/education in this specific round. Under that interpretation (Caveat: This assumes you are explaining reasonability in that fashion, usually people do not). I tend to lean towards reasonability since I think T should be a check against aff's that try to skirt around the topic, rather than as a catch-all. T is to help guarantee the neg has predictable ground. I've voted neg a few times when the aff has won their interp is technically accurate but the neg has won their interp is better for fairness/limits/ground, but that's mostly because I think that technical accuracy/framer's intent is an internal link, rather than an impact. Do the additional work.

Theory: This is a discussion of what debate should look like, which is one of the most simple questions to ask ourselves, yet people get very mixed up and confused on theory since we are trained to be robots. I LOVE theory debates where the debaters understand debate well enough to just make arguments and use clash, and HATE debates where the debaters read blocks as fast as possible and assume people can flow that in any meaningful fashion (very few can, I certainly can't. Remember, I don't have the speech doc open). I generally lean negative on theory questions like condo (to a certain extent) and CP theory args, but I think cp's should be textually, and more importantly, functionally competitive, see above.

Framework/T against Non-Traditional Aff's: I have read and gone for both the Procedural Fairness/T version of this argument and the State Action Good/Framework version of this argument many times. I am more than willing to vote for either, and I also am fine with teams that read both and then choose one for the 2NR. However, I personally am of the belief that fairness is not an impact in and of itself but is an internal link to other impacts. If you go for Fairness as your sole impact you may win, but adequate aff answers to it will be more persuasive in front of me. Fairness as the only impact assumes an individual debate is ultimately meaningless, which while winnable, is the equivalent of having a 2NR against a policy aff that is solely case defense, and again I'm by default #1%RiskClub. "Deliberation/dialogue/nuanced discussion/role switching is key to ____________" sorts of arguments are usually better in front of me. As far as defending US action, go for it. My personal belief is that the US government is redeemable and reformable but I am also more than open to voting on the idea that it is not, and these arguments are usually going straight into the teeth of the aff's offense so use with caution. TVA's are almost essential for a successful 2NR unless the aff is clearly anti-topical and you go for a nuanced switch side argument. TVA's are also most persuasive when explained as a plan text and what a 1AC looks like, not just a nebulous few word explanation like "government reform" or "A.I. to solve patriarchy". I like the idea of an interp with multiple net benefits and often prefer a 1NC split onto 3-4 sheets in order to separate specific T/FW arguments. If you do this, each should have a clear link (which is your interp), an internal link and impact. Lastly, I think neg teams often let affs get away with pre-requisite arguments way too much, usually affs can't coherently explain why reading their philosophy at the top of the 1AC and then ending with a plan of action doesn't fulfill the mandates of their pre-requisite.

K's: These are the best and worst debates. The bad ones tend to be insufferable and the good ones tend to be some of the most engaging and thought provoking. Sadly, most debaters convince themselves they fall into the latter when they are the former so please take a good, long look in the mirror before deciding which you fall under. I have a broad knowledge of K authors, but not an in depth one on many, so if you want to go for the K you better be doing that work for me, I won't vote for anything that I don't totally understand BEFORE reading evidence, because I think that is a key threshold any negative should meet (see above), so a complex critical argument can be to your advantage or disadvantage depending on how well you explain it. I also think the framing args for the K need to be impacted and utilized, that in my opinion is the easiest way to get my ballot (unless you turn case or win a floating pic). In other words, if you can run the K well, do it, if not, don't (at least not in the 2NR).

Edit: I think it usually helps to know what the judge knows about your critique, so this list below may help be a guide:

I feel very comfortable with, know the literature, and can give good feedback on: Nietzsche, Wilderson, Moten (& Harney), Security, Neoliberalism, Historical Materialism, Colonialism (both Decoloniality and Postcolonialism), Fem IR, Deleuze and Guattari (at least relative to most).

I have both debated and read these arguments, but still have gaps in my knowledge and may not know all the jargon: Hillman, Schmitt, Edelman, Zizek cap args, Agamben, Warren, Ableism, Kristeva, Heidegger, Orientalism, Virillio, Lacan, Anthro, Ligotti, Bataille, settler colonialism metaphysics arguments.

ELI5: Baudrillard, postmodern feminism arguments, Killjoy, Bifo, Zizek psychoanalysis, Object Oriented Ontology, Spanos, Buddhism, Taoism, your specific strain of "cybernetics", probably anything that isn't on these lists but ask first.

***

Aff:

Bad aff teams wait til the 2AR to decide what their best arguments are against a position. Good aff teams have the round vision to make strategic choices in the 1AR and exploit them in the 2AR. Great aff teams have the vision to create a comprehensive strategy going into the 2AC. That doesn't mean don't give yourself lots of options, it just means you should know what arguments are ideally in the 2AR beforehand and you should adapt your 2AC based off of the 1NC as a whole. Analytical arguments in a 2AC are vastly underused.

Non-Traditional Affirmatives: I'm fine with these. They don't excite me any more or less than a topical aff. I think the key to these aff's is always framing. Both because negatives often go for framework but also because it is often your best tool against their counter-advocacy/K. I often am more persuaded by Framework/T when the aff is antitopical, rather than in the direction of the resolution, but I've voted to the contrary of that frequently enough. This won't affect the decision but I'll enjoy the aff more if it is very specific (read: relevant/jermaine/essential) to the topic, or very personal to yourself, it annoys me when people read non-traditional aff's just to be shady. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

Answering K's: It is exceedingly rare that the neg can't win a link to their K. That doesn't mean you shouldn't question the link by any means, permutations are good ways to limit the strength of neg offense, but it means that impact turning the K/alternative is very often a better strategy than going for a link turn and permutation for 5 minutes in the 2AR. I think this is a large reason why aff's increasingly have moved further right or further left, because being stuck in the middle is often a recipe for disaster. That said, being able to have a specific link turn or impact turn to the K that is also a net benefit to the permutation while fending against the most offensive portions of negative link arguments are some of the best 2AR's.

Last Notes:

I prefer quality over quantity of arguments. If you only need a minute in the 2NR/2AR then just use a minute, cover up any outs, and finish. I believe in the mercy rule in that sense. I will vote against teams that clip and give the culprit 0 speaker points, however I believe in the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", so be certain before levying accusations and make sure to have a recording. (Explicitly tell me that you want to issue a clipping challenge, I've had debaters email me and I don't see it, or wait until after the debate. Don't do that.)

I'll give you +.1 speaker points if you can tell me what phrase appears the most in my philosophy. Because it shows you care, you want to adapt to your judge, and maybe because I'm a tad narcissistic.

Things I like:
- A+ Quality Evidence (If you have such a card, and you explain why its better than the 3+ cards the other team read, I accept that more willingly than other judges)

- Brave (strategic) 1AR/2AR decisions

- Politics disads that turn each advantage

- If you are behind, I'd much rather you cheat/lie/steal (maybe not steal, and cheat within reason) than give up. If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'.

- Neg blocks that only take 1-2 flows and just decimate teams.

- Controlling the "spin" of arguments (I'll give a lot of leeway)

- Red Bull/Monster/M&M's (Bringing me any of these will make me happy, me being happy generally correlates to higher speaker points)

Things I don't like:
- Not knowing how to send speech docs in a timely manner!

- Debaters that act like they are of superior intelligence compared to their partner/opponents

- Reading arguments with little value other than trying to blindside teams (timecube, most word pics, etc.) Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

- Being unclear

- Horses (Stop acting like they're so goddamn majestic, they're disgusting)

- Toasted Coconut

I'm open to any arguments as long as they are run well and make sense, but will not grant you the argument if you do not execute it well. I’ve done XC, PF, LD and Congress so I am comfortable with all sorts of styles of debate, speed, and ideas.

Something that I specifically value is warranting arguments. It is extremely hard for me to vote you up if you cannot explain your evidence to me. For me to evaluate the argument, the team must explain to me why the facts are important in context to the debate, and how they were derived. Logical and analytical arguments are all fair game, and much appreciated. With that being said, if you want me to evaluate a decision based on important pieces of evidence, make sure you keep referencing the evidence and highlight it throughout the debate.

Because I am a very flow judge, make sure you extend arguements from the rebuttle, to the summary, and finally, to the final focus or else it is very hard for me to evaluate the arguement as a reason to vote for you. 

Apart from that, I’m quite lenient in terms of theory as long as it is fair to the other team; usually if there are three or more conditional arguments, I’ll consider a vote for theory.

I don't flow cross-ex, but use it to persuade me. If an arguement arises from the cross-ex, make sure you repeat it in your speech. 

Also, there's no need to extend your case in the rebuttle. The rebuttle is only for rebutting the opposing case. 

As for speed, as long as both sides are okay with spreading, so am I. Just make sure you slow down during the analytics, taglines and framework! 

Green Valley HS (NV) '15

UNLV '19

Put me on email chains please - jeffreyrhorn96@gmail.com

Top Level

-Tech over truth, with two caveats: 1) dropped args aren't true if I don't understand them or they were never complete arguments. 2) The bar for explanation is higher the less intuitive the argument is.

-Specificity is crucial. This is true universally regardless of the type of debate. I am usually unpersuaded by the generic nature of framing pages. My tendency is to err on the side of contextualized, specific analysis of a war that could happen over general "no war" theory. Similarly, I don't know what to do with arguments like "util=genocide".

-I try to judge as objectively as possible. I'll vote for just about any argument. I'm very unlikely to be persuaded by "death/suffering/extinction" good.

-"insert rehighlighting" is debatable. I lean towards its allowed if the rehighlighting is summarized. To me, this is no different than a debater just making the argument that evidence in the un-underlined portion says "X", and then after the debate the judge might ask for the debater to point to the paragraphs they are referencing. I can also be persuaded that "insert rehighlighting" is infinitely regressive. If you just re-highlight all of the other side's cards and don't explain the arguments in the re-highlighting until the 2ar, I'm not considering it.

-No touching.

Neg Ks vs. Policy Affs

-It'll be difficult to convince me the Aff can't weigh the plan

-The key for me is explaining how the plan causes a unique increase in suffering that some metric can measure. I dislike tying the plan to some abstract theory and explaining why that abstract worldview is bad.

-Alts should do things and are often under-explained.

K Affs

-I'll vote for them. However, in the spirit of honesty, I am generally persuaded by topicality.

-This predisposition has the best chance of being overcome if the Aff 1) explains what the role of the negative and the judge is in their model of debate and why disagreement is necessary. 2) Focus on 1-2 well-explained offensive arguments. 3) Soundly defeat "do it on the neg" and any "topical versions".

-I think fairness can be an impact in and of itself. Variations of "skills" impacts can be too.

-I am more persuaded by the genre of "skills" impacts when the neg is less hyperbolic (read: topical debates solve global warming). Affs often don't dedicate enough time to dismantling hyperbolic impacts to topicality.

Topicality (in policy debates)

-Arbitrariness matters most to me. The question of whose interpretation is more limited/has better ground seems to fall secondary to whether the interpretation is a predictable one. This is where both sides should invest the most time.

-Reasonability is under-utilized. It's usually just explained "come on, we're close." I find the more persuasive version to be an argument about how high to set the ballot threshold for T. If the differences between the interpretations are very marginal, substance crowd out and the possible moral hazard for the neg to go for T seems like a legitimate concern.

Counterplans

-I default to thinking the status quo is always a logical option for the neg. Debating can reverse this. The neg should still flag the possibility of judge kick early and often. The aff should object to judge kick in the 1ar to increase the chances of sticking the neg with the CP.

-I'm usually persuaded the CP linking less than the plan matters. Links are probabilistic assessments.

-Lean neg on conditionality, states, solvency advocates, multi-branch fiat, self-restraint. Can be reversed but I'm generally skeptical of the arbitrariness of most theory arguments.

-Arbitrary conditionality interpretations are unpersuasive. The only logical limit seems to be one.

-Lean aff on international fiat, consult, conditions, delay, and combined federal and state fiat. Also can be reversed with debating.

-I'm very unpersuaded by theory arguments that devolve to "the CP is too good" or "they fiated out of our internal links or solvency deficits". Every CP should "fiat out of deficits", otherwise it wouldn't solve.

Disads

-"Turns case" and "solves case" are different and should be answered differently. Both these arguments are very important and both sides should be thorough in explaining/answering "turns/solves case".

-Better than most for politics, but most politics DAs have no defensible internal link. You still need good evidence.

-Impact comparison wins debates.

Key Considerations:

• Substance and quality of argument outweighs style of argumentation.

• Provide a clear thesis for which you are contending and make sure that you accomplish it in such a rate of delivery that can be followed.

• Strong development of IMPACTS, appropriate evidence, proper linkage are all assets in round.

• Healthy clash is encouraged so that each posited argument clearly claims its unique ground. Vigorous clash is welcomed as long as it is with clear respect for one's opponents.

• In the end, give me a clear route to giving you a winning ballot.

Experience:

• This is ONLY MY SECOND YEAR Speech and Debate coach. I am still learning and adjusting. I have judged in Public Forum, Congress and Lincoln Douglas debates at district tournaments, state tournaments and national tournaments.

POLICY DEBATE

I competed in varsity policy debate for one year, and 2015-2016 is my fourth season judging high school policy debate. I am a policymaker judge.

And, I hate spreading!

• I will not flow arguments I don't understand because of your poor delivery skills
• I can't extend your argument through a round if I never had it down at all
• One of your goals as a CX debater is to stack as many arguments as you can, but you absolutely must remain within your own limit of what you can deliver properly

This is a public speaking debate event. Act and speak like it. If you simply want to have the most number of arguments for "education" purposes, you should instead write 50-page white papers and I'd gladly read them. If you are going too fast, I will call "clear" or drop my pen or just stare at you or any combination thereof, thus, not flowing.

IMPORTANT: Signpost, signpost, signpost!

I don't want to have to figure out for you where your argument or card ends and where the next one starts. It's your job to tell me that. If you don't, and tell me in a later speech to extend an argument you did not signpost properly, I won't be able to find your argument.

If you must deviate from your roadmap, say it. If you're all over the place, you risk my not being able to catch an argument because I'm trying to find where to flow you. Organization is also critical in your speaker points.

Stock issues are prima facie burdens

Aff always has the prima facie burden of proving stock issues. Aff can lose my ballot if the burden of proof for ALL stock issues are not met.

• Topicality: Yes, I vote on T, but Neg has a responsibility to run sensible and ethical T arguments. I've voted against T many times before for being outlandish, frivolous, or otherwise a misrepresentation of facts.

Cards that say differently from their tags...

...Are unethical, abusive, and strictly prohibited. If there is a dispute, be prepared to show me the cards in question. If this is a pattern, expect your speaker points to plummet, and could potentially cost you the round.

Tag team cross-examination: Never in varsity rounds, always in novice rounds. I may prohibit this in JV rounds if at least one student opposes it very strongly. When tag teaming is allowed, I will still score each speaker's performance separately.

Cross-examination and prep time: I don't flow cross-examination so they don't affect who wins the round, but they are a large part of your speaker points and should affect how you try to win my ballot. Stealing prep time is strictly prohibited. "Stop prep" means that you are ready to transfer, not save, your files. When somebody has already stood up ready to give me a roadmap and start the speech, no one is allowed to be prepping in the background.

Kritiks: I'm a policymaker judge. If you can't present a K with the stated goal of directly affecting the policy I should enact/reject as your adjudicator, don't run K. If you can, more power to you!

CPs, PICs: These are fair game. I'm open to basic theory debate about CPs and PICs. But, other than that, I am a policymaker judge.

Speaker points: Because this is a high-speed debate (but I still do hate spreading!), I will not judge your body language technique. But, I will judge your overall attitude, which shows very evidently in your body language. How you speak - voice, enunciation, inflection, analysis, rhetoric, organization, etc. - will all be judged. I will only judge arguments on my flow, not performance, to determine who wins the round. I very rarely give perfect speaker points because most policy debaters tend to be good at spewing and absolutely terrible at delivery skills.

Theory debate: I'm a policymaker judge. Some theory arguments may be necessary, but I will hate a round full of theory blocks.

No new arguments in rebuttals!

This is simple and straightforward. Read new cards in the rebuttals if necessary but only to support arguments you've already made in the constructives. That said:

• If 2AC drops 1NC argument: it will be considered conceded as Aff does not have another chance to counter it
• If 2NC drops an Aff argument: the 1NR cannot construct a new argument to counter it
• If the 2NC constructs a new argument: the 1AR must answer or drop, where a drop means conceded

Judge Philosophy 

Green Valley HS (NV) ‘15

Cornell University (NY) ‘19

I debated policy 3 years for Green Valley High School (2A/1N)

Not super familiar with the surveillance topic, but I debated a ton of rounds on Oceans and LA.

Short Version

Debate the style that best suits your skills and interests. Don’t compromise your best strategies because of the judge. Tech > Truth. Be reasonable with your strategies and don’t test my threshold for overly tricky or asinine ideas - you’ll likely get low speaker points/a loss. However, a well executed subtle trick that develops into a a warrented strategy over multiple speeches will likely get a laugh and good speaker points.

Aff Comments

I’m comfortable with both topical/traditional affirmatives as well as more abstract leftist affirmatives. I don’t have a strong preference between the two and will evaluate the argument as you present it. However, I do prefer when traditional affirmatives with clear stories and relevant impact scenarios (3 well constructed I/L stories are better than 10 blippy impact scenarios). With Non-Traditional Affs, I would like them to be topically relevant and provide some sort of meaningful education or purpose. 

Neg Comments

Again read what you enjoy. I have a decent familiarity with most common K literature, although I’m not well versed on identity literature. Arguments I’ve read include Security, Biopolitics, Cap, Nietzsche, Chow. If you explain your arguments (ie not buzzwords/random phrases), I will evaluate so don’t be afraid but don’t assume I’m 100% familiar. 

Half of my 1NR’s in high school were politics, so a well developed Disad/Politics argument will also be appreciated

Specifics

Topicality - Should have well defined interpretation, violation, and standards. Reasonability is debatably good. I tend to agree that T/Framework is the best strategy against untopical affs but that requires good explanation on the whole. 

Disads

Disads are a lot of fun and can make for a really enjoyable debate if they are well explained and related to the affirmative. Politics is also very interesting as long as the link is apparent and the story of the DA isn’t too convoluted. 

CP

Generic counterplan debates aren’t too interesting, but a well coupled counter plan and net benefit can be cool. Don’t assume I’ll kick the CP for you and assume that it’s conditional unless specified. Winning a high risk of a Disad and a risk of the counterplan solving better than the aff makes for an easy neg ballot. For the aff team, point out solvency deficits, shady theory points, put offense on the CP, and make warranted permutations (more than 3 is probably not legit). 

Kritiks 

As I mentioned above, I’m familiar with most broad types of Kritik literature and will listen to both. If you have a more nuanced kritik, please read it and explain it well for an in depth debate. Links to the case are probably disadvantages to the permutation and most alternatives don’t likely do much but tricks + explanation can push that either way. Framing the Kritik top level is important for accessing a lot of offense on either side, so a clean/concise overview will help sway my ballot. Keep overviews to the point, not intentionally long. 

Case 

The case debate is important and a lot of people seem to ignore it. Specific lines/warrants taken from the opponents cards will make for great case arguments. Reading Fettweis ‘11 - Heg Fails is not the same as 2-3 cards about the plan and its specific solvency advocate. I won’t vote neg on case defense alone, but some smart case arguments coupled with a good K or DA strategy can be devastating. 

Theory 

I’m not a huge fan of theory debates because they end up being block heavy/easy outs to avoid substance debates. However, sometimes they are necessary to pressure a neg team that is being abusive. 2-3 conditional advocacies are pretty safe. I think mild contradictions are safe for a neg team, but dedev + a politics DA w/ an Econ scenario are problematic and I will vote aff most likely if they concede one and use it as offense against the other. 

Traditional Affs

As stated above, I like traditional affs with clear impact scenarios and well warranted claims. Half of my senior year I read a soft left aff with really well warranted evidence, so I very much enjoy that type of aff although topicality is always in question with small affs. If you’re a straight up team do your thing. 

Non - Traditional Affs

Read them if you enjoy them and don’t be afraid to discuss your argument in detail. The other half of my senior year I read a non-traditional aff all of the usual aff tricks (fiat not real,  framework is policing, state bad, we = the people, antonio 95, etc.) although I think the ones related to the content of your aff are best. I think T/Framework is the best strategy as I said against non-traditional affs and those debates are usually the most interesting. 

Speaking/Misc. 

I’m comfortable with comprehensible speeds.

Clarity is the most important thing when speaking. Conveying ideas between multiple parties is a nexus point in this activity, so speak in a way that can be understood. If I don’t catch what you say I likely won’t flow it and that matters more than reading an extra two PC not key cards. If it becomes excessive I’ll yell clear 1-2 times and then I’ll stop flowing. 

**Although Ahmad Bhatti was faster than Jeffrey Horn, sometimes it was easier to flow Jeffrey due to clarity. Even better than both was Cade Cottrell because it was possible to understand all of his words. **

Speaker points are arbitrary but I’ll follow a pretty standard scale 

27.5 - Not particularly clean/clear/knowledgable 

28.0 - Decently clear/knows most of their arguments/sometimes difficult to understand

28.5- Solid debater good speaking style/understanding of ideas/ very few moment of unclarity 

29.0 - Clear/concise/plans ahead with speeches and really understands debate

29.5- Top 10 speakers in the pool/good luck in outrounds 

Anything below would be from forfeit/excessively rude behavior (which isn’t acceptable)/extraneous circumstances. 

Debate is a lot of fun, so enjoy yourselves and learn something new. Good Luck. 

About Me 

"The Better Stransky"

I debated 4 years at Green Valley High School (NV) and am currently studying at Arizona State University.

Short 

·      I’m generally willing to vote on anything

·      Be comfortable with what you’re reading

·      Better to be clear than fast on the big picture

·      It’s ok to be aggressive, don’t be a jerk and don’t clip cards

Long

·      Links are better than impacts. If you’re not explaining the link/internal link to the impact of your argument, then there’s little reason for me to evaluate the impact.

·      Explain the warrants to your claims. Don’t just extend the claim without any analysis on what the evidence actually says. That’s a poor way to debate and will not go on my flow

·      I can tell whether or not what you’re reading is what you’re most comfortable with. Read the arguments that you know best and not just because you think the other team won’t be able to answer it.

·      Don’t just reiterate your arguments and read new ones in the 2nd constructive, make sure you’re answering the line by line. It’s hard to evaluate a debate when there isn’t any clash.

·      I don’t care how fast you go as long as your clear and efficient. Good organization and how you present the argument will get you more speaker points.

Specific Arguments

·      K affs – I read and debated against K affs in high school so I am familiar with them. You don’t need a plan text to read a K aff. Make sure the aff is related to the resolution with an advocacy statement and not just a waste of my time.

·      Topicality - I will usually default to reasonability on the aff in terms of T. I will still evaluate topicality, but the negative interpretation needs to have an external impact as to why the aff’s interpretation is bad and why your interpretation solves. Don’t just say “we lose ground” or they “underlimit” the topic if you’re the negative, explain why that is bad.

·      Disads – I loved reading PTX in high school as well as core DA’s specific to the topic. Like I said before, explain the link and internal link in the argument and not just the impact. Sure you’re impact may outweigh, but if there isn’t any analysis on the internal link level, then I can easily vote for no risk of the impact.

·      Counterplans – I’ll evaluate all types of counterplans, just make sure as the negative to have a net benefit to the CP or it’ll make it harder for me to vote on. Don’t just say “we have 100% solvency” without explaining why. I like PIC’s as well, just make sure to be sharp on theory

·      Critiques – I have a pretty small lit base in terms of the K. That doesn’t mean I won’t evaluate the K, it just means that a lot of analysis needs to be included for me to understand what the argument is saying. Make sure to go in depth on the link and alternative. How does the aff specifically link the K and why is the alt more effective than the aff.

·      Framework – I like a good framework debate. In terms of competing interpretations, don’t just explain why your interpretation is better for debate, but explain why your opponents’ interpretation is bad. Also, don’t just give me a list of standards as to why your interp is best, isolate an external impact

·      Theory – I generally will default to reject the argument, except on conditionality. A couple of things when going for theory on the aff. 1) Don’t spread theory blocks. If you have 6 different reasons why I should reject the team, go through them slowly so I can catch all of them. Like T and Framework, isolate an external impact to why I should theoretically reject the team. 2) Conditionality – I will err neg on conditionality as long as they are being reasonable with the amount of conditional advocacies they read. Having more than two is definitely not going to do the neg many favors.

Miscellaneous

Speaking - It's very difficult to catch things on my flow if you're going as fast as possible. My main thing on speed is be clear on the taglines and on the authors. That way I can catch each individual piece of evidence. Be as clear as possible when you are spreading the evidence itself. I'll yell out clear 1 or 2 times, after that I stop flowing. 

Flashing Arguments - I had a very slow computer in high school, so I understand how it would take a long time to flash the other team your evidence. Be reasonable with it and let me know if you're computer is being slow

Prep - I will let the debaters handle their own prep time. Prep ends when the flash drive is out of the computer (unless computer is taking forever). I hate teams that steal prep time. I can tell when a team is prepping by the sounds of the typing on the computer or when someone is writing on a piece of paper. Be fair to each other during the debate.

Speaker Points - A good way to earn yourselves extra speaker points is by slipping in some jokes in your speech. The highest speaker points will go to the debater that makes the smart/brave decisions in the round. If you don't need the entire speech time to finish what you need to say, then end your speech early. Don't just repeat the same stuff over and over again to use up time. I won't give anyone under 27.0 unless they are rude/cheating. I average around 28-28.5 for debaters that did a good job and made some pretty decent arguments. 28.5-29 goes to debates that make very smart/bold decisions in the round that earn them the win. 29-29.5 will go to debaters who I think deserve a speaker award in the tournament or debaters who just dominated the debate round. Anything higher than 29.5 will go to who I think is the best speaker in the tournament. 

Things I like:

- Brave decisions in the 2AR/2NR
- Good jokes about Alex Stransky (Will earn you extra speaker points)
- The Politics DA (I especially like teams that decimate teams with it)
- 1-2 flows in the neg block that dig a hole for the aff
- Teams that have confidence in the decisions they make
- Arizona Sports teams (Jokes about any team could earn you bonus speaker points)

Things I don't like:

- Arguments that I have trouble understanding
- Rudeness during CX (Ask a question and get an answer, don't try to overwhelm the other team with a bunch of questions at one time)
- Debaters that take a long time to use a flash drive under normal circumstances (see above about flashing arguments)
- Debaters that clip cards/cheat

Updated 8/22/2019

She/her

I am a former coach and debater from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. I am currently a Masters student at the University of Nevada Las Vegas.

3rd year judging college debate

6th year judging high school debate

N/A rounds on the college topic judged so far

8 rounds judged on the high school topic so far

Please include me on the email chain - Email:Taylor3@unlv.nevada.edu

*strongly prefer email over pocketbox(or speech drop)

TLDR Version:
I am willing to evaluate any arguments that you make, as long as you explain and execute it well. There is no need to change your arguments to something you think I like or will vote on, just give me the best debate you can, using your best arguments, and you will be fine. I try very hard to keep my personal opinions out of my decision as much as possible. I am more of a tech > truth judge, because I think technical debate is good debate. If you aren't doing line by line debate, or keeping things organized in some other manner, my flows probably look a mess which isn't good for anyone, so please keep things clean.

Long Version:
I will attempt to be as neutral as possible and evaluate the arguments presented in the debate independent of my own opinions.

I think it is important to EXTEND WARRANTS inside your evidence. You should explain the importance/relevance/ implications of the evidence as well. Tagline extended claims without warrants are not complete arguments.

Smart analytical arguments beat terrible cards all day, every day. Please don't just card dump if you never plan to explain any of those arguments or worse yet, if you aren't sure what to say. I would prefer you take the time to logically think through the other teams arguments than just read a bunch of cards that don't make arguments.

Judge Instructions/Directions: This is super important, especially in the last rebuttals, tell me why I should vote for you in response to the other teams arguments about why I should vote for them. Tell me how I should begin evaluating the round by comparing your arguments to the other team's.

Theory: Slow down on theoretical arguments, or I won't be able to flow them. They should not be read at the same speed as a card. I am fine to adjudicate theory args but you need to be specific, tell me how many conditional advocacies is too many and what specific abuse that causes.

Affirmatives with a plan: If I don't understand what the aff does at the end of the round or how it accesses its impacts, I won't vote for it. Make sure you are contextualizing your arguments to the specific round and not just reading generic blocks.

Critical Affirmatives- I am open to critical affirmatives that either defend a relationship to the topic or make offense reasons as to why they don't have to. Be careful about trying to be tricky, it may confuse the other team (idk why you want that) but it could easily backfire and leave me lost as well.

Negative critical arguments: I am willing to vote on any argument as long as it is well explained and has specific links to the aff. Your Kritik should have an alt and impact that is explained by the negative, I am highly unlikely to vote negative if you do not extend the alt. I am not familiar with all critical arguments, but I have had experience with a wide variety; capitalism, ableism, queerness, and anti-blackness are the arguments I am most familiar with. My last year as a debater I primarily read Warren on the negative, so I am most familiar with afro pessimism arguments when it comes to my understanding of anti-blackness. Good alt explanation can resolve any lack of knowledge I have. I am not a fan of post modernist critiques so it is a slightly higher threshold for explanation. The affirmative should always permutate critical arguments, and explain how the permutation functions, as well as how it resolves any residual links to the kritik.

Other negative arguments
CPs— I am fine with counterplans, but prefer they have some sort of solvency advocate as well as a net benefit. The text of the CP (and all perms) should be written out, and distributed to the other team. Affirmative permutations need to be explained, if you go for it, I need to know why I should prefer the perm to the CP and how it gets out of any DA links.

Disadvantages- I really like a DA vs. Case debate, but you need to have a link to the aff. Make sure to explain how the aff links to the disad and then how it triggers the impact(have a clear link story).

Topicality- I feel that it is a very strategic argument to be made in debate. Needs to be well articulated with both sides submitting competing interpretations. T arguments should be extremely structured and organized to make it easier for me to see why this is a voting issue. If you don't have a TVA and a list of specific abuses caused by the affirmatives interpretation, you will have a hard time winning T in front of me.

Speaker Points- You should be clear and able to explain your arguments well. I enjoy jokes and clever analogies that are relevant to the round and arguments being made. I adjust my points based off the level of debate I am judging, so a 28.5 in Novice is not equal to a 28.5 in Open.

Few other things-

1. Do not steal prep!!!! I do not take time for sending out the document, but when the team that took prep calls time, everyone else should pause until the speech is handed over and begins.
2. Only one person should be speaking per speech, unless it is a performative necessity or an accessibility issue in which case that should be made clear during the debate.
3. Flow! If you are not flowing I notice and it probably reflects in the quality of your speeches, in particular the line by line debate.
4. My face is pretty expressive, if I look confused or annoyed (during a speech or CX) I probably am and you should be reflexive about that.
5. Debate should be fun; it is a game so be nice and courteous to everyone involved.

If you would like something explained further, please feel free to ask me questions before the round or send me an email. If you have any questions about debating in college or about debate in general, feel free to contact me, I am more than happy to help in any way that I can.