Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Hello fellow debate enthusiasts, you probably don't have a lot of time to read this, so I'll get straight to the point. I debated four years of CX debate at Caddo Magnet High in Shreveport, Louisiana (which really means I debated in Texas). I participated in the Harvard Round Robin and got a bid by getting to quarters of Harvard my senior year (2014-2015). I work at the UTNIF Debate camp held at UT Austin during the summer. I am currently in my senior year of college at Louisiana Tech University, where I am majoring in chemistry. As for gender, I am non-binary, specifically agender. Any pronouns are fine with me and you may take your pick of Cole or Juliet.

If you came here to see if you could run your weird and unique argument, the answer is yes, specifically I am fine with any word PIC ("the" PIC included) conditionality theory (my favorite), and many many other weird/sketchy K (and policy) arguments.

Short Version
I have debated everything from politics to the craziest K. I was a 2N for 3 years. Freshman year and sophomore year politics was my jam. Junior year anthro was my jam. Senior year as a 2A, Nietzsche Chaos aff I cut was my jam. Long story short, you do you, and I will do me. I am a tabula rasa- blank slate- I will do my best to only vote on things said in the round. All arguments are still arguments so at least answer them. I WILL VOTE ON ANYTHING.

Long Version

Top Level:
Tabula rasa- anything goes (within reason), debate is a game so play it, tech over truth (in most cases- you wont win that the sky is red or the ocean is orange, but you may win a link if the other team allows you to frame/explain their arguments in such a way that you get the link, even if it is just not true). Clarity over speed. Differentiate between tags and the body of the card. Signpost effectively because a happy judge means more speaker points. NEVER be rude to your opponents or your speaker points will get nuked (especially if you attempt to argue offensive arguments such as sexism or racism good). Keep everything professional and be sportsmanlike. Open C-X is cool as long as one partner doesn't dominate. For paperless, I don't count flashing as prep, but be reasonable and don't steal prep. Stick to the line-by-line instead of huge overviews for better clash. I'll try to keep my biases to a minimum and will basically evaluate the round as I am told (policymaker, academic, etc.). ALSO, bonus speaker points if you make funny references (or references to some of my favorite shows- i.e. Steven Universe, South Park, Adventure Time, Rick and Morty). A little humor never hurt anyone, but don't be disrespectful.

Case:
I love a good case debate with lots of clash. I think case is undervalued a lot these days and usually is underdeveloped. A hugely mitigated case can win you the round. I'm okay with generic impact defense and internal-link take-outs, but never forget analytics. Always point out logical fallacies or exaggerations made by the opponent. Not just for case either; this can apply to other off-case arguments, too.

Disads:
I love disads, but the internal link is where most disads fall apart. True links and true impacts are better than probable (or really, improbable) impacts, but the truth of anything is up for debate, as it should be. Always answer turns the case argument, because they can be damning. Bonus points for case-specific disads.

Counterplans:
Counterplans are awesome, but I'm willing to give the aff some leeway on theory for abusive counterplans like word PICs and process counterplans. On severance and intrinsic perms, I default to rejecting the argument and not the team (if theory is brought up). Again, case-specificity is amazing and will impress me.

Kritiks:
I can follow most critiques pretty well. That being said, don't expect me to do alt work for you. Alt work is the most important thing. Do all your tricky tricky K tricks but explain and impact them. K affs are fine too, but get ready for them framework debates. Please do not mispronounce your author the K is based around (Nietzsche for one).

Theory/Topicality:
Don't be blippy on theory. Slow down. If you don't, I can't flow and that means I may miss a crucial argument. You will get an extra speaker point for actually understanding theory and not reading blocks, but engaging in the warrants of education, fairness, predictability args, etc. RVI's are probably a waste of time. Potential abuse is a voter because its about competing visions of debate, but in-round abuse is also pretty persuasive. Don't just say reasonability - I don't know what it means to be reasonable.

Performance:
I haven't seen much performative debate, but as long as you follow relatively the same guidelines as for everything else (well-warranted explanations and lots of clash) there won't be any problems.

Obviously, I probably forgot something, so if this doesn't answer your questions, you can always ask me during the round :)

I debated on the varsity level at Kingwood High School for three years and went to TFA and UIL State all three years, but I didn’t do that well on the national circuit. I am currently a sophomore at UT, and I don’t debate. I’ve only judged four or five tournaments since high school.

Short version: I’m a tabula rasa judge. I’ll listen to and evaluate any argument, so don’t alter your grand strategy. Read what you’re most comfortable with and most likely to be able to explain and impact well. That being said, no matter what you read, you need to explain it and impact it well above all else. Even if I know your argument inside and out, don’t cut corners.

Long version:

-          Speaking: I’m fine with some speed, as long as you’re clear. I’ll tell you if I can’t understand you.

-          Cross Ex: Use this time to serve a purpose, but don’t make speeches. Also, I have no problem with being aggressive. Intensity is fine, but that doesn’t mean you can prevent your opponent from speaking. If they aren’t answering your question, please move on.

-          Case debate: It’s important. Aff, if they don’t touch your case, you should definitely use that to your advantage.

-          K Affs: I only wrote one K aff in my career, and admittedly it was pretty terrible. If you’re reading a K aff in front of me you need to be very thorough with your explanation. Framing is key. Win that a T version of the aff wouldn’t solve, and you need to tell me the role of the ballot.

-          Framework: If you are just reading blocks back and forth, then this probably won’t be that useful. Case lists, examples and importance ground, and comparison all are good.

-          Disads: You have to do impact comparison. How does the disad relate to the aff?

-          Counterplans: Be competitive. Artificial competition is fine, but functional competition is definitely better.

-          Ks – If it’s outlandish, assume that I have never heard it before and explain it. Generic link and impact analysis isn’t the best. You need the role of the ballot and to set up a clear explanation of your framework.

-          Topicality: I default to reasonability, but if you can win competing interpretations and do a good job with standards then I will definitely vote on it. I don’t really like T on a very obviously topical aff. T is not an RVI.

-          Procedurals: I’ll vote on them, and I think ASPEC has a good abuse story. I really hate things like OSPEC, but I’ll listen to it.S

-          Theory: My threshold for theory is low if there is good impact work and explanation of the abuse story. Always have an interpretation and do good analysis of standards instead of vague extensions hoping for a drop.

I debated at the Liberal Arts and Science Academy (a high school in Austin) and at UT Austin. I am comfortable with policy and K arguments. Make the arguments that you are good at making. I usually go for tech over truth. Be specific and precise. Do evidence comparison. Use examples. In the 2NR and 2AR, make my job easy by explaining the big picture of why I should vote for you.

Maintain some kind of order. If the 2NR has a 4 minute overview, I won't do much work for you.

Theory debates are good. T debates are good. But don't spread through these speeches too quickly.

Do not cheat. Mark your own cards. Do not clip.

Be kind to each other.

Email me if you have any questions and/or complaints about this judge philosophy.

Exp: I debated for four years at Winston Churchill High School in San Antonio, Texas between 2008-2012. I went to camps at UTNIF and GDI. And I've been judging since 2012. Needless to say policy debate and I go way back.

Overview: While I ended my debate career on the left side of argumentation, experimenting with form and critical theory, I would still bust out a strategic cp/D/A where strategy required. At this juncture I enjoy a great policy-oriented debate as much as I enjoy a well argued critical position. If your coach or buddy says they knew how I debated and high school and that you should do 'X' in front of me, disregard them. Be you. Do what you do best. Read the arguments you like to read, just take strategy into consideration.

How I Judge: I default to an offense/defense paradigm, regardless of whether critical or traditional arguments are being read. Given the nuanced uniqueness of the activity - that the rules can be debated while debating - I think it is important for debaters to establish their interpretations of what is acceptable through T, Theory, and Framework where it is applicable. It is on you to tell me how I should see the round, how I should evaluate the arguments within it and how I should vote. It's also on you to tell me what type of calculus to use when I vote (impact weighing, f/w, theory, etc). Should I be a utilitarian or should I look at the round in another way? What is the role of my ballot? Should an argument deemed theoretically objectionable in round be rejected or should the team that read it be voted down? You tell me.

Etiquette: Whether you think policy debate is a fun place to role play and prep for college or you think it is a revolutionary ground for X movement, above all this activity is two things: a student activity and an educational activity. As students, you are expected to interact on the spectrum between not rude and cordial. I understand that arguments can get heated, particularly those that a debater might have a personal connection with. Don't be afraid to express what you need to express and say what you need to say, but be mindful that stark disrespect and gratuitous foul language don't float in my boat. Be competitive, be authentic. As long as you are mindful of the line between competition and flat out aggression in terms of how you carry yourself, all should be well in my book.

Tech Considerations: Paperless debates tend to give me 1,001 headaches as a judge. A lack of proficiency amongst students causes rounds to drag on and reflects a lack of preparation. Ballpark estimate, I think 75% of you are bad at doing this in an efficient and effective manner. Don't be a statistic! Prep time ends when the flash drive is out or when the speech doc is sent.

I'm open to answering any specific questions pre-round.

Policy Paradigm:

I am a policy maker/stock issues judge. If I am going to vote affirmative, it is going to be because the affirmative team presents a clear case that maintains all of the stock issues throughout the debate round. If I am going to vote negative, it is going to be because the negative team has taken out one or more of the stock issues or has presented a counter plan with a clear net benefit. I believe that all three elements of rhetoric – ethos, pathos, and logos – should be evaluated equally, and as a result, I will weigh your speaking ability equally against logic and evidence. I value strong analytical argumentation, clear links in your logic and clash in debate. While I will listen to K, I expect links to the stock issues at hand. The current trend of not valuing flow because you've flashed evidence is extremely problematic for me. If you drop arguments because of your unwillingness to actually listen to your opponent, that will count you against in my evaluation of the round.

LD Paradigm:
I am a traditional LD judge. Even though I understand K's, counterplans, etc., I am not a fan of them in LD. Plan on referencing the philosophers and why your case offers the values and criterion needed to win the round. Clear speaking, not speed counts.
I am not a fan of speed but I can deal with it to a certain extent. Your analyticals and your tags must be clear or your speaker points will suffer accordingly. I will not tolerate rude, racist, or sexist behavior in the round. In my other life, I am a teacher of English and rhetoric.

1- spreading is not an issue until you get to the point where you are not being clear or i can not understand you, in that case i will say clear.

2- for speaker points- I will take in to consideration of clarity, tone, and courtesy.

3- I consider the "CX" rounds highly important and will be flowing everything, I will take into consideration how probing the questions were and how well your opponent responded. After all this is a debate, and I like to see argumentation within the round, give me reasons to doubt your opponent. 

4- I take everything into consideration, I will not vote down on any specific type of argument. I mainly do not like theory arguments.

Debates are best when they are contests between well-researched competitors making tightly constructed arguments in direct response to one another, engaging civilly with ideas, and being explicit in their comparative analysis. 

Name: Eric Beane

Affiliation: Langham Creek HS (2018-Present) | University of Houston (2012-2016) | Katy Taylor HS (2009-16)

GO COOOOOOGS!!! (♫Womp Womp♫) C-O-U-G-A-R-S (who we talkin' bout?) Talkin' bout them Cougars!!

*Current for the 2023-24 Season*

Policy Debate Paradigm

I debated for the University of Houston from 2012-2016. I've coached at Katy-Taylor HS from 2011 - 2016 and since 2018 I have been the Director of Debate at Langham Creek High School. I mostly went for the K. I judge a lot of clash of the civs & strange debates. Have fun

Specific Arguments

Critical Affirmatives – I think your aff should be related to the topic; we have one for a reason and I think there is value in doing research and debating on the terms that were set by the topic committee. Your aff doesn’t need to fiat the passage of a plan or have a text, but it should generally affirm the resolution. I think having a text that you will defend helps you out plenty. Framework is definitely a viable strategy in front of me.

Disadvantages – Specific turns case analysis that is contextualized to the affirmative (not blanket, heg solves for war, vote neg analysis) will always be rewarded with high speaker points. Comparative analysis between time frame, magnitude and probability makes my decisions all the easier. I am a believer in quality over quantity, especially when thinking about arguments like the politics and related disadvantages.

Counterplans – PICs bad etc. are not reasons to reject the team but just to reject the argument. I also generally err neg on these questions, but it isn’t impossible to win that argument in front of me. Condo debates are fair game – you’ll need to invest a substantial portion of the 1AR and 2AR on this question though. If your counterplan has several planks, ensure that you include each in your 2NC/1NR overview so that I have enough pen time to get it all down.

Kritik Section Overview - I enjoy a good K debate. When I competed in college I mostly debated critical disability studies and its intersections. I've also read variations of Nietzsche, Psychoanalysis and Marxism throughout my debate career. I would greatly appreciate a 2NC/1NR Overview for your K positions. Do not assume that I am familiar with your favorite flavor of critical theory and take time to explain your thesis (before the 2NR).

Kritik: "Method Debate" - Many debates are unnecessarily complicated because of this phrase. If you are reading an argument that necessitates a change in how a permutation works (or doesn't), then naturally you should set up and explain a new model of competition. Likewise, the affirmative ought to defend their model of competition.

Kritik: Alternative - We all need to be able to understand what the alternative is, what it does in relation to the affirmative and how it resolves the link+impact you have read. I have no shame in not voting for something that I can't explain back to you.This by far is the weakest point of any K debate and I am very skeptical of alternatives that are very vague (unless it is done that way on purpose). I would prefer over-explanation than under-explanation on this portion of the debate.

Vagueness - Strangely enough, we begin the debate with two very different positions, but as the debate goes on the explanation of these positions change, and it all becomes oddly amorphous - whether it be the aff or neg. I feel like "Vagueness" arguments can be tactfully deployed and make a lot of sense in those debates (in the absence of it).

Case Debate – I think that even when reading a 1-off K strategy, case debate can and should be perused. I think this is probably the most undervalued aspect of debate. I can be persuaded to vote on 0% risk of the aff or specific advantages. Likewise, I can be convinced there is 0 risk of a DA being triggered.

Topicality - I'm down to listen to a good T debate. Having a topical version of the aff with an explanation behind it goes a long way in painting the broader picture of debate that you want to create with your interpretation. Likewise being able to produce a reasonable case list is also a great addition to your strategy that I value. You MUST slow down when you are addressing the standards, as I will have a hard time keeping up with your top speed on this portion of the debate. In the block or the 2NR, it will be best if you have a clear overview, easily explaining the violation and why your interp resolves the impacts you have outlined in your standards.

New Affs are good. That's just it. One of the few predispositions I will bring into the debate.

"Strange" Arguments / Backfile Checks - I love it when debate becomes fun. Sometimes we need a break from the monotony of nuclear armageddon. The so-called classics like wipeout, the pic, etc. I think are a viable strategy. I've read guerrilla communication arguments in the past and think it provides some intrigue in policy debate. I also think it is asinine for judges or coaches to get on a moral high horse about "Death Good" arguments and refuse to vote for them. Debate is a game and if you can't beat the other side, regardless of what they are arguing, you should lose.

Other Information

Accessibility - My goal as an educator and judge is to provide the largest and most accessible space of deliberation possible. If there are any access issues that I can assist with, please let me know (privately or in public - whatever you are comfortable with). I struggle with anxiety and understand if you need to take a "time out" or breather before or after a big speech.

Evidence - When you mark cards I usually also write down where they are marked on my flow –also, before CX starts, you need to show your opponents where you marked the cards you read. If you are starting an email chain - prep ends as soon as you open your email to send the document. I would like to be on your email chain too - ericdebate@gmail.com

High Speaks? - The best way to get high speaks in front of me is in-depth comparative analysis. Whether this be on a theory debate or a disad/case debate, in depth comparative analysis between author qualification, warrants and impact comparison will always be rewarded with higher speaker points. The more you contextualize your arguments, the better. If you are negative, don't take prep for the 1NR unless you're cleaning up a 2NC disaster. I'm impressed with stand-up 1ARs, but don't rock the boat if you can't swim. If you have read this far in my ramblings on debate then good on you - If you say "wowzas" in the debate I will reward you with +0.1 speaker points.

Any other questions, please ask in person or email – ericdebate@gmail.com

Racism, sexism, ableism, or any similar things recieve 0 points speaks and will not win a round. Otherwise, I am open to any form or argumentation.

*everything* in debate except for the above statement is up for debate

Strong arguments won beat weak arguments dropped (usually)

I debated CX through college so I can handle any speed *if you are clear and not pushing past capability*

Former debater at the University of Texas at Austin, former debater at The Kinkaid School

updated - april 2019

- I'm revising this to be less about how I feel about arguments and preferences and more about the general trend of the decisions that I make and how I make them. So what's below is about the general trend – not absolutes on how I evaluate arguments. It's how I typically think, and not universally applicable to every round – so if there's an argument the round that tells me to evaluate otherwise, I will.

Some things to know:

- Be good to each other

- Please don't read into my facial expressions too much. Something you said may be reminding me of something else which made me remember this other thing, etc. I'm not trying to cue you or give you secret clues – I don't want to control/influence/intervene/otherwise make the debate about me and not you.

- Controlling big picture questions of the debate is almost always more important than tech minutia. In other words, dropped arguments are true arguments, but not always important arguments. Identify which issues matter the most and invest your time there. Tech can certainly influence key issues, but rarely replaces them.

- Arguments don't "count" unless they have a claim, warrant, and impact. I typically don't call for evidence to decipher an argument that was under-explained, either. If you're asserting something without any warrant/explanation/impact, there's a good chance it won't matter a great deal to my RFD.

- I find myself usually filtering rounds by starting at the impact level and working backwards. What's the greatest harm, followed by who has the best chance at stopping it. I've noticed I use this frame /regardless of argument type/ - so take this into account even with T, Theory, and Framework debates.

some contextualization:

Theory - I think about theory debates much the same way I think about disads: there must be a clear link, internal link, and impact. Impacts should be weighed (does education outweigh advocacy skills or vice versa?) and internal links should be challenged. A pet peeve of mine is when debaters claim that minor theory arguments are a reason to reject the team - if you want to win this is true, you need to articulate a reason why the impact to your theory argument rises to that level.

-Framework/clash of civs debates – The questions I typically ask myself are: What's the worst thing that can happen to debate (/in debates)? Whose interpretation best prevents this? Prior questions like this – aka taking a stance on what is debate for – guide how I identify whose interpretation is best for debate.

In the interest of transparency: if you read a framework violation that relies solely on procedural fairness as the impact or collapses to only this impact, my track record leans not in your favor. To make this argument successful in front of me, you need to win the impact level – win why fairness matters most. Absent debating it out, relying on "because procedural fairness" full stop doesn't feel super different than "T is jurisdictional" full stop. For every version of framework: don't cede the impact debate. Tell me what debate should give us or what debate should be for us and why, and then why your interpretation promotes that.

Topicality, same vein, should also be about why your interpretation is best for debate and best for the topic. Impact out and weigh the standards of your interpretation against the counter-interpretation.

Counterplans - I appreciate creativity and I also appreciate really good theory debaters. Take the time to make the difference between the aff and the counter-plan clear and feel meaningful, and make sure your theory blocks don't feel like a wall of text thrown at me.

-Disad/case debates - I know I've ranted a lot about impacts mattering, but I also think I have a slightly above average tendency to be willing to say 0% risk. Try or Die framing / 1% risk is not compelling to me if a team has won defense to your impact - you only win in that scenario in front of me if you're the only one trying to extend an impact at all.

Also - I don't "weigh" case per se in framework debates, but I /do/ think the arguments pulled from the 1AC to answer framework are still relevant. I assume "don't weigh the plan" is a different argument than ignore the speech. If you win that my evaluation should shift to who's model of debate is best, and not a yes/no on the advocacy from the 1AC, the 1AC speech still had arguments that the 2A has applied to framework and that I'm assuming you'll answer or say why your stuff outweighs.

Kritiks - All my prior discussion matters here – what is the bad thing and how do you stop it. Or, not do it/ subvert it/ etc. I care about the thesis level here, a lot. Winning a sweeping K claim can control a lot of the round for me and color how I read every argument, and often make tech nuances fall into place depending on the debate. Losing the thesis level will complicate whether or not I think you can extrapolate that thesis into specific links/impacts. When I consider impacts, I'll also usually think about the "level" they happen on – are they about things happening in the round, who we learn to be, big picture political concerns, etc. So know that debating out which of these types of impact matters most is a big component of how I decide ... whose impact.... matter most... That's usually how I interpret the relevancy of framework debates, too. I don't find myself voting on "they shouldn't get Ks"-type arguments often, and I regularly feel too much time is invested here for no reward. The better time investment here for me is on why your framework arguments make your "level" of debate the important one. If you didn't just skip to the K section, you'll recognize this is basically my same spiel on arguments needing impacts relevant to the round.

One more K affs note – I'm not sitting on some secret arbitrary interpretation or bright line of what affs I think are kosher. The sections above on how I resolve debates also impact how I interpret your aff. I'm always looking for what is the worst thing and how do you solve it. I need clarity on that story.

Ask me questions.

You put in a lot of time and energy and care for this activity – I want to respect that.

Kanan Boor

Debated 4 years in Kansas and 4 years at Baylor University.

Do you want on the email chain? Yes, but please send me a compiled doc of all cards that were actually read with marks at the end of the debate. My email is kboor1@gmail.com

Do what you do best. I debated multiple styles of debate and think that all have their advantages. I like to think that I'm not too ideological and will vote for almost any argument. 

T/Framework: I didn't read a plan for my last 2 years of debate, but that doesn't mean I think framework/T is an absolute evil that should be rejected. I've always thought that education is the controlling impact in these debates, though I have heard teams persuasively wreck teams on fairness outweighs everything. The topic matters, but how it should be interpreted is up for debate. I find that most teams don't ever impact out their arguments which makes judging these debates extremely frustrating. 30-45 seconds of why the impact you are going for turns and outweighs the other will do a tremendous amount for you. 

Disclaimer: I know that I am in the minority on this issue, but I think "we couldn't test the aff so you should presume it is false and vote neg on presumption" is the least persuasive framework argument.

Neg: caselists are great. debate the case to take out the aff's offense and/or their ability to solve it. T version of the aff helps a bunch, but sometimes there really isn't one so the limits DA becomes more important.

Aff: you need a strategic CI that allows you to hedge back against limits. I don't think that it is an aff burden to tell the neg what arguments they could have read, but it does help to do so.

Disads: I love them. Politics disads are often awesome, depending on the weekend. There is such a thing as zero risk of a link. Smart analytics can beat 30 cards on a bad disad. 

Counterplans: I tend to lean neg on theory questions with the exception being consult CPs, although an actual solvency advocate in the context of the topic will help a lot. 

Kritiks: links to the plan are the best, but are not the only way to generate a link. Winning that the neg doesn't get to read a kritik is an uphill battle that I wouldnt encourage the aff to fight, but I do tend to think that the aff should get to weigh the plan, although that is obviously up for debate. The neg always benefits from pulling specific lines from aff evidence to situate their argument. A well explained alternative is better than the 6th link you want to explain or the 3rd framework card you want to read. 

Do more evidence comparison. It's important and a lost art. 

BACKGROUND:

Have been involved in debate as a student, high school debater, college debater, high school coach or a college coach since the Nixon administration. Yes I actually cut Watergate cards. So pardon my smile when asked how I feel about speed etc.

PHILOSOPHY

Try to be Tab as much as possible. But like all judges I have some personal preferences listed below:

TOPICALITY

Is a voter, don't usually vote on it unless it is mishandled or extremely squirely. Make sure to have a violation, standard and voter in shell. Haven't previously voted on a RVI on T.

THEORY

Tend to look at in round abuse.

KRITIKS

They are fine, but make sure you understand the literature, spend a lot of quality time on the link and have a clear alternative.

PRESENTATION

Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you are not clear, I will say "clear". Make a clear distinction between your taglines and and your cards.

OTHER ISSUES:

Will vote you down for being rude or sarcastic. Proper decorum is a must. I will vote against sexist, racist et al. arguments.

CONCLUSION

I was fairly succinct on this paradigm, so feel free to ask me specific questions before the round. Also debate should be fun. A sense of humor is always appreciated.

Zach Brisson

I debated @ Arizona State 2014-15, 2018-19, did three years of policy and one year of LD @ McClintock HS, 2010-2014.

Fancy myself as rigidly line-by-line. I default to offense/defense unless otherwise told. Will hear all good arguments, would prefer none of the bad ones. Intervention is bad and instruction to read a piece of evidence in place of explaining it shouldn't be part of a speech.

In terms of strategy, I believe depth is preferable to breadth. This applies to both sides. Well-developed, smaller negative strategies are almost invariably better than dumping everything you have in the box into the 1NC. Similarly, affs often benefit by banking on their central offense throughout the debate.

K Affs/FW: ... impact comparison and crystalization often gets lost in aff strategy, so do that. For neg teams running framework, these debates are more easily won on the substance side over theory. ...

Theory: ... will have to go in on a very clear abuse scenario has occurred in round to make this a viable option, ... Critical conditionality is good stuff and I have a slightly lower threshold for condo, in general. Other theory arguments are 99 out of a 100 times a reason to reject the argument.

The rest is pretty run-of-the-mill, please ask for any clarification. Questions to zach.brisson@gmail.com

Shae Bunas
Debated @ Oklahoma for 4 years.

Currently an Assistant Coach @ UCO.

Big Picture

In general, I don't have much of a preference for what people read in front of me. Despite having debated critiques throughout college I enjoy CP/DA/T debates and hope teams will be willing to read those arguments if they are more prepared to do so. Whatever strategy you choose, the more specific the strategy the better.

Specific arguments

Topicality: Generic T arguments don't get very far in front of me unless they are based in the literature and the negative can prove that the loss of core (generic) ground outweighs the affs education claims (e.g., why is the politics da/other generic da more important than the aff's particular education). If the aff doesn't read any offense they will very likely lose the debate.

Framework: Absent a T component it's not a reason to reject the aff. I have yet to hear a good reason why policy education is the only predictable education.

Disads: 'DA turns the case' is pretty important. I could be persuaded of 'no risk of the da' but it's unlikely. 

CPs: Well-researched PICs are enjoyable and I encourage you to read them. I tend to lean negative on theory but aff on questions of competition. Textual/functional competition is up for debate.

Critiques: In my experience, alternatives are under-debated. The aff needs offense against the alt and the neg needs a specific explanation of how the alt solves the case. Impact framing is important: don't stop at 'utilitarianism is key' or 'ethics first'. Tell me why you should still win even if you lose the impact framing debate (e.g., 'even if the neg wins that ethics comes first you will still vote aff because....'). Absent specific link analysis the permutation is pretty compelling. When deciding between reading the K you always go for and are comfortable with versus reading the K's you know that I read you should default to the K's that you are comfortable with. Don't read a huge-ass overview in the block, put it on the line-by-line.

Theory: Reading blippy blocks is a non-starter as are cheap shots. Just like every other issue in debate it needs to be well-developed before I will consider it. Conditionality is probably ok as long as the neg isn't reading contradictory positions.

Evidence: I prefer a handful of quality cards that are debated well over a stack of shitty cards that are read as fast as possible. As such, I'm persuaded by smart analytical arguments that point out the contrived nature of the case advantage/da/cp/k/whatever. You won't convince me that a card cut from a blog should be rejected if it has a warrant in it. I evaluate arguments, not qualifications with T debates being the exception to the rule: literature-based definitions hold more water than the definition given by merriam-webster or some other dictionary.

Paperless: Clock stops when the jumping team pulls the flash drive out of their computer.

I've coached LASA since 2005. I judge ~120 debates per season on the high school circuit.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: yaosquared@gmail.com.

If you have little time before the debate, here’s all you need to know:do what you do best. I try to be as unbiased as possible and I will defer to your analysis. As long as you are clear, go as fast as you want.

Most judges give appalling decisions. Here's where I will try to be better than them:

• They intervene, even when they claim they won't. Perhaps "tech over truth" doesn't mean what it used to. I will attempt to adjudicate and reach a decision purely on only the words you say. If that's insufficient to reach a decision either way--and it often isn't--I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. The more work I have to do, the wider the range of uncertainty for you and the lower your speaks go.
• They aren't listening carefully. They're mentally checked out, flowing off the speech doc, distracted by social media, or have half their headphones off and are taking selfies during the 1AR. I will attempt to flow every single detail of your speeches. I will probably take notes during CX if I think it could affect my decision. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve a judge who works hard as well.
• They givepoorly-reasoned decisions that rely on gut instincts and ignore arguments made in the 2NR/2AR. I will probably take my sweet time making and writing my decision. I will try to be as thorough and transparent as possible. If I intervene anywhere, I will explain why I had to intervene and how you could've prevented that intervention. If I didn't catch or evaluate an argument, I will explain why you under-explained or failed to extend it. I will try to anticipate your questions and preemptively answer them in my decision.
• They reconstruct the debateand try to find themost creative and convoluted path to a ballot. I guess they're trying to prove they're smart? These decisions are detestable because they take the debate away from the hands of the debaters. If there are multiple paths to victory for both teams, I will take what I think is the shortest path and explain why I think it's the shortest path, and you can influence my decision by explaining why you control the shortest path. But, I'm not going to use my decision to attempt to prove I'm more clever than the participants of the debate.
• If you think the 1AR is a constructive, you should strike me.

Meta Issues:

• I’m not a professional debate coach or even a teacher. I work as a finance analyst in the IT sector and I volunteer as a debate coach on evenings and weekends. I don’t teach at debate camp and my topic knowledge comes primarily from judging debates. My finance background means that,when left to my own devices, I err towards precision, logic, data, and concrete examples. However, I can be convinced otherwise in any particular debate, especially when it’s not challenged by the other team.
• Tech over truth in most instances. I will stick to my flow and minimize intervention as much as possible. I firmly believe that debates should be left to the debaters. I rarely make facial expressions because I don’t want my personal reactions to affect how a debate plays out. I will maintain a flow, even if you ask me not to. However, tech over truth has its limits. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim.
• Evidence comparisonis under-utilized and is very important to me in close debates. I often call for evidence, but I’m much more likely to call for a card if it’s extended by author or cite.
• I don’t judge or coach at the college level, which means I’m usually a year or two behind the latest argument trends that are first broken in college and eventually trickle down to high school.If you’re reading something that’s close to the cutting edge of debate arguments, you’ll need to explain it clearly. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear new arguments. On the contrary, a big reason why I continue coaching debate is because I enjoy listening to and learning about new arguments that challenge my existing ways of thinking.
• Please mark your own cards. No one is marking them for you.
• If I feel that you are deliberately evading answering a question or have straight up lied, and the question is important to the outcome of the debate, I will stop the timer and ask you to answer the question. Example: if you read condo bad, the neg asks in CX whether you read condo bad, and you say no, I’ll ask if you want me to cross-out condo on my flow.

Framework:

• Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge onimpact calculus and comparison.
• When I vote neg, it’s usually because the aff team missed the boat on topical version, has made insufficient inroads into the neg’s limits disad, and/or is winning some exclusion disad but is not doing comparative impact calculus against the neg’s offense. The neg win rate goes up if the 2NR can turn or access the aff's primary impact (e.g. clash and argument testing is vital to ethical subject formation).
• When I vote aff, it’s usually because the 2NR is disorganized and goes for too many different impacts, there’s no topical version or other way to access the aff’s offense, and/or concedes an exclusion disad that is then impacted out by the 2AR.
• On balance, I am worse for 2ARs that impact turn framework than 2ARs that have a counter-interp. If left to my own devices, I believe in models and in the ballot's ability to, over the course of time, bring models into existence. I have trouble voting aff if I can't understand what future debates look like under the aff's model.

Topicality:

• Over the years, “tech over truth” has led me to vote neg on some untruthful T violations. If you’re neg and you’ve done a lot of research and are ready to throw down on a very technical and carded T debate, I’m a good judge for you.
• If left to my own devices, predictability > debatability.
• Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff.The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I amtowards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks:

• The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points givehighly organizedandstructuredspeeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, andemphasize key momentsin their speeches.
• Just like most judges,the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.
• I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview anddo as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. If your overview is 6 minutes, you make blippy cross-applications on the line-by-line, and then you drop the last three 2AC cards, I’m going to give the 1AR a lot of leeway on extending those concessions, even if they were somewhat implicitly answered in your overview.
• Framework debates on kritiks often don't matter. For example, the neg extends a framework interp about reps, but only goes for links to plan implementation. Before your 2NR/2AR, ask yourself what winning framework gets you/them.
• I’m not a good judge for “role of the ballot” arguments, as I usually find these to be self-serving for the team making them.I’m also not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out, not a gatekeeping issue for me to enforce.
• I’m an OK judge for K “tricks”. A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained.The floating PIK needs to be clearly made in the 2NCfor me to evaluate it. If your K strategy hinges on hiding a floating PIK and suddenly busting it out in the 2NR, I’m not a good judge for you.

Counterplans:

• Just like most judges, I prefercase-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.
• I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.
• I will not judge kickthe CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.
• Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Disadvantages:

• I’m a sucker for specific and comparative impact calculus. For example, most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims.
• Uniqueness only "controls the direction of the link" if uniqueness can be determined with certainty (e.g. whip count on a bill, a specific interest rate level). On most disads where uniqueness is a probabilistic forecast (e.g. future recession, relations, elections), the uniqueness and link are equally important, which means I won't compartmentalize and decide them separately.
• Zero risk is possiblebut difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Theory:

• I actually enjoy listening to a good theory debate, but these seem to be exceedingly rare. I think I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important. You're unlikely to win that a single intrinsic permutation is a round-winning voter, even if the other team drops it, unless you are investing significant time in explaining why it should be an independent voting issue.
• I think thatI lean affirmative compared to the rest of the judging community on the legitimacy of counterplans. In my mind, a counterplan that is wholly plan-inclusive (consultation, condition, delay, etc.) is theoretically questionable. The legitimacy of agent counterplans, whether domestic or international, is also contestable. I think the negative has the right to read multiple planks to a counterplan, but reading each plank conditionally is theoretically suspect.

Miscellaneous:

• I usually take a long time to decide, and give lengthy decisions. LASA debaters have benefitted from the generosity of judges, coaches, and lab leaders who used their decisions to teach and trade ideas, not just pick a winner and get a paycheck. Debaters from schools with limited/no coaching, the same schools needed to prevent the decline in policy debate numbers, greatly benefit from judging feedback. I encourage you to ask questions and engage in respectful dialogue with me. However, post-round hostility will be met with hostility. I've been providing free coaching and judging since before you were birthed into the world. If I think you're being rude or condescending to me or your opponents, I will enthusiastically knock you back down to Earth.
• I don't want a card doc. If you send one, I will ignore it. Card docs are an opportunity for debaters to insert cards they didn't read, didn't extend, or re-highlight. They're also an excuse for lazy judges to compensate for a poor flow by reconstructing the debate after the fact. If your debating was disorganized and you need a card doc to return some semblance of organization, I'd rather adjudicate the disorganized debate and then tell you it was disorganized.

Ways to Increase/Decrease Speaker Points:

• Look and sound like you want to be here.Judging can be spirit murder if you're disengaged and disinterested. By contrast, if you're engaged, I'll be more engaged and helpful with feedback.
• Argument resolution minimizes judgeintervention. Most debaters answer opposing positions by staking out the extreme opposite position, which is generally unpersuasive. Instead, take the middle ground. Assume the best out of your opponents' arguments and use "even if" framing.
• I am usually unmoved by aggression, loud volume, rudeness, and other similar posturing. It's both dissuasive and distracting. By contrast,being unusually nice will always be rewarded with higher pointsand never be seen as weakness. This will be especially appreciated if you make the debate as welcoming as possible against less experienced opponents.
• Do not steal prep. Make it obvious that you are not prepping if there's not a timer running.
• Do not be the person who asks for a roadmap one second after the other team stops prep. Chill. I will monitor prep usage, not you. You're not saving us from them starting a speech without giving a roadmap.
• Stop asking for a marked doc when they've only skipped or marked one or two cards.It's much faster to ask where they marked that card, and then mark it on your copy. If you marked/skipped many cards, you should proactively offer to send a new doc before CX.

I debated for 5 years at Texas (Fall 2011 - Spring 2016 ). Now I am pursuing my MA in Comm at Baylor and coaching for them. 

tl;dr

• I'm flowing on paper, slow down for theory or framework interps, argument transitions etc.
• Don't be mean to your parter or the other team. Obviously debates can get tense but if things get unreasonable I will intervene and if you don't trust me with that brightline don't pref me. 
• Defend what you do, or what you think debate should do
• I place a good deal of weight on evidence quality, but only if they've been adequately explained 

Specifics

I think debate is an activity that provides a lot of different skills and different educational opportunities, and because of this I try not to have my preferences for what debate should be override how I judge debates. I prefer affs that engage the resolution either directly or through creative interpretations, but affs that criticize the resolution externally are fine as long as you defend the choice. Similarly, I prefer line by line, but if you want to forward arguments about a more wholistic form of argument evaluation make sure you start this early in the debate and defend it sufficiently. 

 A lot of how I view debate was formed by JV Reed, so i'm going to quote parts of his judge philosophy that resonate with me at length:

• Many Aff advantages and many more Neg disadvantages and kritiks are so poorly constructed, with so many missing internal links that they hardly warrant a response by the opposing team.  This requires an attention to internal links, source quality, and also the depth of the warrant cited by a given piece of evidence ... I want to be clear about the preferences I have: I do not have a preference for K over policy or vice-versa. I do have a preference for debates where the debaters are working hard to make the most of their evidence. The teams I enjoy judging the most, whether K or Policy, will demonstrate in debates that their knowledge of the [subject] is substantial, and will make “cutting to the chase” their primary argument resolution tactic.
• DA's - it is possible for there to be no risk of a disad. it is possible for you to win uniqueness decisively and there still be no risk of a link. link debates are very important to me. quality of link evidence, qualification of link authors etc is something to be considered. ... disads are little machines with lots of moving parts that all need to be considered in isolation, but also in concert. it is therefore better for you to talk to me in terms of the relationship between the risk of the link and the risk of the impact rather than treating these issues as completely discrete. 
• K's - K's need a specific link. K's need examples. K's usually need better application/explanation of evidence more than they need more evidence. I prefer Ks that include a link to the plan. That does not mean that I don't think that reps Ks are illegit, but I do think that reps k's are more persuasive when the impact is explained in relation to the goals of the aff. and the intended projected consequences of the plan. Think "turns solvency" arguments here ... I am more interested in how a given mode of understanding/ideology implicates implementation of the plan, than I am in simplistic root cause (and therefore "turns case") allegations. 

This last section is particularly important to me, whether you are debating a plan or an advocacy, make sure that your argument engages the process of the affs mechanism in some capacity. 

I don't have any particularly nuanced views about counterplans, and to be honest I doubt I will judge many debates where that becomes relevant. The maxim justify what you do is relevant to every theory/T/Framework debate I evaluate. 

Speaker point scale:

29 - 30: Deserves to be in late elims. Has engaged the other teams arguments thoroughly, made strategic choices, and spoken extremly clearly 

28.6 - 29: Deserves to clear. Has made strategic choices and spoken relatively clearly

28.0-28.5: On the verge of clearing. Needs more strategic awareness and probably needs more clarity. 

27.5 - 28.0: Needs to work on clarity and overall flowability. May have dropped key arguments

27.3 - 27.5: Needs to work on clarity and overall flowability, Needs to work on filling speech time 

25.0 - 27.2: Was emotionally abusive to their partners or other participants in the debate. 

Do what you do best and I will make a decision afterwards

————-

How RyanMalone makes decisions

I hope Whitehead is right, that even dimwits can make good decisions if they follow an appropriate procedure. It’s only fair then for me to give a general sense of how I make decisions, with as few platitudes as possible, though most of them still apply.

1. After the 2ar I review 2nr and 2ar arguments and their comportment with the block and 1ar. Unless there are arguments about how I should or should not flow, I appreciate when debaters are attentive to line-by-line, but I understand that strategy sometimes calls one to deviate from it. When that occurs, I am less likely to line up arguments in the same way as you may want me to.

2. While doing that I clarify shorthand and mark out errata and things that aren’t arguments. There is a difference between arguments and nascent things that purport to be arguments. We don’t need to talk about Toulmin; an argument is really anything that could inform a decision. This may seem arbitrary or kind of like question-begging, but I don’t think it’s capricious. I don’t do this because I have some ultra-strenuous “not buying it” threshold for what constitutes an argument. My concern is that there is a temptation to embellish not-quite-arguments, especially those that, if they had been full arguments, would be compelling, strategic, or make for an easy decision. Assessing, at the outset, what all on the flow are reasonably arguments is a way to ward off that temptation.

3. I then look to arguments the 2nr and 2ar say are the most important and other arguments that appear central to the debate or that may supplant opposing lines of reasoning. The last part may seem to imply a premium on the meta, but rarely are debates leveraged on Archimedean points.

4. If necessary, I read evidence. I don’t follow along in speech docs or look at speeches in more than a cursory way prior to the end of the debate, with perhaps the exception of interpretations and counterplan texts. I will read a piece of evidence if there is contestation about its quality, applicability, or illocution, if I am asked to compare two pieces of evidence or a piece of evidence and a countervailing explanation, or if some argument is dense and, despite good explanation, I’m just not following. My concern is that the more evidence a judge reads without specific reason, the more they reward good evidence read sloppily over clear, persuasive argumentation and are at risk of reconstructing the debate along those lines.

5. I hash out the above (it’s hard to adumbrate this process in a way that’s not super vague) and I get something resembling a decision. I run through a few even-if scenarios: what, if any, central arguments the losing team could have won, but still lose the debate, and what arguments the winning team would have had to lose or the losing team would have had to win for the losing team to win the debate. Finally, I review the flow again to make sure my decision is firmly based in the 2nr and 2ar and that there is nothing I’ve missed.

Note on Framework

Framework debates are better when both teams have some defense, in addition to offense.

Even if fairness is intrinsically value, by which I mean fairness is valuable regardless of relation, I’m unsure how valuable procedural fairness is, in and of itself. Because of that fairness arguments make more sense to me as internal links rather than impacts.

Similarly, impact turns to fairness are more persuasive when they are about the purported use of fairness as an impartial rule. Phrased differently, in explaining the way structural fairness informs procedural fairness as a difference in fairness-in-rule and fairness-in-practice, it may be worth thinking about fairness as the practice of appealing to rules.

Topical versions are under-utilized.

Things that do not concern how I usually make decisions

Some of the above is assiduously believed, but weakly held, however, the following points are immutable: I will comply with any tournament rules regarding speech and decision times, speaker points, etc. Any request not to be recorded or videotaped should be honored. If proven, clipping, cross-reading, or deceitfully manufacturing or altering evidence will result in a loss and zero speaker points. Unlike wit, sass, and tasteful self-effacement, bald-faced meanness will negatively affect speaker points.

My rfds are brief, which I’m working on. This reason for this is twofold. First, most of what I write down concerns how I make my decision, not how I intend to give it. Second, I don’t presume to act, even temporarily, as something like an arguments coach, nor as someone who can adroitly explain or find fault in an opposing team’s arguments. The last thing I want to do is say something that would lead you astray. At this point in my time judging I’m really just trying to be a good heuristic machine—anything more is just gravy. Obviously, to the degree to which I have insight I will give suggestions, clarifications, or share in your befuddlement.

Please feel free to email me if you have questions or concerns.

I am a policy judge. I am a Utilitarian until you tell me to be otherwise through a framework.

If you run a K, please make sure that your alt can actually solve, or at least that signing a ballot in your favor will leave the world in a better state than voting for the opposing team.

Topicality is a voting issue. If your aff is blatantly not topical, the Negative points that out and handles T competently, you will lose.

I am okay with speed only so long as I can hear every word in the substance of your card. If I cannot hear your evidence, then it doesn’t get flowed. If your voice sounds like an MP5 Submachinegun with a silencer on it, you may also receive lower speaker points.

In every speech you must produce and extend your arguments. You must give a claim, and your claim must have a warrant. "Impact doesn't occur, that's our X evidence" is not an extension.

Your claims can be no better than your warrants. If your header says "X causes extinction" and all I hear from your card is “130,000 deaths may result” then for impact calculus purposes, your impact is 130,000 deaths.

Please elaborate and extend your principle arguments in the 2AR/2NR. I want to hear every element of a DA, K, Or AFF advantage in the final rebuttal speech. If you run a DA, I want to hear Uniqueness, link, Brink, and Impact. If you run a K, I want to hear Link, Impact, Alt, and Alt Solvency.

please put me on the chain! - amcalden@gmail.com

Assistant Coach at Niles West

Argument Coach at Baylor University

5 years at Baylor

4 years at Caddo Magnet

In general i'm fine for you to do whatever you want to do. I've read and coached both policy and K things from variety of literature basis so do what you do best and I'm sure to enjoy it! Please don't be overly aggressive, rude, or dismissive of your opponents or speaker points will reflect it

if a timer isn't running you should not be prepping.

if the aff isn't clearly extended in the 1AR i will not give you the 2AR case rants

Framework v K affs: More of an uphill battle given the arguments i predominately read and coached but fairness is an internal link to the integrity of debate which still requires you to win the value of maintaining debate as it currently exists. Clash is by far the most persuasive standard, TVA's don't need to solve the entire aff if there are framing arguments in place or additional tools such as switch side debate to deal with what it doesn't solve, examples of ground, either lost or enabled is helpful on both sides!

K: Links to the plan are nice but not necessary, Alts don't have to solve the link if they are able to avoid them and solve the aff. I do not think you need an alt to win a debate if you have the appropriate framing tools however I need instruction on what to do with offense related to the alternative in a world you are not extending it.

CPs: Comparison between deficits/net benefits is key, can be persuaded for or against "cheating" counterplans, solvency advocates are preferred but not needed if pulling lines from the aff.

DAs: Nothing incredibly innovative to say here! I enjoy internal link comparison, and speaker points will reflect great impact debateing

Theory: Condo is fine, argumentative tension is okay but can be convinced on contradictions being bad.

***My hearing was not too great during 2023 but it is doing much better now and I'm feeling much more confident on judging. Just a health FYI/PSA.***

For email chains and any questions, my email is jason.courville@kinkaid.org

Speaking Style (Speed, Quantity) - I like fast debate. Speed is fine as long as you are clear and loud. I will be vocal if you are not. A large quantity of quality arguments is great. Supplementing a large number of quality arguments with efficient grouping and cross-application is even better.

Theory - Theory arguments should be well impacted/warranted. I treat blippy/non-warranted/3 second theory arguments as non-arguments. My threshold for voting on a punishment voter ("reject the team") is higher than a "reject the argument, not the team" impacted argument. I'm open to a wide variety of argument types as long as you can justify them as theoretically valuable.

Topicality - My topicality threshold is established by the combination of answers.

Good aff defense + no aff offense + solid defense of reasonability = higher threshold/harder to win for the neg.

Good aff defense + no aff offense + neg wins competing interps = low threshold/easy to win for the neg.

Counterplans - counterplan types (from more acceptable to more illegit): advantage CPs, textually/functionally competitive PICs, agent CPs, textually but not functionally competitive PICs (ex. most word pics), plan contingent counterplans (consult, quid pro quo, delay)

Disadvantages - Impact calculus is important. Especially comparison of different impact filters (ex. probability outweighs magnitude) and contextual warrants based on the specific scenarios in question. Not just advantage vs disadvantage but also weighing different sub-components of the debate is helpful (uniqueness vs direction of the link, our link turn outweighs their link, etc).

Kritiks - My default framework is to assess whether the aff has affirmed the desirability of a topical plan. If you want to set up an alternative framework, I'm open to it as long as you win it on the line-by-line. I most often vote aff vs a kritik on a combination of case leverage + perm. It is wise to spend time specifically describing the world of the permutation in a way that resolves possible negative offense while identifying/impacting the perm's net benefit.

I most often vote neg for a kritik when the neg has done three things:
1. effectively neutralized the aff's ability to weigh their case,
2. there is clear offense against the perm, and
3. the neg has done a great job of doing specific link/alternative work as well as contextualizing the impact debate to the aff they are debating against.

Performance/Projects - I’ve voted both for and against no plan affs. When I’ve voted against no plan affs on framework, the neg team won that theory outweighed education impacts and the neg neutralized the offense for the aff’s interpretation.

Other Comments
Things that can be a big deal/great tiebreaker for resolving high clash/card war areas of the flow:
- subpointing your warrants/tiebreaking arguments when you are extending,
- weighing qualifications (if you make it an explicit issue),
- comparing warrants/data/methodology,
- establishing criteria I should use to evaluate evidence quality,
- weighing the relative value of different criteria/arguments for evidence quality (ex. recency vs preponderance/quantity of evidence)

If you do none of the above and your opponent does not either, I will be reading lots of evidence and the losing team is going to think that my decision involved a high level of intervention. They will be correct.

email: ddanzeiser@gmail.com

Debated for the Liberal Arts and Science Academy 2011-2015, did not debate in college.

I haven't judged much on this topic, so don't assume I'll be familiar with something even if it's a very common argument this year, and I might have an issue adjudicating a real T debate if I'm not really aware of the community standards on this topic.

In general I prefer specific, warranted analysis to just spreading through blocks (especially on theory) or reading more evidence. Being loud, rude, or interrupting people in CX won't help you out. Trying to blow up a throw-away 1-line theory into an entire 2AR, or likewise a blippy 1-card K in the 1nc into a 2nr strategy is a bit sketchy. I prefer analysis on the line-by-line to large overviews, and I'm skeptical about claims that an argument wasn't dropped because it was "answered in the overview" if you didn't specifically reference it later in the speech.

K: I'm fine with pretty much all types of argumentation as long as it's warranted, but I probably won't be familiar with a lot of K literature so avoiding jargon is pretty important. It's your responsibility to make me understand whatever argument you are trying to make. On the negative, specificity to the aff is nice if you want me to vote on your K. Alt explanation is also very important, I need to know how it resolves your impacts. A role of the ballot that is specific to your K like "vote for the team that best fights capitalism" are not very persuasive compared to something more broad that would make sense as a standard in most debates.

Framework: I think clash/dialogue is very important, so it's a good idea to spend a while on how whatever interpretation you choose still allows for that.

Theory: I'll vote on it, but please don't just spread through your theory blocks- warranted analysis that actually addresses the current debate with real impact calculus is necessary

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations, and if you want to go for reasonability I want a real explanation of what exactly that means and why it's a better framework for evaluating the debate.

DA/CP: Engaging with the actual evidence on both sides will make for a much better debate. Impact calculus is obviously very important. Case-specific is obviously better. The internal ink chain being "reasonable", whatever that means, is also nice.

Teams are at liberty to debate in the styles they have been coached to perform as long as they are capable of defending their positions. Speed is fine, as long as it’s clear. I will listen to and evaluate both traditional and progressive arguments in the framework the debaters define. I prefer arguments to be specific and warranted, and for each team to provide effective comparative analysis giving me reasons to vote in the final rebuttals. I typically am familiar with most arguments on the topic, but refrain from technical high speed responses  and focus more on clearer more substantive explanations of your positions. Policy debates are easier for me to follow, but feel free to read kritkal strategies, just flesh it out a little more for me. 

I’ve been involved with the debate community since 1997. Most of my time has been debating and coaching in the South Texas border region. My interests are politics disads, gender, identity, cap, bio power, critical race Ks. I’m cool with T and counter plans. Theory needs to be slow and explained I won’t pull the trigger just cause to have a block. 

GENERAL:
I vote policymaker but am one to vote on K's if convinced. I need analysis on every argument and not just shallow extensions of the tagline. I'm fine with speed as long as you slow down on the tags and I can actually make out what you're saying.
I understand that policy debate is competitive so assertiveness is fine. Just don't overdo it.

IMPACT ANALYSIS AND CALCULUS:
This is very important. Debaters who compare evidence and impacts in round are more likely to get higher speaks. I like to see more than just debaters spewing card after card. Attacking the credibility of sources, finding contradictions in the opponents' evidence, and comparing the impacts in the round are all things that make it easier for me to vote.

TOPICALITY:
I will vote on T; I believe its an A-priori issue and that the aff has the burden to be topical. I primarily vote on competing interps when it comes to T. I will not vote on reasonability because it causes me to determine what I personally think is reasonable; I like to use whatever happened in the round as the basis for my decision. However, I WILL NOT vote on an RVI. I believe the aff's job is to be topical; you're not getting anything extra out of it. But a note to neg teams: if you're running a T just as a time suck, don't. I won't down you but your speaker points may be lowered.

THEORY:
I'll buy theory; just prove to me there's in-round abuse. Theory arguments I'll buy: condo bad, agent CP's, and multiple worlds, just to name a few.

KRITIKS:
Although I prefer to vote as a policymaker, I will vote on the K given that it is well explained and I have been given reasons to vote for it. Explain the link and how the alt functions and how it solves. Also, the role of the ballot debate needs to be discussed in the round by both teams. I will vote on pretty much any K except those "dirty word" K's. Generic K's are sorta in the gray area, depending on how well its argued and explained. When it comes down to it, I need to have strong analysis and reasons as to why the alternative provides a better world than that of the aff.

When it comes to kritikal affirmatives, I prefer you don't run them. But if you only run K affs, then I will still consider them as long as you paint the picture for me and show me why the world painted by the aff outweighs the squo/world painted by the neg.

DISADS:
When it comes to DA's, impact calculus becomes very important because if you're going to go for the DA in the 2NR, I need to know why the squo is better than the world thats created when the aff triggers the link to the DA.

And to the affirmative team, DO NOT RUN INTRINSIC PERMS ON A PTX DA! I will not evaluate them.

CP's:
I will vote on for the CP as long as its an untopical CP. I need there to be a clear difference between the plan and the CP and why the CP solves better.

CASE:
I will vote on case as long as there's both offense and defense.
For the neg, don't run straight up impact defense and no solvency. Offense is key to winning the case flow. I will not vote strictly off of defense.
For both teams, LINE BY LINE debate is crucial. It makes so much more easier for me decide who wins the case flow.

FINAL NOTE:
I do not and will not extend or analyze any arguments for you in the round, so you should always provide complete and clear analysis as to why I should vote a certain way. I will evaluate the round solely off of what was said in the round and whats on my flow. Don't expect me to connect the dots; thats your job.

Updated - Fall 2020

Number of years judging: 12

For the email chain: philipdipiazza@gmail.com

I want to be on the email chain, but I am not going to “read-along” during constructives. I may reference particular cards during cross-ex if they are being discussed, and I will probably read cards that are important or being contested in the final rebuttals. But it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow (or lack thereof).

Like every judge I look for smart, well-reasoned arguments. I’ll admit a certain proclivity for critical argumentation, but it isn’t an exclusive preference (I think there’s something valuable to be said about “policy as performance”). Most of what I have to say can be applied to whatever approach debaters choose to take in the round. Do what you’re good at, and I will do my best to render a careful, well thought-out decision.

I view every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments.

I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged.

As for the standard array of arguments, there's nothing I can really say that you shouldn't already know. I like strong internal link stories and nuanced impact comparisons. I really don't care for "risk of link means you vote Aff/Neg" arguments on sketchy positions; if I don't get it I'm not voting for it. My standard for competition is that it’s the Negative’s job to prove why rejecting the Aff is necessary which means more than just presenting an alternative or methodology that solves better – I think this is the best way to preserve clash in these kinds of debates. Please be sure to explain your position and its relation to the other arguments in the round.

KRITIK LINKS ARE STILL IMPORTANT. Don’t assume you’ll always have one, and don’t over-rely on extending a “theory of power” at the top of the flow. Both of these are and should be mutually reinforcing. This is especially important for the way I evaluate permutations. Theories of power should also be explained deliberately and with an intent to persuade.

I think the topic is important and I appreciate teams that find new and creative approaches to the resolution, but that doesn’t mean you have to read a plan text or defend the USFG. Framework is debatable (my judging record on this question is probably 50/50). A lot of this depends on the skills of the debaters in the room. This should not come as a surprise, but the people who are better at debating tend to win my framework ballot. Take your arguments to the next level, and you'll be in a much stronger position.

Two other things that are worth noting: 1) I flow on paper…probably doesn’t mean anything, but it might mean something to you. 2) There's a fine line between intensity and rudeness, so please be mindful of this.

For LD, I personally am more focused on the VC block and their role throughout the round. I personally debated policy in high school. That being said, I am okay with more unconventional argumentation, however, arguments should be carefully selected and crafted to have the most relevance for the round. I don’t like to intervene in judging. It is your job to give me explicit voters to why the round should be voted in your favor.

Debate is a fun competitive research game. Ask questions if you have them.

I am Lexie Fredrickson, and I am the assistant debate coach for Crossings Christian School. I debated for Crossings in high school for my junior and senior year and when I graduated I debated at UCO for a year. This is my fourth year coaching at Crossings. As a debater I ran all types of arguments, including Kritiks, Counter Plans, Topical Affs, Judo affs, Topicality, etc. and I am open to hearing all types of arguments. I am tabula rasa meaning if you define the rules of the round and your opponent doesn't challenge it your definitions will frame the round. I will listen to and vote on Ks but I place a higher burden of proof on alt solvency than most other judges I have seen. I am fine with speed, open cx, and I don't care if you keep time on your phone. If you have any specific questions, please don't hesitate to ask them before the round.

I do not consider myself a tabula rasa judge. I'm skeptical of anyone's ability to erase their biases and preconceptions in a round. Furthermore, I think it is impossible to judge a debate without some framework to evaluate arguments. I believe it's better to reveal our biases up front than to pretend that they don't exist. These positions have been borne out by my experience as a debater, when I frequently had judges claim to be a tabula rasa before the start of a round and then reveal that they are anything but a blank slate at the end of the round. Here are some assumptions that underlie the framework I use.

1. Rational arguments are superior to fallacious arguments or emotional outbursts.

2. Systematically collected empirical evidence is superior to personal anecdote.

3. The opinion of an expert in the field is more valuable than the opinion of a non-expert.

4. It is important that affirmatives be topical. It's unlikely that a conversation will be productive if the two sides can't even agree on what they are going to talk about. I am of the opinion that the topic of the debate is set before the round has begun. Debate is not a free-for-all.

I find that the best debate occurs when debaters are able to use reasoned analysis and common sense to dissect the sources and arguments of their opponents. Debate is not a rock-paper-scissor game of they read this card, so I read this card, so they read that card. Sometimes thirty seconds of analysis is a lot more effective than just reading an opposing source.

While most judges vote affirmative by default under the rationale that however small a chance of solvency is better than nothing, I default negative because all actions carry an opportunity cost and a potential for unintended consequences.

I have a preference for policy-based arguments and kritiks with a clear and concrete alternative. Extremely vague or unworkable alternatives are a persistent problem with kritiks. It's easy to develop some abstract objection to the affirmative, but without a clearly defined alternative plan of action, the kritik is worthless. Also make sure that the kritik has a clearly defined link to the affirmative.

Running an esoteric argument that you don't understand in the hope that your opponent won't understand it either is not an effective form of debate.

Debated at Coppell 2011-2015, TFA Finalist 2015

I am receptive to most everything (to quote Brian Rubaie). I have not judged any rounds on the topic so I will not be the most familiar with topic specific literature.

Form of delivery- Stylistically, I give a lot more weightage to the way you debate your arguments, not necessarily what the argument is. As long as you can effectively explain something, I don't really care.

Topicality- I like a good T debate. Make sure there is good discussion of the internal links and the way your interp accesses impacts instead of just an education v fairness surface level buzzword show. Oh and "I default to competing interpretations"

DA- I am fine with them, I find myself defaulting to the evidence more than I would like, so word of caution if your evidence is not the best.

CP- Fine, I am not a huge fan of consult CPs and international CPs though, but if you are confident in your ability to debate theory, go for it.

K- Read a lot of the cap K in high school, also love listening to topic specific ones. Make sure the link is clear and there is an external impact in the 2nr. If there isn't one, your turns case analysis better be on point.

*Updated for 2024*
Bryan Gaston
Director of Debate
Heritage Hall School
1800 Northwest 122nd St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120-9598
bgaston@heritagehall.com

I view judging as a responsibility and one I take very seriously. I have decided to try and give you as much information about my tendencies to assist with MPJ and adaptation.

**NEW NOTE, I may be old but I'm 100% right on this trend: Under-highlighting of evidence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL, some teams are reading cards with such few things highlighted it is amazing they actually got away with claiming the evidence as tagged. When I evaluate evidence, I will ONLY EVALUATE the words in that evidence that were read in the round. If you didn't read it in a speech I will not read the unhighlighted sections and give you the full weight of the evidence--you get credit for what you actually say in the speech, and what you actually read in the round. Debaters, highlight better. When you see garbage highlighting point it out, and make an argument about it---if the highlighting is really bad I will likely agree and won't give the card much credit. This does not mean you can't have good, efficient highlighting, but you must have a claim, data, and warrant(s) on each card.**

Quick Version:

1. Debate is a competitive game.

2. I will vote on framework and topicality-Affs should be topical. But, you can still beat framework with good offense or a crafty counter-interpretation.

3. DA's and Aff advantages can have zero risk.

4. Neg conditionality is mostly good.

5. Counterplans and PICs --good (better to have a solvency advocate than not), process CPs a bit different. It is a very debatable thing for me but topic-specific justifications go a long way with me.

6. K's that link to the Aff plan/advocacy/advantages/reps are good.

7. I will not decide the round over something X team did in another round, at another tournament, or a team's judge prefs.

8. Email Chain access please: bgaston@heritagehall.com

9. The debate should be a fun and competitive activity, be kind to each other and try your best.

My Golden Rule: When you have the option to choose a more specific strategy vs a more generic strategy, always choose the more specific strategy if you are equally capable of executing both strategies. But I get it, sometimes you have to run a process CP or a more generic K.

Things not to do: Don't run T is an RVI, don't hide evidence from the other team to sabotage their prep, don't lie about your source qualifications, don't text or talk to coaches to get "in round coaching" after the round has started, please stay and listen to RFD's I am typically brief, and don't deliberately spy on the other teams pre-round coaching. I am a high school teacher and coach, who is responsible for high school-age students. Please, don't read things overtly sexual if you have a performance aff--since there are minors in the room I think that is inappropriate.

Pro-tip: FLOW---don't stop flowing just because you have a speech doc.

"Clipping" in debate: Clipping in the debate is a serious issue and one of the things I will be doing to deter clipping in my rounds is requesting a copy of all speech docs before the debaters start speaking and while flowing I read along to check from time to time.

CX: This is the only time you have “face time” with the judge. Please look at the judge not at each other. Your speaker points will be rewarded for a great CX and lowered for a bad one. Be smart in CX, assertive, but not rude.

Speaker Point Scale updated: Speed is fine, and clarity is important. If you are not clear I will yell out “Clear.” The average national circuit debate starts at 28.4, Good is 28.5-28.9 (many national circuit rounds end up in this range), and Excellent 29-29.9. Can I get a perfect 30? I have given 3 in 20 years if HS judging they all went on to win the NDT in college. I will punish your points if you are excessively rude to opponents or your partner during a round.

Long Version...

Affirmatives: I still at my heart of hearts prefer and Aff with a plan that's justifiably topical. But, I think it's not very hard for teams to win that if the Aff is germane to the topic that's good enough. I'm pretty sympathetic to the Neg if the Aff has very little to or nothing to do with the topic. If there is a topical version of the Aff I tend to think that takes away most of the Aff's offense in many of these T/FW debates vs no plan Affs--unless the Aff can explain why there is no topical version and they still need to speak about "X" on the Aff or why their offense on T still applies.

Disadvantages: I like them. I prefer specific link stories (or case-specific DA’s) to generic links, as I believe all judges do. But, if all you have is generic links go ahead and run them, I will evaluate them. The burden is on the Aff team to point out those weak link stories. I think Aff’s should have offense against DA’s it's just a smarter 2AC strategy, but if a DA clearly has zero link or zero chance of uniqueness you can win zero risk. I tend to think politics DA's are core negative ground--so it is hard for me to be convinced I should reject the politics DA because debating about it is bad for debate. My take: I often think the internal link chains of DA's are not challenged enough by the Aff, many Aff teams just spot the Neg the internal links---It's one of the worst effects of the prevalence of offense/defense paradigm judging over the past years...and it's normally one of the weaker parts of the DA.

Counterplans: I like them. I generally think most types of counterplans are legitimate as long as the Neg wins that they are competitive. I am also fine with multiple counterplans. On counterplan theory, I lean pretty hard that conditionality and PICs are ok. You can win theory debates over the issue of how far negatives can take conditionality (battle over the interps is key). Counterplans that are functionally and textually competitive are always your safest bet but, I am frequently persuaded that counterplans which are functionally competitive or textually competitive are legitimate. My Take: I do however think that the negative should have a solvency advocate or some basis in the literature for the counterplan. If you want to run a CP to solve terrorism you need at least some evidence supporting your mechanism. My default is that I reject the CP, not the team on Aff CP theory wins.

Case debates: I like it. Negative teams typically underutilize this. I believe well planned impacted case debate is essential to a great negative strategy. Takeouts and turns can go a long way in a round.

Critiques: I like them. In the past, I have voted for various types of critiques. I think they should have an alternative or they are just non-unique impacts. I think there should be a discussion of how the alternative interacts with the Aff advantages and solvency. Impact framing is important in these debates. The links to the Aff are very important---the more specific the better.

Big impact turn debates: I like them. Want to throw down in a big Hegemony Good/Bad debate, Dedev vs Growth Good, method vs method, it's all good.

Topicality/FW: I tend to think competing interpretations are good unless told otherwise...see the Aff section above for more related to T.

Theory: Theory sets up the rules for the debate game. I tend to evaluate theory debates in an offensive/defense paradigm, paying particular attention to each teams theory impacts and impact defense. The interpretation debate is very important to evaluating theory for me. For a team to drop the round on theory you must impact this debate well and have clear answers to the other side's defense.

Impact framing-- it's pretty important, especially in a round where you have a soft-left Aff with a big framing page vs a typical neg util based framing strat.

Have fun debating!

I am a former policy debate coach (2009-2015). I am pretty open to any style of debating, so do what you do best. I think all arguments in a debate should have clear impacts, so if you want me to vote on something, tell me why it matters to vote there. It is fine be to passionate about your arguments, but be civil to each other. Have fun!

I debated for 4 years at Clear Lake HS. I broke at state one year and was usually pretty close to clearing at TOC tournaments, so that's something I guess. I also don't know anything about this topic, so don't assume that I do. Anyway, a tl;dr version of this is: do whatever you want, be smart, don't get drowned in technicalities, speak somewhat clearly, and "spreed" at your own risk... I am a terrible flower. But what kind of debater are you if you're too lazy to read the damn paradigm?

More detailed stuff:

Disads: Impact calculus is a must, sophisticated turns case arguments are an easy way to definitively win the disad debate so do it if you can. I DON'T KNOW THE OBVIOUS TOPIC DISADS. EXPLAIN THEM.

Counterplans: I'm cool with most counterplans, but some of the ones that sort of obviously steal the aff without much aff-specific nuance irk me a little (examples include consult, conditions, delay, etc)... This doesn't mean you can't read these arguments, but you better be damn sure that you can theoretically justify them in what I would like to be a rigorous theory debate. Competition is also a must for counterplans. I don't think permutations are advocacies. If the 2ac says 10 perms, that's fine, but that doesnt mean the neg dropping one means its game over... perms don't have to be thoroughly answered by the neg unless the aff has a warrant for why the permutation proves the counterplan isn't competitive.

Kritiks: I think philosophy is awesome, but I also think debate tends to bastardize the ideas of philosophers. So, if you have some cool stuff to say about epistemology or methodology or something, go for it, but make sure its a good and understandable argument. I can't stress enough how likely it is that I will screw you over if you go for some super complex, topic-specific kritik and technically win the flow but end up confusing me.

But, just to confuse you when making your judge prefs: I am ideologically ok with all kinds of critiquess and I found these arguments to be the ones that were most likely to teach me something or make me think about something kritikally, which is awesome. I would rather you win the kritik debate in some substantive manner on the neg. I have nothing against sneaky K tricks, but they might hurt your speaks if it seems to me like you're just being lazy by avoiding the meat of the debate. Turns case arguments are sweet, although "alt solves the aff" usually sounds pretty stupid.

Finally, be very clear in your explanation of the thesis of the criticism... I'm not ideologically opposed to voting for super far-left kritiks and other unconventional arguments, but I don't always understand them immediately, so you're going to want to make me understand. Again, don't assume that I understand anything. Just know that I'm not particularly stupid and will understand your argument if it makes sense and you explain it well. Or I might not; idk, I'm just not a great judge for people who like to do really weird stuff.

Topicality: I love topicality but only when it's done well. Standards on topicality are impacts. Treat the T debate exactly like a disad debate. Critical thinking, portable skills, topic education, whatever; most T standards make sense to me so go for it but do comparative impact analysis on those standards. If you go for what intuitively seems like a stupid T argument but argue it masterfully, I'm ok with that (your speaks might suffer), but I would prefer that your violation does make some intuitive sense as to why the aff is untopical. My lack of experience with the topic means you need to explain why your case list is good, and specifically talk about what your interpretation allows vs the aff's interpretation.

Theory: I talked about counterplan theory above, and my thoughts here are similar to the section on topicality. Do comparative analysis w/ both offensive and defensive arguments on both sides, and you have a chance to win theory arguments. I haven't had an intense conditionality debate in a while, but I'm always down for one. Condo is probably the only theory arg that is a voter, but feel free to argue anything else is a voter.

Performance affs/negs: I don't really feel like I should have to have a section for this, because the distinction between performance and non-performance debate is kind of blurry to me. Performance is cool. Do it. I am sympathetic to framework arguments against affs that don't advocate a plan, but you obviously have to win the flow -- treat it like a T/disad debate and you should be alright on either side. I think there are a lot of viable "aff turns framework" and "framework turns aff" arguments, so do what you gotta do to win the debate. In general, you shouldn't be afraid to perform your 1ac, and you also shouldn't be afraid to go for framework against these affs -- I've won debates on the aff without reading a plan text, and I've won debates on the neg by going for framework against these same types of affs.

Speaker points: I evaluate debaters on how smart they sound and how clear they are. Nothing special here. Debate well, speak well, and you'll get good speaks. 29-30 is usually reserved for the top tier of debaters, but perform really well and you could very well find yourself in this range. You won't get below a 28 unless you are really messy on the flow, drop a lot of stuff, go for really bad arguments, etc. You won't get below a 27 unless you are annoying and I hate you. One thing that will annoy me is being mean to your opponents or partner. Just be cool, have fun, etc.

In case anything on this paradigm wasn't clear, I should be a decent judge for pretty much anyone. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me stuff before the round, but if you're unsure of whether or not I am ok with a certain argument, just assume that I am.

Conflicts: Cypress Bay High School; Pine Crest

Reading through this philosophy before your round will be very helpful.

tl;dr version:
I'm cool with mostly everything. Debate is a game. Tech>Truth. I haven't judged on this year's HS topic at all, so I don't know any of the topic-specific jargon/buzzwords. Large overviews are pointless. Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves the computer. Don't go for theory unless you have to. The team that wins framework usually wins the debate. Number your arguments in the 1NC/2AC, and respond to them accordingly.

I also agree with everything Calum Matheson says: http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Matheson%2C+Calum

Full version:

I'll do my best to evaluate any and all arguments/styles fairly. That being said, no judge can be 100% tab, so here's how I view most things


Meta-issues:

Do you. Have fun. Learn something.

All arguments are regarded as true until they are answered. There really isn't any argument that I won't listen to. If you say "genocide is good" or "slavery is good" or something clearly immoral, I'll still evaluate it and the other team is still required to answer it. That being said, "genocide good" is pretty easy to answer, and if you can't easily explain why genocide is bad, there's a pretty good chance you wouldn't be able to win the debate anyway.

The role of the judge is clearly up for debate. If one team presents makes a claim on what the role of the judge is, and the other team does not answer it, my role is whatever the first team said it was. However, if no one makes an argument as to what the role of the judge is, I usually default to policy-maker. The same goes for the ballot. If no team makes a role of the ballot argument, the ballot is a determination of whether the plan is better than the status quo or a competitive alternative.

Clipping is cheating and you will lose the debate and earn 0 speaker points. Same goes for stealing files and lying about prep time.

Paperless issues:

While I fully embrace your right to read cards and files off your laptop, I prefer you flow on actual paper. I won't hold it against you if you chose to flow on your computer, but I will have no sympathy for you if your laptop crashes and you lose your flow.

All cards being read in the speech must be flashed to the other team before the speech begins. If you make a decision mid-speech to read a different card or if your partner brings you up something to read mid-speech, or you finish the 1AC with 45 seconds left and want to keep going, either flash the cards to the other team before the speech ends, or you have to use your own prep time afterward (before cross-x) to flash them the extra cards.

I already said this, but I want to emphasize it again. PREP TIME ENDS WHEN THE FLASH DRIVE LEAVES THE COMPUTER. If you say "stop prep", and the flash drive is still in your computer, I keep the prep clock going and you lose .1 speaker points.

Co-prepping is uncool. If your partner is bringing up a pre-typed couple of paragraphs for you to mindlessly read in the middle of your speech, I'll flow it, but I will not like it.

Unless the tournament rules prohibit it, feel free to use the Internet during the debate to look up stuff. However, if I find out that you are using the Internet to chat with your coach, you lose the debate and get 0 speaker points. But if you want to waste precious prep time to cut a card that you were too lazy to look for before the tournament, have at it.

If you aren't using some form of debate template on your computer, don't bother doing paperless. Verbatim is awesome.

If you and your partner are paperless, and the other team does not have a laptop, you have to provide the other team with a viewing computer. If you did not bring a viewing computer, one of your computers will have to be loaned to them.

Delete the other team's speech docs after the debate. Otherwise, you're stealing. Stealing is wrong.

Style/Performance:

While I'm definitely more comfortable judging "traditional"-style debates, I can be somewhat versatile. If you think that the best way to convey your arguments is through hip-hop, or reading narratives, or poetry, I'm not going to hold that against you. Just be prepared to defend your form as well as your content.

Speed is a double-edged sword. I can understand any speed, but I cannot understand you if you're unclear. If I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" once. If later on in that speech, I still cannot understand you, I put my pen down and stop flowing until you get the hint.

When it comes to theory/topicality/framework, you've got to slow down a bit. If you want me to get the nuance of your conditionality argument, I've got to be able to hear what you're saying.

Cross-x:

Cross-x is a speech. I will flow it, and it matters. Every cross-x has a winner and a loser.

If you say "cross-x was embarrassing on this question" or some variant, you are probably making a fool of yourself. Cross-x is rarely embarrassing, and if it is, I already know that it was embarrassing.

Cross-x is a time for questions, not arguments. "You don't solve" is not a question. If you have an argument, you've got an 8 minute speech coming up that is perfect for it. Instead, use the cross-x to set up future arguments.

If you don't reference cross-x every speech after the 1AC, you probably didn't do the cross-x correctly.

Cross-x is binding unless I am told otherwise.

Topicality/Theory/framework:

Evidence is good. If you have evidence for why breadth is better than depth in education, it'll take you far.

Reasonability is stupid. Like, really really stupid.

I view topicality the same way I view a counterplan debate. You have to win that your definition solves the standards, and you need a net benefit to your interpretation.

If you go for T in the 2NR and you DON'T spend 5 minutes on it, you will probably lose the debate.

I generally think that underlimiting is better than overlimiting, but I can be persuaded otherwise

An interpretation is not "abusive". It is "unfair" maybe. It could be "bad for debate". But it is not "abusive". Unless other team literally punched you during your speech, they did not abuse you.

I can go either way on conditionality. It's hard for me to vote against 1 K and 1 CP unless they are fiercely incompatible (e.g. Borders K + States CP or Cap K + Privatization CP). Multiple PICs are probably bad. Multi-plank conditionality is probably bad. More than 4 advocacies is almost definitely bad (but I can be persuaded otherwise).

2AC theory violations must have an interpretation (e.g. "They get 1 conditional advocacy").

If the 2AC rockets through 10 theory arguments and then the 1AR blows up on 1 small "independent voting issue" from 1 of the shells, you lose your ethos.

The team that wins framework most likely wins the debate. 

I'm very biased against framework arguments that go something like this: "Your aff doesn't have a plan text and I don't understand how to answer Ks so you should lose because it's unfair or something." Learn anthro.

Counterplans:

I will not kick the counterplan for you. If you go for it in the 2nr, the only relevant comparison in the debate is between the counterplan and the plan. You don't get to also weigh the status quo against the plan as well. While it may be "logical" to consider the status quo, since the debate is a referendum on the plan's desirability, forcing the 2AR to defend against two possible alternatives to the plan (ie the cp and the squo) makes for bad debate. Also saying something is "logical" does not mean it's fair. It's logical for the plan to change halfway through the debate in order to avoid to the link to a disad, because that's how politics works, that doesn't make it fair.

Since you seem to have read pretty far into my philosophy, kudos. Here's your prize for reading this far: If you want an automatic .5 added to your speaker point total, use the word "sassafras" in one of your speeches. It will prove to me that you are a dedicated debater and know that it's always a good idea to research the judge before the debate. Now, back to other stuff.

There is a debate as to what types of counterplans are acceptable. I generally believe counterplans such as consult, conditions, recommendations, plan contingent counterplans or counterplans that compete off of certainty and immediacy are not competitive. I can be persuaded otherwise.

Spitting out as many generic perms as you can in 30 seconds is a bad move. If you throw out 10 perms in a row without any cards, I will not be able to flow them all. I will write down "fuckload of perms".


Kritiks:

Don't assume I'm familiar with all of your literature. I'm familiar with most Ks, but if you're reading something WAY out of left field, just throwing out a pile of cards and assuming I'm an expert in your author will not bode well for you.

Floating PIKs are bad unless you mention (before the 2NR) that it's a floating PIK

If you don't understand your own literature, you will be punished both by your opponent and by me

Don't read some crazy rare K just to throw off your opponent. But, if you actually just LOVE Bataille, you do you.

I prefer a lot of impact comparison on k vs. plan debates.

Long-ass overviews are only acceptable if you're making actual arguments. Re-explaining something you said in your last speech will not earn you a ballot.



I could go on, but I'm far too lazy to write any more. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

I will evaluate anything that is fleshed out and meaningfully impacted as a voter in the round. If someone correctly believes they can run something coherently, their only fear should be how well the opponents will refute it.

That said, if I was to comment on a bias or "preference," it wouldn't be about the content of an argument, but its delivery. In close matches, I often find myself voting for the team which does a better job keeping the flow clean and organized. Making transitions clear is much appreciated and a speech which is more easily flowed is more easily remembered and analyzed afterwards, when its time to decide who wins which line of the flow.

Updated 2023 Pre-Northwestern College Season Opener

Assistant Policy Debate Coach at UT-Dallas and Greenhill

Debated at C.E. Byrd HS in Shreveport, Louisiana (class of ’14). Debated in college policy for Baylor University (2014-2016) and the University of Iowa (2017-2019)

Have coached: Caddo Magnet HS, Hendrickson HS, Little Rock Central HS, Glenbrook South HS, University of Iowa, James Madison University

Email chain should be set up/sent before start time. Sam.gustavson@gmail.com

Top level

Please be respectful of one another. We are all sacrificing our weekends to be here and learn, you can be passionate about your arguments without being mean, rude, condescending, hostile, etc. I’d almost always prefer you convince me that your opponent’s arguments are bad, not that they’re bad people. Chances are, none of us know each other well enough to make that determination.

Please prioritize clarity over speed.Everything else you can take with a grain of salt and ultimately do what you are best at, but me being able to understand you comes before anything else.

Debate is hard. People make it harder by making it more complicated than it needs to be. I like debaters who take complex ideas and bring them down to the level of simplicity and common sense.

Judge instruction, impact framing, comparison of evidence, authors, warrants, etc. or “the art of spin” is the most important thing for telling me how I should decide a debate. Making strategic decisions is important.

One of the things that makes debate truly unique is the research that is required, and so I think it makes sense to reward teams who are clearly going above and beyond in the research they’re producing. Good cards won’t auto win you the debate, but they certainly help “break ties” on the flow and give off the perception that a team is deep in the literature on their argument. But good evidence is always secondary to what a debater does with it.

I care about cross-x A LOT. USE ALL OF YOUR CX TIME PLZ

Organization is also really important to me. Debaters that do effective line by line, clearly label arguments and use things like subpoints are more likely to win in front of me and get better speaks.

High School Specific Thoughts

I work full time in college debate and as a result am less familiar with the ins-and-outs of the high school topic. Take that into consideration.

If you’re interested in doing policy debate in college, feel free to talk to me about debating at UT-Dallas! I am a full-time assistant coach there. We have scholarships, multiple coaches, and a really fun team culture.

CLARITY OVER SPEED APPLIES DOUBLE TO HIGH SCHOOL

Set up the email chain as soon as you get to the room and do disclosure. If you’re aff, ask for the neg team’s emails and copy and paste mine from the top of my paradigm. Let’s get started on time!

Please keep track of your own prep, cx, and speech time.

Don’t flow off the speech doc, it’s the easiest way to miss something and it’s super obvious. Don’t waste cross-x time asking what the did and didn’t read! Flowing is so important.

Aff thoughts

I don’t care what “style” of aff you read, I just care that it is consistently explained and executed throughout the debate.

I like most judges enjoy 2ACs that make strategic choices, smart groupings and cross applications, and effectively and efficiently use the 1AC to beat neg positions in addition to reading new cards.

2ACs and ESPECIALLY 1ARs are getting away with murder in terms of not actually extending the aff.

Pretty aff leaning on a lot of CP theory questions (Process especially, 50 states, agent CPs. With the exception of PICs), but usually think they’re a reason to reject the argument. You can win it’s a reason to reject the team, but my bar for winning the 2ac was irrevocably skewed by the existence of a single 1NC position is pretty high. I don’t really lean one way or the other on condo (ideologically at least, I have no clue what my judge record is in condo debates).

Neg Thoughts - General

I like negative strategies that are well-researched specific responses to the aff. I think case debating is super important and underutilized. Nothing is more persuasive than a negative team who seems to know more about the 1AC than the Aff team does.

The 1NR should be the best speech in the debate, you have so much prep.

The 2NR should make strategic decisions, collapse down, and anticipate 2ar framing and pivots. The block is about proliferating options, the 2NR is about making decisions and closing doors.

Counterplans

Like I said above, prefer aff-specific CPs to generics. Counterplans that only compete on immediacy and certainty and net benefits that don’t say the aff is bad are not my favorite. I definitely prefer Process CP + Politics to Process CP + internal net benefit, because the politics DA disproves the desirability of the plan.

Because of the above thoughts, I am more aff leaning on CP theory in a lot of instances, with the exception of PICs. I think PICs that disprove/reject part of the aff are probably good.

People say sufficiency framing without doing the work to explain why the risk of the net benefit actually outweighs the risk of the solvency deficit. You have to do some type of risk calculus to set up what is sufficient and how I should evaluate it.

I have no feelings one way or another about judge kick. Win that it’s good or win that it’s bad.

Counterplans vs K affs are underutilized.

Disads

Comparison is important and not just at the impact level. Telling me what warrants to prioritize on the uniqueness and link debate, rehighlighting evidence, doing organized labeling and line by line, etc. Don’t just extend the different parts of the DA, do comparative work and framing on each part to tell me to tell me why you’re winning it and what matters most in terms of what I evaluate.

Like I said in the neg general section, I usually prefer an aff/topic specific DA to politics, but those concerns can be easily alleviated with good link debating on the politics DA. Your link being specific to the aff/resolution is usually important especially for link uniqueness reasons. I typically like elections more than agenda politics just as a research preference.

Impact Turns

Get in the weeds early in these debates and read a lot of cards. Don’t be afraid to read cards late in the debate either. Teams that get out-carded in these debates early have a tough time getting back in the game.

Recency, specificity, and evidence quality really matter for most every argument, but these debates especially. It’s pretty obvious when one team has updates and the other is reading a backfile

These debates get unorganized in a hurry. Labeling, line by line, using subpoints/numbers, and making clear cross applications are super important

Topicality

I really like T debates vs policy affs. I think creative arguments like extra T and effects T are underutilized or at least often underexplained and that there are affs getting away with fiating a lot of extra-resolutional/non-resolutional things.

Typically default to competing interps, and I’ll be totally transparent here: reasonability is kind of an uphill battle for me. When people go for reasonability with an interp, I almost always understand reasonability as a standard for why the aff’s interp is good. If you’re arguing your interpretation is better because it’s more reasonable, how is that not also an appeal to competing interpretations? And in the other scenario, if you’re going for reasonability with a we meet argument, I feel like a lot of the time it just begs the question of the violation and it’s easy for the neg to frame it as a yes/no question, not something that you can kind of/reasonably meet. Ultimately superior debating supersedes everything. If you win reasonability, you win reasonability. But you are probably better off just winning the we meet or going for a counter-interp

Impact comparison on standards is super important. I don’t have any strong preferences in terms of how I evaluate limits vs precision, aff ground vs neg ground, etc. Those are things you have to win and do the work of framing for me.

For the neg: Case lists, examples of ground lost under the aff’s interp, examples of why the debates under your model over the course of the year, topical versions of the aff, etc. will all help me understand in practice why your interp is better for the year of debate on the topic rather than just in theory.

For the aff: A well-explained we meet and/or counter interpretation, a case list of things you allow and things you don’t, and explanation of what ground the neg gets access to under your interp beyond quickly listing arguments and saying functional limits check, explain the warrant for why your interp preserves that ground and why those debates are good to have. N

Not super persuaded by “we meet – plan text in a vacuum” without much additional explanation. If the aff reads a plan text but then reframes/clarifies what that means in cross-x, in 1ac solvency evidence, or in the 2ac responding to neg positions, I think it’s easy for the neg to win those things outweigh plan text in a vacuum.

Framework

I judge a lot of these debates, and I’m fine with that. I think debating about debate is useful.

Fairness can be and impact or an internal link, just depends on how it’s debated. For it to be an external impact, it needs to not be circular/self-referential, which I think it often is in terms of how teams execute it. “Debate is a game, so it needs to be fair, because games need to be fair, and without fairness we can’t debate” is a circular argument that lacks an impact. To me, the argument becomes more offensive the more teams emphasize the time commitment we all put into debate and why maintaining fairness is important for honoring that time commitment, or explaining why it’s important for participation.

If either side is claiming participation as an impact, you have gotta explain how voting for you/your model would solve it. I think that’s hard to do but I’ve seen it done effectively both with fairness and with K affs doing for access/participation outweighs. The impact is obviously very big, but the internal link is often sketchy and not flushed out, in addition to largely being untrue because things like budget cuts have a lot more to do with who can participate than any particular team reading any particular argument.

I prefer clash as an impact more because I feel like it gets to a bigger impact that is more at the heart of why debate is good and that it often causes the neg to interact with the aff more. Your warrants for why clash turns the aff should be aff specific – same with TVAs. Nothing hurts me worse than ultra-generic framework debating where the argument could apply to literally any K aff. The best way to win your model can account for the aff’s impacts is to use the language of the aff in your explanation of things like clash, Switch-Side, and the TVA.

Affs that have something to do with the topic and can link turn things like topic education and clash are more persuasive to me than affs that try to impact turn every single part of framework. You probably will need to win some defense, because so much of the neg side of framework is defense to the stuff you want to go for.

Having a counter-interpretation really helps me understand how to evaluate offense and defense in these debates. This does not necessarily require the 2AC to redefine words in the resolution, but rather to tell me what the aff’s vision of debate is, what the role is for the aff and neg, and why those debates are good. Even if you are going to impact turn everything, having a counter-interpretation or a model of debate helps me understand what the role of the aff, neg, and the overall role of debate are.

Kritiks

The more aff-specific the better. Links do not necessarily have to be to the plan (it would be nice if they were), but they should implicate the 1ac in specific ways whether it’s their rhetoric, impact scenarios, etc. 2NCs that quote and rehighlight aff evidence, read new cards, proliferate links, and give the 2nr options are good. If you are criticizing/kritiking the aff, you should quote as much of their evidence, indict as many of their authors, and apply your criticism to the aff as much as possible. The most common advice I give 2Ns going for the K is to quote the aff more

Making decisions in the 2NR is still important even when reading the K one-off. You cannot go for every link, framing argument, perm answer, etc. in the 2NR.

The best K 2NRs I’ve ever seen effectively use case to mitigate parts of the aff’s offense. If you give them 100% risk of the aff vs the K, it’s harder to win!

Kicking the alt/going just for links or case turns is not the move in front of me. There are almost always uniqueness problems and I end up usually just voting aff on a risk of case. Whether it’s an alternative or a framework argument, you gotta explain to me how voting neg solves your offense.

I have noticed that in a lot of K debates I find that both the aff and the neg over-invest in framework. I honestly don’t see a scenario where I don’t let the aff weigh the 1AC if they win that fiat is good. I also don’t see a scenario where I vote aff because Kritiks on the neg are unfair. If the neg is making links to the aff, the aff obviously gets to weigh their offense against those link arguments. I really think both sides in most cases would be better served spending time on the link/impact/alt rather than overinvesting time on the framework debate.

I don’t really understand a lot of the form/content distinction stuff people go for because I think that the way arguments about “form” are deployed in debate are usually not actually about the form of anything and almost exclusively refer to disagreements in content

Ethics challenges/Clipping/Out of Round Stuff:

In the case that anyone calls an ethics violation for any reason I reserve the right to defer/go to tab, and then beyond that I can only vote based on my interpretation of events. This used to really only apply to clipping, but I’ve been a part of a bunch of different types of ethics challenges over the years so I’ve decided to update this.

Clipping: Hot take, it’s obviously bad. If I have proof you clipped the round will end and you’ll lose. I don’t follow along in speech docs unless someone starts being unclear, so if your opponent is clipping it’s up to you to notice and get proof. I need a recording if I don’t catch it live, even if we are on a panel and another judge catches it. Without a recording or proof, I’m not pulling the trigger.

Be careful about recording people without their consent, especially minors. Multiple states require two-party consent to record, don’t get yourself in legal trouble over a debate round.

I don’t vote on out of round stuff, especially stuff I wasn’t there for. For clarification, I suppose there could be exceptions to this and my opinions on it have gone back and forth. If you feel that someone in the round has jeopardized your safety, made you uncomfortable, or anything remotely similar, I will do everything in to advocate for you if I witness any of the following. If I am not a witness, I will make sure that the proper channels are used to address the complaint.

This is obviously distinct from criticizing something that someone has said or calling people out for being problematic. I’m saying if something so bad has happened that we have to stop the round, I have to go to the tournament and my bosses and look at my options. For your safety and mine I am required to think about how I’m protected, and my role and qualifications as a coach and educator as it relates to resolving officially lodged complaints of discrimination or harassment.

LD Paradigm:

Tech over truth but asserting that an argument is dropped/conceded is not the same thing as extending a full argument

My debate background is in policy, so I have much more familiarity with policy/LARP and Kritikal debates than I do with phil.

That is not to say you cannot win on philosophy in front of me, but you should try to frame it in language that I will understand. So telling me why your impact outweighs and turns their offense, winning defense to their stuff, doing judge instruction and weighing to tell me what matters and what doesn't.

Clarity is more important than speed. Slow down a bit on counterplan texts, interps, etc. Spreading as fast as you can through theory shells or a million a priori's means there's probably a good chance that I am not going to get everything

A lot of arguments in LD stop at the level of a claim - you can be efficient but you can't just blippily extend claims without warrants and expect to win

Not a huge fan of frivolous theory. I think most theory debates end up being a reason to reject the argument not the team with the exception of condo. But like I said, tech over truth so you can win theory in front of me, it just needs to be well impacted for why it is a reason to drop the debater and why rejecting the argument/practice doesn't solve

Lesly Gutierrez

If you have questions about the round email me @ leslygutierrez2011@gmail.com, but please put the round in the subject line

-3 years of debate at UT Dallas 
- 4 years of policy debate. 3 years of TFA State appearances.
-Lab Leader at the Comet Debate Institute


The Plain and Simple:
I’m as much of a blank slate as I possibly be can. There’s no arguments that will be an automatic loss if you go for them, that being said, if your 2nr is going to be timecube I would find someone else to pref. 

Aff Questions

K affs/Project Teams- I like these debates. I've judged enough of these debates at this point that I'm pretty well versed in the lit

Neg Positions

T- I think T is an underrated strat that should be gone for more. By that, I mean that if you have some specific T shell or the aff is totally not Economic Engagement then read that T. The QPQ debate is kind of being a wash at this point to be honest 
DA- I like the politics disad, I read it a lot when I debated. No issues w/da's here 
CP- I also like a good counterplan debate. I think specificity >generic everytime.
Theory- I have a hard time believing that 2 K’s are abusive in a world where they are conditional, and the neg just needs some justification on why they get to test the aff. Other theory arguments just need to be well explained.
Kritiks- This is the fun part. I like the K. I read the K quite often. I like to judge a well-explained K debate. I will listen to your Spanos, D&G, or whatever. It needs to be well explained. I repeat this because it’s important. I haven’t read every K in the world, which means I might not know what you are reading. I just need you to tell me what the alt does and why the aff is bad. Please don’t make the debate buzz words. I don’t care about rhizomatic structures of the aff, tell me why those structures suck Framework- Just defend it. If you read it against a K aff, have an answer to “Framework is racist:” I'm becoming less and less persuaded that the aff has to roleplay as the USFG but if you have a super FW block or just feel like you're really good at it go for it. 
Weird Stuff: I'm not a fan of these trolling args, and will probably dock speaks if you read them. Calling shotgun for the ballot, adding words to the 1AC, timecube, consult x-men, etc. are not arguments. They are time sucks that get mirrored by other teams and makes debate terrible. I'd rather you read something generic than waste my time.
Speaker Points:

I’m not a points hack. I’ll say clear and then I stop flowing. How you conduct yourself in CX is important. If you're rude and needlessly hurtful to your opponents, I’ll dock speaks. This is an amazing activity because of all the experiences you get, which means I think that respect goes along way. Be clear, be courteous and your speaks will reflect that. That being said I am hard of hearing, I have bolded this because it means you have to be louder than usual and conscious of outside noises, mumbling and getting really quiet during cards does not work or me, please just be accommodating

Lincoln- Douglas Debate: Stick to traditional arguments. I am not a progressive judge. Make sure that you give me some sort of a road map during rebuttals so I know how to follow you on my flow. Make sure to give voters in the last speech. I want to see what you think I should be voting on. Speaking: Please don't spread. I can understand some speed but not super fast. Remember that this is a speaking event and decorum should be followed. Good luck!

Extemp: Your speech should run like a smooth machine with an introduction, body and conclusion. Please use sources to back up your arguments. This is communication and should include body language (stance and hand gestures) as well as tone, clarity and word choice. This is not Policy, please do not spread. You are educating me on a topic which should mean quality arguments over quantity.

I debated for four years in high school and am in my 3rd year of college debate

During my high school career I primarily read kritiks and performance arguments, but I have also worked with and read traditional policy arguments. This means I won't automatically lean one way or the other-I expect you to frame the debate and make the arguments that tell me how to vote, so that I don't have to rely on my personal beliefs. 
The things I will not tolerate: card clipping, evidence fabrication, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc. 

I prefer truth over tech-I prefer in depth discussions of evidence comparison, warrants, and explanations of the thesis of arguments over the minutiae of the line by line-if you think you can win with a long, contextualized explanation of your argument that adequately addresses the main issues in the debate, go  for it. That being said, I still expect some kind of technical debating in the sense of providing warranted responses to specific arguments-this doesn't mean you have to go down the line by line, just address all the arguments in the debate somehow and let me know what you're addressing. 

Specific argument preferences:

Kritiks: These are some of my favorite debates-for me a K debate is good when it's well explained and contextualized, and aff-specific kritiks are even better. I am familiar with literature spanning from: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Afropessimism, Coloniality, Settler Colonialism, Queer Theory, basic Marxism, and Foucault. If your K is very high theory but not on my list, that doesn't mean I can't judge it-I can probably catch on pretty quickly given that you explain the arguments well enough. My familiarity with a literature base is not an excuse to slack off in your explanation or contextualization of arguments-Well warranted [not necessarily carded] arguments and explanations of your theory are necessary. I'm not a big fan of links of omission unless they are very specific [for example, if settler colonialism is intrinsic to the discussion of the topic then I am much more likely to buy that the aff's omission is problematic]. Always have a clear role of the ballot, framework debate, and impact calc. You should make explicit and specific turns case/root cause arguments, explain the specifics of why the aff's truth claims are false or should be rejected-I'm not likely to vote on generics. Have a solid explanation of the alt and what it does. I will vote on Floating PIKs if they are conceeded, but I err aff on floating piks theory. The best K debates come with contextual explanations, examples, and illustrate an in depth knowledge of the lit and its real world use.

Ks vs a K aff-have specific and clear links and places of contestation-have a clear explanation of what the alt does, how it's different from the aff-your should have specific explanations of how the alt resolves the aff/any of the aff's disads-for me this is distinct from having a root cause argument-I need an explanation of the reverse causal argument [example: even if you win cap is the historical root cause of racism, I need a warrant for why the alt would result in a transition that would eradicate racism.] 

For a policy aff to win against a K I think the most important thing is to win a solid defense of the aff. I give very little weight to shady or unexplained perms, by the 1ar you should have some explanation of what the permutation does and be consistent in your explanation. You probably won't persuade me that I shouldn't evaluate the K with framework, but you can probably win that you get to access your impacts.
For a K aff to win against a K I think you need a solid explanation of your aff in the context of the K with well explained link turns, an explanation of how the perm functions, and impacted out net benefits to the perm. I think a lot of time people will read really bad K links to K affs or Ks that dont address the specificity of the aff-you should point that out and use it to your advantage. 

Peformance/Method debates-I debated with these arguments and critiques for most of my last two years of debate-I love GOOD performance and method debates. A good performance debate should be one that clearly establishes competition between the performances/methods with specific disads and links to what you are debating. I believe that all debate is a performance, the question to be debated is just whether your performance is good. 

In these debates I think the aff should have a solid defense of the aff and their performance and education-roleplaying good, policymaking good- in addition to permutations, defense, disads to their performance. You're unlikely to persuade me that I shouldn't evaluate a criticism of the aff's performance.

K Affs:
I'm open to K affs-I don't believe the aff needs to have a plan text-I generally err towards the aff should have an advocacy statement but I can be persuaded otherwise. Similarly, I believe the aff should be connected to/in the direction of the topic, which will be much more persuasive in Framework debates, but again I can be persuaded otherwise. Just do your thing and tell me how to evaluate the round.

Framework against K Affs:
I am not a big fan of framework and would prefer to not judge that debate. However, that does not mean I will not evaluate it. Make your framework impacts specific to the aff and give examples. I am more persuaded by discussions of institutional engagement, policy education, switch sides, etc than fairness and predictability arguments. I prefer FW debates that end up more like method debates, in a way.

CPs:
I'm fine with most counterplans, and counterplans specific to the aff are even better. Generic solvency evidence isn't very persuasive. The permutation debate should be thorough [from the aff and neg] with an in depth explanation of how the perm functions/how the disads and net benefits to the perm function. 
I am fine with most counterplans. I err aff on process cps, word pics, delay, consult, and conditions CPs. For PICs am more persuaded to vote on the CP if it's specific to the aff and you win it addresses a key point of contention with the aff-I'm less lenient to random squirelly pics.

DA: The best disad debates have good, well warranted, comparative evidence-I prefer quality over dumping large numbers of short, speculative pieces of evidence. Impact calc and turns case debates are very important. Specific links to the aff are as well. I probably won't vote on 1% risk calculus if it comes to that, so make sure to win strong internal links and probability for your impacts. 

Theory: Slow down in theory debates-don't explain your standards at the speed you would read a card. I am not the most well versed or experienced in theory debates but I can follow one reasonably well. 
I default to evaluating conditionality as a reason to reject the team, everything else as a reason to reject the argument. I can be persuaded otherwise. Specific and well written interpretations will probably win you the day and makes the debate much easier to evaluate, especially on condo. Flush out and compare the standards, give contextual examples and point out abuse. I err neg on theory. 

Topicality- Well written T shells with specific interps, definitions, and standards are preferable to generic shells. As with theory, I am not very experienced with in depth T debates but I can follow it along. As with theory, comparative debates over the standards are a must, with contextual examples and all. Provide a case list, explain what the topic is like under your interp, explain in round abuse. Win framing issues-I default to competing interpretations but I can be persuaded otherwise. 

Miscellaneous: 
flash drives-for me prep ends when you're done with the speech doc and you're ready to flash it-I'll be fairly lenient on 
Clarity before speed-if you are unclear I will yell "clear".

Cross-posted from the judging wiki:

[Not to be a pain in the ass but you might also see Nikol, Nik, Nikole, etc. or possible var. Kinu on the postings/ballot and honestly I do not care what you call me that is 100% inconsequential seriously]

Four years of policy in high school at Broken Arrow HS in Oklahoma ('02-'06 / mental health care - detain/search). A mix of judging and coaching on and off following graduation to the present, with consistent judging experience over the past two years (you can check tabroom.com for this year + I judged about halfway through elims at nationals last year). Minor LD judging/coaching experience as well (mostly right after high school).

From the back of the room, the most enjoyable debates tend to be the ones in which both parties are thoroughly engaged in the round. Debaters should strive to provide higher level analysis contextually appropriate for the round; run arguments you understand, not what you think will appeal to me. Clash is necessary. Think about your strategy in terms of how to approach the other team, not how to curry my favor. It's your debate, not mine.

I don't like to call for evidence; it feels interventionist, but I will if it legitimately becomes an issue. In keeping a non-interventionist approach, I also tend to glaze over when I hear partisan rhetoric, to either side. I'm pretty tab/flow (I really like/prefer being able to clearly refer back to the flow, I also don't like having to do the legwork for your arguments on it so.... be cautious with blippy extensions).

I'm comfortable adjudicating based on the frameworks that are presented to me, which often includes deviations from the standard policymaking view, and those are extremely enjoyable to me even though my competitive background was more grounded in that style of policy.

[Some lines are drawn though- ie don't think you can get away with stuff like justifying racism. I take systems of oppression and the material conditions that follow as matter-of-fact, more of than not.]

So, to the specific stuff:

T, procedurals, theory, etc: I have variable levels of ambivalence. Fonder of theory (and T, which I tend to view more as a theory argument) than most of the rest of policy/procedural stuff, but I will definitely vote wherever the flow is compelling. For procedurals, there is definitely a pretty even split between good/bad debates and arguments, and my overall judging experience has been that this category tends to end up as filler arguments most of the time. So, do what you need, just give me a substantive debate out of it if you go this route.

Last blip here- especially on theory, buzzwords/jargon are not replacements for warrants and analysis. I have to understand and care about voting here if this is the story you want to spin. In particular, theory gets messy so it requires more work: if you've got some great analysis then you really want to make sure that I catch it all - remember that I'm not reading your computer! It's up to you to make that work and give me a clean story out of everything.

Disads: Obviously a specific one tends to be better than generic, but sometimes you have to work with what you've got. If you decide to go for it though, obviously make it relevant, contextualize it, etc... explain why I'm voting, why/where you link, why you outweigh, etc.

Counterplans: Just don't screw it up*. I don't hate them. I just like K's better. [*OK I have to explain this I guess: Net Benefits. Solvency. Functional competitiveness??? The last probably explains why I tend to just say 'I liked the K better.']

Kritiks: I love 'em. The exception: when it's bad, because a bad kritik debate is a BAD round. This is why I am explicit above about not pandering to me for the ballot. Running a K just because you think I will like it or just because you know it will confuse your opponents is annoying (and that tactic usually reveals itself really quickly with the first bits of terminology or unfamiliar author name). I like actual advocacy behind them. Running one solely for specific strategic placement has lent to a tendency to bite back into ones own K. So watch that maybe. Despite my long involvement with policy I am outside the academy/self-taught so maybe don't rely so heavily on offhand references to external source material by your authors, but instead on connecting your thesis in round. Don't, like, BS me though. By the end of the round I want to be seeing links, alt solvency + I like hearing about a post-alt world, why do the implications outweigh, etc. This usually means getting creative + really understanding your evidence but I give a lot of weight on the flow if the round goes there.

It's encouraged to ask specific questions over any of these areas (including just my general paradigm) if you have any!

***FORMERLY THE ARTIST KNOWN AS ANGELA HO ***

Experience: 4 years policy in HS, former policy debater for UH, former PKD President of UH

FIRST, keep in mind that my husband and I do not talk excessively about theory, k’s, etc. in our daily lives. If you are preffing me because you hope I adjudicate with the knowledge depth of literature, you are in for a surprise.

Secondly, I'll tell you that being polite is the key because I don't think rudeness is necessary for debate and takes away from the actual education, being sassy is fine.

Third is that I judge based on logos. Make sure all arguments are logically thought out instead of just running them for the sake of running an argument and not being able to explain the argument. Make me want to vote for you. DO NOT scream over your opponent. I will also NOT vote for something I do not understand, you have failed to persuade my ballot.

*I CANNOT STAND excessive waste of time. As soon as the constructive is over, CX starts. As soon as there is silence, prep time needs to be used. Failure to be efficient will result in flashing counting as prep. No need to ask me if I am ready, I am ALWAYS ready once the debate begins.

Overall: There are no arguments that I won't vote on. I look at whatever you present to me. I am looking for a clear explanation of the function of the argument in the round, evidence comparison, and a clear impact calculus. I enjoy both K and traditional debates. I would like that both teams are clear on which side of the argument they are for. I have voted on plenty of arguments that I don't like so feel free to run whatever you are comfortable with but I will list what I tend to look at in my decision.

Do not get WILD if I cannot fully explain a theory/k background to you. I do not claim to be an expert in literature for different theories/k but if you fail to explain it to me or debate it, that will be how my decision is based. If I do not understand your theory/k then you have failed to explain it to me.

Flowing: I don't have a problem with spreading; however, I draw the line when you have to gasp and have become even incomprehensible to yourself. I personally think it's worthless to spread if you don't use up all of your speech time or not be able to explain your cards. Emphasize taglines. Make sure you pronounce words that will be repeated throughout the round correctly because it does get annoying hearing words incorrectly said over and over and over again. Do not "spread" if you are not able to cover more than regular reading, points deducted.

CX: I don't flow CX, but listen so you can bring it up in your speech for it to be included in my flow. I also don’t count flashing as prep as long as you aren’t abusing it. Include me if you are doing an email chain.

Things I like: Clash of evidence. Impact calc with proper weighing. I love a good statistic.

Topicality: Make sure you uphold standards and voters and give me a reason to prefer your definition.

Disadvantages: The uniqueness and link to the case are important to me. Push your impacts and weigh your impacts.

CP: Make sure you explain why it solves better than the Aff and why it is mutually exclusive.

Things I don’t like: Ks, Theory and Framework. It also doesn’t mean that I won’t vote for them. I just prefer concrete evidence as opposed to analytical.

K: I am okay if you run a K (In fact, I enjoy seeing which K is used for the round and how it is executed). I will only evaluate Kritiks if they are run properly otherwise I'm not the biggest fan of them. I will vote for them even if I personally do not agree with them. I do want a quick overview of the K being run, just because I am not fully read on all the different philosophies (but I have dabbled into them so I am not completely in the dark). If you run a K just make sure to explain the ideology of the author. Make sure the ALT is explained, carried throughout the round, and that it is a better outcome for the scenario. Once again, I do not claim this area to be my expertise so do not get wild if I cannot give you a long winded rfd because I do not know the literature.

Theory/Framework:It probably will bore me, not going to lie. I’ll listen but it’s not my number 1 voter. I will make an exception if you are able to prove to me that it should be weighed first. I will vote for it if one side drops the debate of theory being a prerequisite.

LD:

I think it's important to uphold your arg and carry them through the entire round. If you have a more modern approach then I still expect you to attack the value/crit if your opponent is more of a traditional debater. I will not vote for RVI, so do not waste time with that. I tend to enjoy the modern single policy debate style more. Please do not delay the debate round with preflow, if would like to do that then do it in advance.

PF:

My main voter is the outcome of the round and the weighing of points. I like to be explain what does the pro/con world look like. Read at whatever pace you would like. In order to win my ballot you will need to be big picture and line-by-line as well as explain why your side outweighs the opponent.

Speaks: For speaker points I don't pay attention to the quantity of the argumentation: I look for fluidity, demeanor, tone and courtesy. I will give a low point win if the winning team is being disrespectful, racist, and/or offensive with profanity or anything I deem as inappropriate. I do enjoy humor, sass, Disney and pop culture references so if you can incorporate that appropriately into your speech, then your points will reflect (+.1).

Speech:

Extemp/Info/OO: I am previously a national finalist for extemp. Again, I love a good statistic. Looking for proper analysis of sources and evidence. Usually the one in the room has told me a fact that I did not know.

HI/DI/DUO/DUET/POI/POETRY: Synchronization into character with fluid delivery is key. I am looking for the emotion(s) of the piece to be conveyed effectively. I often do not react visibly so please do not be discouraged. I do have a hard time ethically evaluating a physically abled bodied contestant that chooses to portray a physical disability or interprets a physical disability onto a character, strike me.

**I will provide a quick key recap of my paradigm before the round starts, please listen because I will be VERY annoyed if you continually ask me if I am ready or anything I make a point to readdress from this paradigm. If you have any specific questions, ask me before/after the round starts. If not then have fun and run whatever you feel that is best for the round. Good Luck!!

Updated 10/7/17
Conflicts: Jenks High School

Experience: I debated in high school at Jenks (2011-2015). I qualified to the TOC my Senior year. I now attend the University of Oklahoma, but am not debating. I have done all the speaker positions during my time in debate. I was a 1a/2n my junior year and a 2a/1n my senior year.

I have not done any work on the education topic or judged any debates prior to the heritage hall tournament.

Bad news: I'm not an expert on the topic and may be a bit rusty on debate conventions.

Good news: I think about debate a lot and keep up with debate at a surface level via my friends still involved in the activity. I can't rep out for a team since I don't know who the top teams are this year. 

Speed is not an issue for me, just be clear and give me some pen time. I reserve the right to stop flowing if you're unclear. Explain acronyms, I'm not an expert on education policy and likely don't understand your niche K authors literature as well as you do. 

Overview: Don’t be hostile. Frame your impacts, make decisions, and win critical issues.

Read your best strategy, I don’t have strong enough biases to warrant you completely overhauling how you debate. I’ll do my best to put the biases I do have away. I did K debate mostly towards the end of career, but I find policy debates to be more interesting. Do what you do best. 

I understand how hard debaters work and take that very seriously. I will give my undivided attention to you during the debate and work hard for the debaters in making my decision. I will do my best to adjudicate the debate fairly and give a sound RFD. In order to keep the post round short I often withhold some of my comments about the debate. If you would like to hear my advice or have any questions please ask them. I'd love to answer them. If you don't agree with my decision I'm okay with you arguing with me about it as long as it's civil. 

Evidence: I will read little to no evidence at the end of the debate. If I’m calling for cards it’s because there’s a dispute about what the card actually says, I’m just curious to read a card, or no one explained their evidence very well and I have to try and reconstruct the debate.

Do not clip cards. If I can tell you’re clipping by reading along the cards with you or by a recording I will vote against you and give you zero speaker points. If a clipping challenge is raised the accuser needs a recording and I will adjudicate the debate based on whether or not there is indisputable evidence of clipping. If you issue a clipping challenge and ask me to stop the debate to adjudicate it then that's the debate. I will vote solely on whether or not there is clipping and give the loser 0 points. There must be absolute evidence, if I have any doubt as to whether clipping occurred I will err on the side of caution and assume clipping did not occur. With that in mind, I will ask for a copy off the speech doc so that I can keep an eye on clipping. 

Paperless: It’s cool. Prep can stop when you begin saving the document, but be quick or I'll become more draconian. Don’t steal prep. It will make me angry and I’ll dock your points. Email chains are more efficient. If you make one include me. 

Theory: Don’t go full speed on your theory blocks. Give me pen time or I’m going to miss an argument and you’re going to be mad about my decision. I will default to reject the argument not the team in basically all theoretical objections, with the notable exclusion being Conditionality/Dispositionality bad. This is not set in stone, but in a close debate I’ll probably default to rejecting the argument (which will often trigger me voting for you since they don’t have much “substance” left). I think most “cheating” counterplans are bad, but having a real solvency advocate goes a long way in convincing me otherwise.

Topicality: T was my favorite argument in high school and I think it’s an underutilized strategy. I often took topicality arguments in the block towards the end of my time in debate. Have an exclusive interpretation, a case list, good reasons your interp is better and impact these out to why you should win. If you’re going for a reasonability argument you need to tell me what reasonability means. I don’t think you need to win in round abuse if you win competing interpretations, but I could be convinced otherwise. I haven't worked with this topic much, so I won't have a good gut check to know if an aff is topical or not. Take that as you may. 

Framework: I’ve gone for framework as a 2n, and I’ve been the 2a for a K aff. I evaluate these debate just like a T debate and you should debate it as such. Don’t be afraid to go for old school impacts like limits as I think I’ll find these arguments more persuasive than newer/”bigger” impacts like decision-making. I do think that the aff should at least be tied to the topic.

Counterplans/Disads: They’re neat. I think functional competition makes sense. Make your disad outweigh the case. Contextualize your links. I definitely believe in zero risk of a disad.

Kritiks: This was the primary strategy I utilized my junior/senior year. I think they’re neat. The weakest part of the K is usually the alt, so you need to explain to me what the alt is and what it does. If I can’t explain what your alt is and how it solves to the other team in my RFD I can’t vote for you. Contextualize your links, give examples, don’t use a bunch of jargon.

Case Debates: Does anyone dislike case debate? Go for it.

Miscellaneous:
- If you are deliberately evading answering a question in CX, I’ll give the other team lots of leeway on the issue the question was asked on
- Mark your cards, like actually mark them where you quit reading and say where/when you’re marking them during the speech.
- Don’t be mean
-I stop flowing when the timer goes off, even if I'm still writing I'm just catching up to the point where the timer went off.
-If you have any additional questions or a question that you think of after a debate feel free to send me an email at robdog21@rocketmail.com I'll try to get back to you in a reasonable amount of time.

Debate should be fun so make it fun. Don't take everything too seriously.

Four years of policy at Blue Valley North HS on the Kansas and national circuits. Went to debate camp and all that jazz. You can go at whatever speed you like. I judged the UTNIF Skills tournament on this topic.

I like traditional policy debate and am a default policy-maker. I will still happily vote for the k, especially on the neg, as long as you clearly win your theory & impact debates. That being said, no plan text, no win.

Everything else is fair game. I like T and theory and will vote for it as long as your voters are clearly argued. Convince me that the in round abuse affected the round or potential abuse has a significant impact on debate as a whole. Tell me why fairness and education matter to debate.

If you have specific questions, feel free to email me at sophie.jerwick@gmail.com

Director of Speech and Debate at Lake Highland Prep - Orlando, FL

Email chain info: njohnston@lhps.org

The Paradigm:
Debate is meant to be a fun activity! I think you should do whatever you need to do to ride your own personal happiness train. So have a good time in our rounds. That said, remember that riding your happiness train shouldn't limit someone else's ability to ride their's. So be kind. Have fun, learn stuff, don't be a jerk though.

I've been around debate for over 15 years. You can read whatever arguments in front of me and I'm happy to evaluate them. I'm fine if you want to LARP, read Ks, be a phil debater, do more trad stuff, or whatever else. I'm good with theory as long as you're generating genuine, in-round abuse stories. Frivolous theory and tricks are not something I'm interested in listening to. If I'm judging you online, go like 50% of your max spreading because hearing online is difficult. I'd like to be on email chains, but we all should accept that SpeechDrop is better and use it more. Otherwise, do whatever you want.

Rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 2
Policy - 1
High theory - 2.5 (it'll be ok but I'm going to need you to help me understand if its too far off the wall)
Theory - 1 (but the good kind), 4 (for the bad, friv kind)
Tricks - you should probably strike me

The Feels:
I'm somewhat ideologically opposed to judge prefs. As someone who values the educative nature of our events, I think judge adaptation is important. To that end, I see judge paradigms as a good way for you to know how to adapt to any given judge in any given round. Thus, in theory, you would think that I am a fan of judge paradigms. My concern with them arises when we are no longer using them to allow students the opportunity to adapt to their judges, but rather they exist to exclude members from the potential audience that a competitor may have to perform in front of (granted I think there is real value in strikes and conflicts for a whole host of reasons, but prefs certainly feed into the aforementioned problem). I'm not sure this little rant has anything to do with how you should pref/strike me, view my paradigm, etc. It kind of makes me not want to post anything here, but I feel like my obligation as a potential educator for anyone that wants to voice an argument in front of me outweighs my concerns with our MPJ system. I just think it is something important and a conversation we should be having. This is my way of helping the subject not be invisible.

Updated Last: May 4, 2023

Email: christian.d.jones[at]gmail.com (yes, I would like to be on the chain)

Experience: Head coach for 11 years.

My General Paradigm
Debates must be fair and winnable for both sides, but debaters may argue what is and is not fair. Debaters may try to convince me which particular instance of debate ought to occur in each round. I will try to have an open mind, but I do have likes and dislikes.

Speed
I prefer debaters to ensure clarity before trying to accelerate. I can handle speed, but if I can't understand it, it doesn't get flowed. If I am being honest, I would estimate that I can catch almost every argument at about 85% of top speed for the national circuit. But if you brake for taglines and present them in a unique vocal inflection, top speed is not a problem.

Decision Calculus
I will only intervene if I feel I absolutely have to. I prefer that debaters to help me decide the debate. Comparative arguments will usually accomplish this. Extrapolations in rebuttals are acceptable if they are grounded in arguments already on the flow. Arguments that are extremely offensive or outright false may be rejected on face.

Style
I enjoy and find value in a variety of argumentation styles as long as they do not preclude a debate from taking place. A debate must have clash.

Framework
The 1AC presents their argument to a blank slate. If you want to change this, you will need an interpretation and to be clear on the criteria for winning the round. This criteria should offer both sides the possibility of winning the debate.

Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)
If you want me to vote on a proposed rule violation, then you need to win the complete argument. You must win that you have the best interpretation, that the other team has violated your interpretation, that your interpretation is good for debate, and that the offense is a voting issue. If you want to argue that the other team is breaking the rules, then you have the burden of proof. Procedural arguments may also urge a lesser punishment, such as, excluding the consideration of an argument.

Kritik
I do not want to proscribe specifics when it comes to kritiks, but I do want to see clash and comparative argumentation in any debate. I prefer Ks that are germane to the topic or affirmative case in some way. I like kritiks that have a clearly defined alternative. Alternatives that propose something are preferable to 'reject' or 'do nothing' type alts. I am not a fan of ontological arguments, especially nihilistic ones. If you choose to enter the debate space, you have already ceded certain assumptions about reality.

Counterplans
I am open to any type of counterplan, but all arguments are subject to the standard of fairness determined in the debate round. That said, if you are going to read a counterplan, it should probably have a solvency card.

Spreading, I need to be able to understand you. I'm flowing by listening, and if I can't understand it, I will not flow it.

  I will vote on anything if you explain it well.   Time yourselves. Flash quickly.  

I will not give an oral critique to students who are disrespectful or try to change my decision in any way. 

Hi! I'm Khan (they/ them) and I am a debate coach in Dallas ISD. I debated in high school and in undergrad. I mostly ran soft K affs and a variety of Kritiks.

SPEED: Only go as fast as you can while remaining clear. If you don't see me flowing, you are not speaking clearly enough.

TIME: I will time your prep, but I expect debaters to time their own speeches and CX

PRIORITIES:

1) I am a tab judge-- I will vote on almost any argument as long as the team provides a clear and convincing ROB and impact calc, with the exception of outright hateful speech (i.e. "patriarchy good", "racism good", etc.)

2) Impact calc is extremely important, starting in the 2AC if possible and getting more detailed as the debate progresses. Rebuttals should not just repeat constructives-- have a proper warranted extension; unsupported claims will not be flowed.

3) Every rebuttal needs to identify and articulate key points of clash.

4) I really value organization. Please give off time roadmaps and go in that order.

OTHER NOTES:

-Not everything needs a card. I would rather you make quality, thoughtful, and specific analytics based on historical evidence than read a random wall of cards that you do not understand.

- I really hate voting on topical counterplans

New - NDT 24. Welcome to Atlanta!

The only things you really need to know:
1. If you berate, threaten, verbally or physically attack your opponents, I will end the debate and you'll recieve a loss along with the lowest points tabroom will allow me to asign.
2. Don't endorse self-harm.
3. Arguments admissable for adjudication include everything said from when the 1AC timer starts until the 2AR timer ends. Anything else is irrelevant.

Other than that, do what you do best. Technical debating is more likely to result in you winning than anything else.

I am a coach at Emory, Liberal Arts and Science Academy and The Harker School. Other conflicts: Texas, Westwood, St Vincent de Paul, Bakersfield High School

Email Chain: yes, cardstealing@gmail.com

You will receive a speaker point bump if you give your final rebuttal without the use of a laptop. I will give higher points to speeches with errors/pauses/inconsistencies etc. where the speaker debates off their flows than speeches that sound crystal clear and perfect but are delivered without the speaker looking up from their computer screen. If you flow off your laptop I will use my best judgement to assess the extent to which you're delivering arguments in such a way that demonstrates you have flowed the debate.

Ultimately, do what you do best. Giving speeches you're comfortable with is almost certainly a better path to victory than attempting to adapt to any of this stuff below. Debate is extremely hard and requires immense amounts of works. I will try to give you the same level of effort that I know you've put in.

Debate is an activity about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand your argument because what you are saying because you are unclear, haven't explained it, or developed it into a full argument-claim, warrant, impact, it likely won't factor in my decision.

The winner will nearly always be the team able to identify the central question of the debate first and most clearly trace how the development of their argument means they're ahead on that central question.

Virtually nothing you can possibly say or do will offend me [with the new above caveat] if you can't beat a terrible argument you probably deserve to lose.

Framework- Fairness is both an internal link and an impact. Debate is a game but its also so much more. Go for T/answer T the way that makes most sense to you, I'll do my best to evaluate the debate technically.

Counter-plans-

-spamming permutations, particular ones that are intrinsic, without a text and with no explanation isn't a complete argument. [insert perm text fine, insert counter plan text is not fine].

-pretty neg on "if it competes, its legitimate." Aff can win these debates by explaining why theory and competition should be separated and then going for just one in the 2ar. the more muddled you make this, the better it usually is for the neg.

-non-resolutional theory is rarely if ever a reason to reject the team. Generally don't think its a reason to reject the argument either.

-I'm becoming increasingly poor for conditionality bad as a reason to reject the team. This doesn't mean you shouldn't say in the 2ac why its bad but I've yet to see a speech where the 2AR convinced me the debate has been made irredeemably unfair or un-educational due to the status of counter plans. I think its possible I'd be more convinced by the argument that winning condo is bad means that the neg is stuck with all their counter plans and therefore responsible for answering any aff offense to those positions. This can be difficult to execute/annoying to do, but do with that what you will.

Kritiks

-affs usually lose these by forgetting about the case, negs usually lose these when they don't contextualize links to the 1ac. If you're reading a policy aff that clearly links, I'll be pretty confused if you don't go impact turns/case outweighs.

-link specificity is important - I don't think this is necessarily an evidence thing, but an explanation thing - lines from 1AC, examples, specific scenarios are all things that will go a long way

-these are almost always just framework debates these days but debaters often forget to explain the implications winning their interpretation has on the scope of competition. framework is an attempt to assign roles for proof/rejoinder and while many of you implicitly make arguments about this, the more clear you can be about those roles, the better.

-i'm less likely to think "extinction outweighs, 1% risk" is as good as you think it is, most of the time the team reading the K gives up on this because they for some reason think this argument is unbeatable, so it ends up mattering in more rfds than it should

LD -

I have been judging LD for a year now. The policy section all applies here.

Tech over truth but, there's a limit - likely quite bad for tricks - arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete. Dropped arguments are important if you explain how they implicate my decision. Dropped arguments are much less important when you fail to explain the impact/relevance of said argument.

RVIs - no, never, literally don't. 27 ceiling. Scenario: 1ar is 4 minutes of an RVI, nr drops the rvi, I will vote negative within seconds of the timer ending.

Policy/K - both great - see above for details.

Phil - haven't judged much of this yet, this seems interesting and fine, but again, arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete arguments.

Arguments communicated and understood by the judge per minute>>>>words mumbled nearly incomprehensibly per minute.

Unlikely you'll convince me the aff doesn't get to read a plan for topicality reasons. K framework is a separate from this and open to debate, see policy section for details.

PF -

If you read cards they must be sent out via email chain with me attached or through file share prior to the speech. If you reference a piece of evidence that you haven't sent out prior to your speech, fine, but I won't count it as being evidence. You should never take time outside of your prep time to exchange evidence - it should already have been done.

"Paraphrasing" as a substitute for quotation or reading evidence is a bad norm. I won't vote on it as an ethics violation, but I will cap your speaker points at a 27.5.

I realize some of you have started going fast now, if everyone is doing that, fine. However, adapting to the norms of your opponents circuit - i.e. if they're debating slowly and traditionally and you do so as well, will be rewarded with much higher points then if you spread somebody out of the room, which will be awarded with very low points even if you win.

Affiliation: Westwood High School, Texas A&M University (I don't debate in college)

General: I'm open-minded and willing to vote for any argument if you can convince me to vote for it. Try to be nice in round, have fun, and learn something. Keeping this in mind, take everything I say below with a grain of salt.

I was a 1A/2N in highschool and typically went for impact turns, kritiks, or politics and case. I don't think that biases me too much, but I think I'm less likely to let the 2A get away with new arguments.
I tend to not find "risk of" arguments compelling. It is possible for a side to win impact/internal link take outs and have that affect the round in a meaningful way in the context of net benefits etc.
Dropped arguments are true arguments, but that doesn't mean you don't have to explain the warrant to a claim if the other team drops it.


Topicality: I don't particularly enjoy topicality debates and I tend to think of T in terms of competing interpretations.

Theory: I don't particularly enjoy theory debates.
I tend to err aff on theory in the context of abusive counterplans.
I tend to err neg on conditionality, unless the neg has presented an obnoxious number of conditional advocacies.
Most theory is a reason to reject the argument, unless it's an argument the negative has gone for (you said 50 state fiat was bad and won that argument when they went for the states counterplan), or conditionality. As a result, don't waste time reading your theory block (except in the context of condo) when you're kicking the counterplan in the block. Just address them as a reason to reject the counterplan. Aff's conversely shouldn't try and win on these theory arguments that a negative has kicked out of (except in the context of condo).

Disads: They're great. The more specific the evidence, the better. Super specific, well researched disads are probably the most compelling arguments in front of me.
I usually think the link determines the direction of the link.

Counter Plans: Not a large fan of abusive counterplans or pics, but otherwise they're cool.

Kritiks: I really like K's. They're interesting, and force both teams to view the debate in a new lens. My largest complaint however is when a team comes up, reads a generic K with generic evidence and doesn't really explain how it interacts with the other side.
On the neg-
I'm generally not persuaded by generic links with little to no analysis specific to the affirmative.
Explain to me why I should evaluate your criticism first
Explain to me how your criticism interacts with the affirmatives impacts and internal links
On the aff-
Instrumentally affirming the resolution on the affirmative is important. If you don't instrumentally affirm the resolution in some way, I am very sympathetic to framework arguments. I think policy making is an important mechanism for enacting change in the real world and we should play devil's advocate if we don't agree with that sentiment. That being said, I am much happier judging non-instrumental affirmatives that do topic specific research instead of reading generic colonialism bad, state bad etc arguments

Last Updated 12/5/2021

Ishmael Kissinger
Experience: 3.5 yrs for The University of Central Oklahoma 02-05 (Nov/JV & Open)
14 yrs as Coach @ Moore High School, OK
Policy Rounds Judged: Local ~10
Policy National/Toc - 2
LD Rounds Judged Local: 0
LD National/TOC - 0

PFD - Local = 0

PFD Nat Circuit - 0

Email Chain: PLEASE ASK IN ROUND - I cannot access my personal email at school.

*Note: I do not follow along with the word doc. I just want to be on the chain so that I can see the evidence at the end of the round if necessary. I will only flow what I hear.

LD -

Just because I am primarily a policy judge does not mean that I think LD should be like 1 person policy. Small rant: I am tired of us making new debate events and then having them turn into policy... If you are constructing your case to be "Life & Util" and then a bunch of Dis-Ads you probably don't want me as your judge. If you are going for an RVI on T in the 1AR you probably don't want me as a judge. I don't think that LD affs should have plan texts. If I were to put this in policy terms: "You need to be (T)-Whole Res."

Affirmatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their Criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that affirm the whole resolution.

Negatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that negate the whole resolution.

CX

I tend to consider myself a flow oriented judge that tries to be as tab as any one person can be. Absent a framework argument made, I will default to a policy-maker/game-theorist judge. I view debate in an offense-defense paradigm, this means that even if you get a 100% risk of no solvency against the aff, but they are still able to win an advantage (or a turned DA) then you are probably going to lose. You MUST have offense to weight against case.

Generic Information:

Speed is not a problem *Edit for the digital age: Sometimes really fast debaters are harder for me to understand on these cheap computer speakers.

T & Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. As the debate season goes on I tend to err more toward reasonability than I do at the beginning of the year. This is usually because as the debate year goes on I expect Negative teams to be more prepared for less topical arguments. This is generally how much judges operate, they just don't say it. I typically don't vote on potential abuse, you should couch your impacts on potential abuse in very real-world examples.

Please make impact calculus earlier in the debate rather than just making it in the 2nr/2ar

Kritiks are not a problem, but I am not really deep into any one literature base. This may put you at a disadvantage if you assume I know/understand the nuances between two similar (from my point of view) authors. **If you are going for a K or an Alt in the 2NR but are unsure if the aff is going to win the Perm debate and you want me to "kick the alt" and just have me vote on some epistemic turn you're only explaining in the overview of the 2NR you are not going to enjoy the RFD. If you think it's good enough to win the debate on with only a :30 explanation in the overview, you should probably just make the decision to go for it in the 2nr and kick the alt yourself.

When addressing a kritikal aff/neg I will hold you to a higher threshold than just Util & Cede the political, I'll expect you to have specific literature that engages the K. If this is your strategy to answering K teams I am probably not your "1."

I don't have a problem with multiple conditional arguments, although I am more sympathetic to condo bad in a really close theory debate.

CPs are legit. Just like judges prefer specific links on a Dis-Ads I also prefer specific Counter-Plans. But I will evaluate generic states/int'l actor CPs as well.

Dispo = Means you can kick out of it unless you straight turn it, defensive arguments include Perms and theory. (My interp, but if you define it differently in a speech and they don't argue it, then your interp stands)

DAs are cool - the more specific the link the better, but I will still evaluate generic links.

Case args are sweet, especially on this year's (2019) topic.



Personal Preferences:

Really I have only one personal pref. If you are in a debate round - never be a jerk to the opposing team &/or your partner. I believe that our community has suffered enough at the hands of debating for the "win," and although I don't mind that in context of the argumentation you make in the round, I do not believe that it is necessary to demean or belittle your opponent. If you are in the position to be facing someone drastically less experienced than yourself; keep in mind that it should be a learning process for them, even if it is not one for you. It will NOT earn you speaker points to crush them into little pieces and destroy their experience in this activity. If you want to demonstrate to me that you are the "better debater(s)," and receive that glorious 29 or maybe even 30 it will most likely necessitate you: slowing down (a little), thoroughly explaining your impact calc, clearly extending a position, then sitting down without repeating yourself in 5 different ways. If you opt to crush them you will prob. win the round, but not many speaker points (or pol cap) with me.

Background: 

Debated at Westwood 2008-2011. Debated at Gonzaga 2011-2013. Debated at NDT freshman year. Took time off from school 2013-2017 to work in politics & legal field. Currently finishing undergrad at Gonzaga. 

I was a 1a/2n, although I have experience in all speaker positions. I was a policy debater in high school and took a k turn my final year at Gonzaga, so while I've got some experience on both sides of the aisle I have far more experience actually debating the politics disad. That said, I seem to have judged a lot of k on k only debates over the last few years. I'm happy to hear your critical arguments - I just want to remind you that I may not be an expert in whatever your k of choice is. Keep that in mind and rely on well explained and well warranted arguments, not author names and taglines.

Meta Level: 

Honestly, I would rather hear you debate what you're good at than what you think I want to hear. What I want to hear is a good debate - make the choices most likely to give me that, rather than choosing a specific argument solely because you think I'll like it.

I am not going to call for every card/read the entire speech doc and just vote for whoever had the best cards. I don't think that's the point of this activity. I will only read the cards I think I absolutely have to read in order to make a decision. I am likely to also read any topicality/theory cards. Don't rely on me reading all the cards at the end of a round.

Topicality: 

- I tend to have a very high threshold for reasonability arguments on topicality, and will default to competing interps when evaluating the debate unless you tell me what I should do instead. I do quite like topicality debates but this is an area where I will be hyper-technical when looking at the flow, so please keep that in mind. 

K Debate: 

- I am tired of links of omission. If you aren't talking specifically about the aff, I'm not interested in hearing another regurgitation of a generic k that isn't actually engaging the aff. 

- I'm probably naturally inclined to lean towards a perm, so make sure you spend time there that is most fleshed out than repeating "the perm is a link though" several times. 

Counterplans:  

Generally, you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that the neg doesn't get to be conditional. I wouldn't suggest you sink a ton of time here. I will vote on theory arguments about the specific CP, but I will not vote for one tagline extension - it needs to be invested in just like any other argument. I tend to default to theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team, unless you tell me how you would prefer I reconcile those situations. 

Mostly importantly - just ask questions if you have them. Have fun!

CSU LONG BEACH JACK HOWE 2022 UPDATE: I haven't judged circuit debate since 2017 so I'm out of practice. If you have me in the back of the room, please go slower - ESPECIALLY ON ANALYTICS. I won't be able to understand you if you fully spread your pre-written analytic blocks, so please slow down. I'm the head director for Bellarmine's program so I spend most of my time these days coaching speech and slow debate. 

FOR STATE & NATIONALS: If I am judging you in debate at the CHSSA State tournament or NSDA Nationals, please do not treat me as a purely circuit judge, especially if I'm on a panel with other judges who are clearly not circuit-oriented. I believe that those tournaments are excellent forums for a type of debate that prioritizes judge adaptation and a slower, more lay style of debate. So, do not feel you have to go fast to try to cater to me. At these tournaments, I'll hold you to much higher standards in terms of the evidence quality, the specificity of the link, and the logical coherence of your positions. I will love you if you successfully criticize contrived internal link scenarios, the squirelly/shady arguments, and blippy line-by-line analysis in your CXs and speeches.

How to get high speaker points and win my ballot:

My greatest frustrations with the vast majority of debate rounds are two-fold: 1) a lack of comparative engagement with the other team's arguments and 2) a lack of well-impacted analysis of why your arguments are reasons I should vote for you. Speech docs seem to exacerbate both of these problems, as teams rely on reading pre-written blocks. More and more, I feel a sense of impending existential dread as I realize that nothing meaningful in the debate round is going to happen until the 2NR and 2AR and that everything else is a game of seeing which issues get undercovered. Let me break down my two biggest frustrations:

1) comparative analysis - I understand that you have beautifully constructed blocks to certain arguments but often times, those blocks are not directly responsive to the other team's argument, and so I'm left with back-and-forth disputes with no clear framework of how to resolve them. The quickest way to get good speaker points with me is to listen critically to the warrants of the other team's arguments and give comparative analysis that explains why your warrants are superior.

2) impacting important arguments - Though debaters implicitly understand the importance of impact calc, they often think about it incorrectly. Meaningful impact calc isn't exclusively about magnitude, timeframe, and probability. That's rarely how rounds are resolved. That type of impact calc presupposes that you're ahead on the other parts of the flow. The best impact calc explains why the arguments that you're ahead on in the round are reasons to vote for you and why those arguments are more important than the other teams arguments. Often times, teams get frustrated that a dropped argument didn't warrant an immediate vote for their team. If a dropped argument is not adequately impacted and framed, and the other team has more compelling offense, then most rational judges will still not vote for you. I see this most often in framework debates against identity politics affirmatives. The framework debaters are often confused how they lost the round, despite being "ahead" on some line-by-line issues. However, in those debates, the identity politics team is often far ahead in terms of impacts and framing why those impacts outweigh any of the line-by-line framework arguments. So, to put it simply, explain why your arguments matter.

Finally, please go slower on theory than you would with other judges - I debated in high school and coach policy debate now, but I also direct a program that coaches students in speech (IE) and lay debate, so I don't watch 20+ fast rounds a year, like many judges on the circuit.

My experience: I debated in high school for Bellarmine College Prep (San Jose, CA) from 2007-2011 and went to Michigan 7-week during that time but did not debate in college -- so I was out of the circuit for a couple of years when identity politics K and planless affs became popular. Now, I'm a coach at Bellarmine. I don't judge much on the circuit now that I direct Bellarmine's S&D program. I would recommend going a bit slower, especially on theory arguments, if you want to make sure that I'm able to flow everything. That also means that you should explain your warrants and arguments more than you might for other judges.

Policy
The more case-specific you are, the better. Far too many teams do not engage with case in a substantive way. Also, don't be afraid to make analytics – smart, true analytics hold a lot of sway with me, and it’s very strategic to have them in the 1NC and 2AC. If I see that you’re actually engaging the debate and critically thinking instead of just reading blocks and ignoring what the other team said I will be much more willing to give you higher speaks. That said:

Topicality – you must do a good job of explaining your interpretation and why it’s good for debate (or why allowing the aff to be included in the topic is bad for the topic), as well as the terminal impacts to your claims about predictability and fairness and education, etc. I generally err towards interpretations that are the best for the literature base of a topic -- for substantive, deep debates at the core of the resolution -- rather than arbitrary lines which found their entire argument on generic disad link distinctions. Good topicality debates should be grounded in excellent evidence (T- subs. w/o material qualifications is a good example of a violation that does not fulfill this criteria).

DA – I love strategies that are either CP/DA or even DA/case. As a 1N/2A, I took the DA a lot in the 1NR and loved doing 2ARs against the DA. Generic DAs are okay, but I’m going to like you a lot more if you’re reading a tight case-specific DA that has good, specific links and internal links.

CP – don't be abusive or shady, otherwise I'll have sympathy for the aff on theory args.

Case – I LOVE case and I think it’s totally viable to win a debate with a simple strategy like case-DA. Case is what these sorts of debate SHOULD be about. Don’t let the 2A get away with the entirety of case and you have to defend on a CP to win! Make them defend the plan. I could even be persuaded to vote on presumption.

K debates
I'm down with Ks. I'm familiar with much of the K lit - but take time to explain the core thesis of the K in the neg block (or 2ac) and especially the link story. Contrived and jargon-filled tags that lack substance but just try to sound smart / catch the other team off guard is a huge pet peeve of mine. For the aff, definitely poke fun of the link, as well as the alt - if the K cannot explain an articulate non-generic formulation of these parts of the debate, it'll be hard for me to vote for the kritik. I'm fairly knowledgeable with regards to the K literature base, particularly Foucault, Nietzsche, Bataille, Marx, critical IR, but that means I hold kritiks to a high standard of explanation. If you are reading some variation on Lacan, for instance, you'd better understand exactly what kind of argument you're making. There are many points in fast debate rounds when I feel an impending sense of existential dread but one of the more egregious examples of such moments occurs when teams completely and utterly bastardize a brilliant philosopher with a kritik and have no idea what that author's argument actually is.

Also, please do not read framework at the same pace that you would read a card. Especially when you are talking about the role of the ballot, slow down a little.

Identity debates
I'm open to debates on identity politics. Again, I didn't debate when these types of arguments were gaining currency so I don't have as much familiarity but I'm open-minded about them. I do believe they force debaters to grapple with ideas that are ultimately good for the community to confront. The most important thing for FW debaters in these situations is to not just focus on the line-by-line. In these sorts of debates, the identity politics teams typically win through in-depth overviews that impact turn essentially everything on the line-by-line. You HAVE to respond to their top-level impact claims - it's hard to pull the trigger in this type of round on dropped argument on the line-by-line if you haven't been addressing the framing of the debate itself.

If you have more specific questions, please ask me before the round.

Modern problems require modern solutions.

P.S. I have never and will never evaluate a judge kick argument as if it were valid. If you make a 2NR decision, you've made it. You can't unmake soup. I'm not going to intervene into the debate to fix your 2NR mistakes.

University High School 2011-2015

University of Texas at Austin 2015-Present

Some people that have influenced me in debate: Lee Thach, Rashad Evans. Look in their philosophies for things I’d probably agree with. I read an Asian identity aff for my last 2 years of high school, and went for anti blackness arguments in ~80% of neg rounds. That said, I’ll vote for most things if you’re winning the reason why I should vote for it. 

T

I evaluate it almost like a disad so you should be creating impact scenarios beyond words like “fairness” or “education.” 

Theory

If you’re going for theory, it should probably be the only argument in your last speech. Explain in depth what each of your impacts mean, and what actually voting for that argument means. I also think the reject the arg, not the team argument is very persuasive, so if you’re trying to win theory, explain why rejecting the team is necessary

DA/CP 

Not much to say here, disad debates are usually pretty straight forward. Well impacted disads as net benefits to counterplans are good. Impact framing is also good. I like PICs, but be careful with theory debates if you’re reading more than one. 

Kritiks:

A large part of my debate experience has involved critical arguments, but I won’t say I’m well versed philosophy or critical theory. I know some things about identity arguments but not very much about Heidegger, so it’s best to take the time and explain what you’re trying to say. 

K Affs

I think as far as I’m concerned, there’s no resolution until the 1NC reads T. Make sure you have justifications for what you are doing, and focus on the meta level framing, impact calculations, and what your aff actually does. 

FW vs K affs:

I don’t really like FW args that demand an “instrumental implementation of a policy action” by the aff, but I like nuanced framework arguments or disads that discusses how critical arguments function within a debate sphere 

Been involved with the game in some way since 2008, do as you wish and I shall evaluate it in the way that I feel requires the least interference from myself.

Put me on the chain please: debate.emails@gmail.com, for the most part I do not look at the documents other than some cursory glances during prep time if a card intrigues me. I still may ask for specific cards at the end of the debate so I do not need to sort through each document, I appreciate it in advance.

I believe that debate is a communication activity with an emphasis on persuasion. If you are not clear or have not extended all components of an argument (claim/warrant/implication) it will not factor into my decision.

I flow on paper, it is how I was taught and I think it helps me retain more information and be more present in debates. Given that I would appreciate yall slowing down and giving me pen time on counterplan texts and theory arguments (as well as permutations).

The most important thing in debates for me is to establish a framework for how (and why) I should evaluate impacts. I am often left with two distinct impacts/scenarios at the end of the debate without any instruction on how to assess their validity vis-à-vis one another or which one to prioritize. The team that sets this up early in the debate and filtering the rebuttals through it often gets my ballot. I believe that this is not just true of “clash” debates but is (if not even more) an important component of debates where terminal impacts are the same but their scenarios are not (ie two different pathways to nuclear war/extinction).

While I think that debate is best when the affirmative is interacting with the resolution in some way I have no sentiment about how this interaction need to happen nor a dogmatic stance that 1AC’s have a relation to the resolution. I have voted for procedural fairness and have also voted for the impact turns. Despite finding myself voting more and more for procedural fairness I am much more persuaded by fairness as an internal link rather than terminal impact. Affirmative’s often beat around the bush and have trouble deciding if they want to go for the impact turn or the middle ground, I think picking a strategy and going for it will serve you best. A lot of 2NRs squander very good block arguments by not spending enough time (or any) at the terminal impact level, please don’t be those people. I also feel as if most negative teams spend much time reading definitions in the 1NC and do not utilize them later in the debate even absent aff counter definitions which seems like wasted 1NC time. While it does not impact how I evaluate the flow I do reward teams with better speaker points when they have unique and substantive framework takes beyond the prewritten impact turn or clash good blocks that have proliferated the game (this is also something you should be doing to counter the blocktastic nature of modern framework debates).

It would behove many teams and debaters to extend their evidence by author name in the 2NR/2AR. I tend to not read a large amount of evidence and think the trend of sending out half the 1AC/1NC in the card document is robbing teams of a fair decision, so narrowing in and extending the truly relevant pieces of evidence by author name increases both my willingness to read those cards and my confidence that you have a solid piece of evidence for a claim rather than me being asked to piece together an argument from a multitude of different cards.

Prep time ends when the email has been sent (if for some reason you still use flash drives then when the drive leaves the computer). In the past few years so much time is being spent saving documents, gathering flows, setting up a stand etc. that it has become egregious and ultimately feel limits both decision time and my ability to deliver criticism after the round. Limited prep is a huge part of what makes the activity both enjoyable and competitive. I said in my old philosophy that policing this is difficult and I would not go out of my way to do it, however I will now take the extra time beyond roadmaps/speech time into account when I determine speaker points.

I find myself frustrated in debates where the final rebuttals are only about theory. I do not judge many of these debates and the ones I have feel like there is an inevitable modicum of judge intervention. While I have voted for conditonality bad several times, personally my thought on condo is "don't care get better."

Plan-text writing has become a lost art and should invite negative advocacy attrition and/or substantive topicality debates.

Feel free to email or ask any questions before or after the debate. Above all else enjoy the game you get to play and have fun.

-------------------

Experience:

Competitor-- Winston Churchill (2008-2012)

Assistant Coaching--

Past: Jenks (2012-2015) Reagan (2015-2017) Winston Churchill (2018-2023)

Currently: Texas (2017-present)

I debated for four years at Wylie High School (currently a student at UT Austin) in Lincoln Douglas and Policy on several different circuits, so whatever style you debate in is alright, though I tend to prefer faster and more intense rounds with a lot of clash.
Philosophy: Tabula Rasa
Short version: I consider myself straight tab with a tendency to vote on whatever the debaters emphasize as the most important with a default to policymaking if necessary (and stock issues if it really comes to that). I’ll vote on essentially anything except offensive/morally unacceptable case turns (i.e. racism good, genocide good, etc.), and I have a high threshold on T and Theory.
Long version:
General: I won’t make arguments for you, have clear extensions with warrants, don’t just shout authors at me and expect me to remember exactly what they said. I’ll vote on pretty much anything as long as it’s well-warranted, but I’ll default policy-maker if needed. It’s okay to be somewhat aggressive but don’t be openly rude (that’s not helping anyone within the debate or out).
Speed: Speed’s not an issue. I’ll stop flowing if you’re not clear.
Prompting/Open CX: Depends on the circuit since they all have different rules. UIL: No prompting, no open CX; not my rule, it’s theirs, so if you prompt, I’ll have no choice but to give you a drop. NFL/NSDA: at the discretion of the teams and/or other judges (in the case of a panel). TFA/TOC: go for it; if one team is uncomfortable with it that’s at your discretion, you do what you want in terms of prompting; don’t try to make it a rules/voting issue because it’s legal and if you go for it you will not win. Other circuits: I probably will be more lenient in unclear settings, so if the rules are unclear, I'll treat prompting as acceptable.
Rules/Violations: In the case of accusations rule-breaking such as use of cell phones/internet or card-clipping, the round will be stopped and the tournament director will be contacted, so don’t go stopping a round on a false alarm or worse trying to make rules a debate argument; this is above that so take it seriously.
T/Theory: Like I said, I have a high threshold. For T, don’t run a generic T as a time suck; it wastes time on both side and drains the quality of the debate, and I will know what you are doing and I will not like it). Running theory is fine but I likely won’t vote on it unless it is the focus of the last speech, so unless you plan on going all in on theory in the 2AR, it’s better not to waste your time.
Framework: Framework debate is fine by me (and sometimes necessary to a well-organized round); it’s not a voting issue itself, but allows a lens as to what the voting issues are, so don’t go completely in on framework in your last rebuttal, but rather use it to frame your arguments as the most important in round. Remember, framework alone will not win you a debate.
Case arguments: In a policy round, case is essential on both sides, so make sure you spend enough time developing your case in the 1AC, attacking it in the 1NC, and making extensions. Obviously you don’t have to spend a majority of your time on case, but make sure it’s addressed since it is the reason for all of the arguments made in the round.
Disadvantages: DAs are usually necessary (especially in a policy-oriented round), so generic DAs are fine as long as they’re unique and you have a good link. Also, don’t just run a bunch of DAs at the beginning of the round and go for all of them; a few well-developed arguments is way better than not narrowing down enough for the rebuttals.
Counterplans: CPs are fine (condo, dispo, any status is okay). Make sure you have a clear CP plan text; if not, it’s not a CP and just a fancy and terrible case argument that will not win you a round. I don’t have a preference on whether or not they’re topical, but make sure they’re competitive (but if it’s not it’ll usually be taken care of in the perm debate).
Kritiks/K affs: Ks are find and I love K debate, so feel free to run whatever (as long as you have warrants). Discourse/Language Ks are fine if there’s a link, but I prefer you run ones that have an active effect (i.e. Gendered Language, Ableism, Race, etc.) rather than spending your 2NR on a grammar K about the word “the” in the resolution. Philosophy Ks are fine and encouraged, but make sure you know how to run them, and be prepared for a framework debate (it might be good to run a K framework shell in the 1NC on top of the K proper).
Perf Cons/Multi-Worlds: While I’m fine with perf cons and multi worlds, avoid going for multiple contradictory arguments in the 2NR (for perf cons you shouldn’t be doing this anyway), or I’ll err aff on contradictory arguments. Also, don’t cross-apply arguments across contradictory arguments; it makes no sense and is heavily abusive.
Happy Debating!

Post-Addition: Extemp and Congress
Even though extemp is a purely speech event and congress is a mix of a speech and debate event, but my philosophy will likely be the same for both: content and speaking skills are weighed equally for me in these events. In extemp, good analysis of the topic through REAL sources is just as important and presenting this analysis in a sophisticated and relaxed manner; in congress, clash between speeches and addressing fellow representatives/senators is important to keep the debate fresh, as well as presenting your analysis in a proper fashion. Any other questions can be directed to me at Evan.Lope13@gmail.com.

Ben Mitchell
Kinkaid 09-13
University of Texas 13-17
Currently coaching Austin SFA

While debating for Kinkaid I spoke all four speaker positions. On the negative, I both extended and went for a variety of arguments, from topicality to politics to conditions to psychoanalysis. On the affirmative I have read both hard right affs and more critical affs while still defending a plan text.

1. While debating, my coaches would always tell us "have fun, be smart, and debate well," and if forced to choose, I would chose the first. As a debater, I found the being smart and debating well were frequently positively correlated with how much fun I was having. And as a judge, if you're having fun, I find the debate more engaging and am likely to reward that with higher speaker points. A corollary of this is be nice. Very few things hurt your ethos more than when you're unnecessarily mean to your opponents and/or your partner. You don't all have to be best friends, but it also shouldn't feel like a war zone.
2. For the Oceans topic - I've judged the grapevine tournament, the greenhill round robin, and the greenhill tournament proper. I was not involved, however, in summer camp on the oceans topic, so outside of the aff's I've seen I know fairly little about the topic. If you're reading some hyper specific strategy on the neg or a small squirrely aff assume a fairly low level of background knowledge on my part. Try to be extra crisp on explanation, if you do so I will be happier and more likely to vote for you.
3. While I have done all speaker positions, I've found that when reading evidence and evaluating rounds I can sometimes think like a 2N. This is something I try to avoid as much as possible, however it still lingers. What does this mean for you as a debater though? I find that my 2N tendencies come about most in rounds where the final rebuttals include very little evidence comparison or impact analysis, and I'm left to decide with very little weighing mechanisms provided by both teams. If either the 2nr or the 2ar are able to provide me with a lens to view the debate (try or die, timeframe, which impacts control the escalation of others, filtering the entire link debate through the permutation, necessary vs sufficient, etc.) then I will be much more sympathetic to their position, less likely to intervene, and more likely to vote for them.
4. Evidence is not necessary or sufficient to make arguments. Many positions can be mitigated substantially by pointing out logical inconsistencies or reading ununderlined portions of the cards, and cross-x is probably the best time to set this up. Similarly, if all you do in the 2ar is tell me that X piece of evidence is super hot and I should call for it after the round without explaining its warrants or impacting it, you have not made an argument, and would have been better off substituting that for analytics.


I find myself judging clash of civilization debates fairly often. It's safe to assume that I would always prefer to hear a negative strategy that attempts to engage the affirmative in these debates, however I am sympathetic to the framework position and am willing to pull the trigger if I think the negative has done a better job in that debate.


Speaker Points

Basic rundown of how I view speaker points
29 and up = I think you should be top few speakers
28.7-28.9 = Impressive debating, high speaker award, definitely should clear
28.4-28.6 = Few technical problems, in the running for clearing
28-28.3 = A number of technical problems, still excecuted a coherent strategy
Paperless

You should have a viewing computer available if the other team needs one
If your computer crashes, we can stop the debate, however I highly encourage you flash your speeches to your partner and will be marginally impressed if you can do a smooth transition in the event of your computer shutting down

Prep
You don't need to take prep to flash, please don't abuse that privilege though
Pleaseeee keep track of your own prep, I'm lazy and usually won't write it down

2A at Westwood high school in Austin Texas for 4 years (2011-2015).

(shout out to sam bhagwandin, I basically just copied 70% of his judge wiki. But please still read mine)

Whatever you want to say I will evaluate.
Please read the tips/preference section at the bottom if that’s all you have time for.



+Which arguments are best in front of you?


I’d prefer critical ones, but I’m cool for any argument that you can make interesting. Just know that while I’m cool with everything, I can’t promise that I will be super proficient in what your politics DA is about, but I’m not going to take it any less seriously.

Make sure I get it, but also that I care. While it’s easier to embellish a critical debate with rhetorical flair and intrigue (I’m looking at you – Deleuze or Baudrillard folks), that doesn’t mean you should do it. Any flow is good as long as you put in time to explain and defend though.


I’m best for the arguments you can connect to your opponents’ ideas, be that by comparing impacts, turning case, or creating K links. I’m best for arguments you can explain accurately, but without contrived misdirection (perhaps “embellishing” the debate with “rhetorical flair” isn’t always the move—you gotta put in your explanatory work first).

*If you’re just wondering what arguments I’m most knowledgeable about/proficient in: afro-pessimism, disabilities/crip theory, anthro, queer theory, all that jazz

Also if you’re reading a K aff against the Cap K, you should read internal link turns, perms, method comparisons, and DA’s to the alt instead of spending a lot of time debating the root cause flow cause honestly they’re probably going to win it, so you should just spend more time on what I’m likely to vote for.



+What stuff do you assume?

good defense *can* completely mitigate offense, and try-or-die is going to make-me-die if I hear it again. There’s a 1% risk I’ll vote on that argument.- sam’s joke but it still applies to me

you should flesh out competing interpretations/reasonability debates. I don’t want to have to default to competing interpretations.

:--Good--: perms, dropped arguments = true (if explained), reject the arg not the team, fiat, counterplans, open cx, speed, the use of evidence, and things that are coconut-flavored.

:--Bad--: (and real): Try-or-die, severance, intrinsicness, death, pain and suffering, misgendering opponents

Those are all negotiable by way of warranted arguments (except for misgendering opponents and coconut-flavored things being good)



+Talk about your beliefs on debating framework/T

Explain the link between your interpretation and your offense—why are you the only side that accesses that stuff. Treat this flow like a big impact comparison debate and also understand that I’m probably pretty biased against framework.

Inclusiveness is generally good—limitless ground is generally bad. Please navigate the waters in-between with care.




+What did you go for?

Neg --- On the negative we went for 1-off afro-pessimism every round

Aff --- The 2 aff’s I wrote and read were a fugitivity aff about slave pirates and a disabilities/crip theory aff about finding nemo

+Language K’s
misgendering your opponents is never cool
ableist metaphors are also never cool but only to certain words ( See – fine. Blind – bad. Stand – fine. Cripple/Paralysis – bad. Etc)

+Tips (preferences):

If you’re going for politics DA, please make sure you explain to me what the bill/act actually does. I don’t know what arguments people are running on this topic and it will go a long way for you if I know what it is you’re talking about.

Learn your opponents’ names and use them (sometimes). 

Don’t misgender opponents

*THIS >>>> *Don’t say things are conceded or that your opponent “doesn’t have a warrant.” Both hurt your case by setting a low threshold for their response (all they have to muster is one cross application or one warrant….). Just say your stuff I’ll figure the rest out.***

Tags shouldn’t summarize evidence; they should be an argument, made by the debater. Evidence is merely support for what *you’re* saying. Debate is about you, my friend.

Verbatim sam’s but still applies à Do comparison, not explanation. Saying “our evidence is amazing because it [has these characteristics]” doesn’t *compare* it to another thing, it explains something. If you need help, use the word “whereas.” For instance, “our impact is bigger because it [has these characteristics], WHEREAS theirs does not, BECAUSE it’s [from The Onion].” (hopefully your comparison is a little more complex than that...)

Say “chance” instead of “risk”

Brief introduction, I debated at Moore High School for four years as a 2A on the Oklahoma circuit. We typically ran policy affirmatives and shotgun neg strats. After highschool, I was an assistant coach for Moore for another year, and have taken a year hiatus from debate to focus on my schoolwork. This tournament will be the first time I have judged a debate since then. In a nutshell, I would call myself a policy tab judge, but I have and will vote on the kritik. Here is how I evaluate most common arguments.

POLICY OFF CASE:

1. Disadvantages: Good old bread and butter argument. Specific links are good, and be sure to weigh the impact against the case impacts.

2. Case: Offense and defense is great, and case arguments are often underutilized to my taste.

3. Counterplans: I like them, but keep them reasonable. Counterplan theory is also fine, and I default to the flow when evaluating it. 

THEORY/FRAMEWORK:

I like well articulated theory and framework debates. I am unlikely to vote on gut checks, and will default to the flow for theory and framework debates. Make sure the flow is impacted out with clear explanations of abuse. I tend to default to competing interpretations, but have voted on reasonability.

KRITIK/KRITIKAL AFF:

I have been advised by certain people (you know who you are) that I have been unclear on my position on the kritik. I will try to be as transparent as possible, in order to avoid confusion. I will vote on the kritik, but I am no authority on the literature. If you are a team that wants to go for one, be sure to have the argument impacted out so that I know exactly what I am voting on. I also need to know what the role of my ballot is and links to the affirmative need to be clearly articulated. Buzzwords and other jargon may have to be explained, and debate as if I have no knowledge on what you are talking about. This will likely not be the case, but it will help me greatly. Any team that can follow this guide will have no problem with me signing the ballot.

PERFORMANCE:

I will try my best, but I have virtually no idea how to judge these debates. Follow the above guidelines to see how my thought process works.

If anyone has any questions, please ask me before the round. I will be happy to explain anything that is unclear. I will also give an RFD (tournament and time permitting), and i encourage you to ask questions here as well.      

From the beginning, I think debaters need to understand that I was never a policy debater myself. I took over a successful team at Caddo when they needed faculty support, and the debaters and alums taught me the activity. Over the next fifteen years I learned enough to teach it to novices and intermediates. I judged actively for about fifteen years, but since bringing a new coach to our school seven years ago, I have not been in many rounds. If you want someone who is going to understand clipped references to acronyms or core camp affs that you think everyone already knows on the NATO topic, I am not that guy. You are going to have to break things down and explain. I am a flow judge, but very rusty.

Now, Caddo has been known as a fairly critical team over the last decade, and I have learned to appreciate those arguments a good bit. As someone who teaches sociology, psychology, and philosophy at my high school, I am sympathetic to many identity arguments, critiques of epistemology, etc. However, I am not going to be down with a lot of jargon-filled blocks on framework—you must explain why I should weigh your project or method against fairness arguments of the policy world. I like the kind of literature discussed in critical rounds, but I have voted for policy affs outweighing a critique in different debates, especially where the aff won the framework and the neg did not.

That being said, I am very comfortable listening to case, disad, counterplan rounds. I think topicality sets important rules of the game & so if you plan to flout those rules, you better have a compelling reason. I certainly value the kind of knowledge and skills that policy debaters learn through the activity.

Ethos matters. We all know how important cross-ex is to establishing a confident position, but don’t be rude. If you can have a really competitive round and still treat your opponent—and your partner!—with respect, then that goes a long way with me on speaker points.

Email chain—yes. nnormand.cmhs@gmail.com

I am not a proficient enough typist to flow on the laptop, but if you signpost your arguments well enough, I should be able to flow a debate at speed. Being able to read the evidence during the speech certainly helps me though.

Do what you do best in front of me, give full explanations of why I should vote for you, and you will be ok. Make blippy arguments that claim you won because of something that was barely in the debate and dropped by the other team—then no matter how pissed you act when “post-rounding” me at the end, you will still have lost.

This is a great activity. Have fun with it & don’t take yourself too seriously, then we all win.

Updated Longhorn Classic '21

Chris O'Brien

he/him

forever student at UT Austin

please put me on the email chain: chrisob26@utexas.edu

I debated policy in high school all 4 years in Athens TX, and have been judging/coaching on the Austin circuit since 2013.

Also, if anything in this paradigm isn't clear enough, feel free to ask me before the round, I'd be more than happy to clarify.

General Thoughts

I am tab but default to policymaker if not given a clear alternative evaluative framework.

The most important thing is that you give me the easiest path to the ballot. Tell me how to vote, on what, and why. Other than that, give me overviews, keep the debate organized, and please extend things correctly. Technical debating ability determines your speaker points in large part, unless there is reason to dock speaks for hate speech/immoral arguments.

I am generally more confident in my ability to evaluate policy v policy and policy v k debates, than k v k due to a literature knowledge deficiency, especially in high theory kritiks (read: Baudrillard, Heidegger, Deleuze/Guattari, etc.), so expect to explain the thesis of your critical position and how they interact with the topic thoroughly when reading those arguments.

Performance Affs are fine as long as you are very thorough in your explanation of what my role as a judge is and what the ballot does.

I will try to evaluate rounds to the best of my ability based on the information I am able to flow from your speech. That means despite what is in the speech doc, I will only be evaluating what you actually say in your analysis and a lot of close rounds are won or lost in the rebuttals over this issue. There should be clear extensions from the 2AC to the 1AR/Block to the 2NR and 2NRs/2ARs should be going for a specific strategy that is writing my ballot.

Tech over truth in most cases. If an argument is dropped, I still need a proper warrant extension and implication given for that drop to matter, unless given some other model of judging the round. I will rarely decide a round on a single drop and that argument must still be implicated in the broader aspects of the round.

I flow on paper despite the advances in technology since I first started debating. Speed is fine, but in a world of virtual debate please slow down. I expect any theory standards to be read at a pace that gives me adequate pen time, if not they should be in the speech doc.

I will always listen to CX - open CX is fine, but do not talk over each other. Flashing/Email doesn't count towards prep unless it is egregious.

Don't be offensive, rude, homophobic, racist, ableist, derogatory, sexist etc.

Always try to have fun - if you're not acting like you want to be there, it is a real drag to judge your round.

Framework/T-USFG

I default to debate is a game, and I think the k aff bad debate comes down to a question of fairness, whether used as an impact or an internal link by the neg. I am not usually persuaded by topic education vs critical lit education through an aff specific method since that doesn't interact with the fairness question a lot of the time, and the aff team usually has better evidence about the importance of their particular educational outlet anyway, especially given the fact that they know what it is and can adequately prepare for it. The most important way for the aff to get me to vote for a non-resolutional based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. However, I grant K affs a lot of grace if there are clear resolution-based links that are able to answer ground loss claims.

My threshold for granting neg offense on clash is directly determined by how abstract/immaterial the aff explanations of the k method are.

TVAs are under-utilized in my opinion as ways to take out Aff standard offense. SSD is a must-have argument to even compete on the education debate.

I default to k affs getting perms but have a pretty high threshold for these arguments in context to the ground/clash debate, if brought up.

Topicality

I default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded otherwise in round. Bad/unpredictable T interps are worse for debate than predictable ones, so I expect neg teams to read interps that are actually making an argument about what the literature base should be for the topic. Barring the block dropping reasonability, I will most always focus on the standards when evaluating the T debate, so teams that do the work on explaining how limits are improved/destroyed by the other team, what case lists/neg generics look like, and which interp provides the most sustainable form of debate for the year are most likely to win.

I typically don't vote on RVI's here unless there is a multitude of T's that the aff meets on face, which puts the neg more in the realm of reading frivolous theory, not just T args.

Kritiks

I really enjoy policy aff vs k debates, however I have very limited knowledge of critical literature outside of Cap/Neoliberalism, Abolition, SetCol, Security, Biopower (Foucault/Agamben), and small amounts of Ahmed. As said above in general thoughts, if you are reading a kritik you feel I may be unfamiliar with, or are pulling multiple theories from critical bodies of literature, I fully expect you to clearly explain the thesis of the criticism and how your method is able to possibly resolve the links you present.

I am very tech based in my evaluative approach to kritiks and hold a high standard for both teams in order to win the sheet. I evaluate the K sheet first by framework then K proper, where the line-by-line is very important - reading massive overviews that don't specifically interact with 2ac arguments hurt your chances of winning those parts of the K if the aff does the work you don't do in the 1ar. I believe the aff should be able to be weighed against the kritik, it is up to the neg to win why that is not the case in this round with a clear counter-interp.

Links are important and must be contextualized to the affirmative, but it is also just as important to be able to explain how the alt method is able to resolve those links. I hold alt solvency to a high regard, you must be able to explain what the alt does to create change in the world after I vote neg. I have found that there is big trend recently by neg teams to ignore solvency deficits/turns because they aren't specific to the (usually obscure) alt method the neg is choosing to read this round - you still need to interact with those arguments and disprove their warrants!

I think perf con is voter as long as there is a clear link in contradiction of advocacies - I believe the neg is able to spin out of this, but depending on the positions read that might be hard at times.

Floating PIKs are bad, but if you get away with it, I will still vote on it.

Disads

I would love to hear a good DA+Case collapse in the 2nr. I believe the top level of the disad should be thoroughly fleshed out in the block and there be clear turns case analysis given that is contextualized to the aff scenarios/solvency. Generic link walls are fine as long as you are doing that contextualization as well. I don't think winning case outweighs is all the aff needs to do when turns case analysis is competing against it, but I do think it is underutilized in the 1ar when paired with other arguments on the disad proper.

I really enjoy politics disads when their scenarios lean closer to plausible rather than just fiat spin +"and x is at the top of the docket now". I think warrant interaction on the uniqueness/link uniqueness question is where this sheet is usually won on either side. Generic pc is fake and winners win args aren't too persuasive unless contextualized to the current political climate.

Counterplans/Theory

I really love good counterplan debate. Generic counterplans are necessary and good. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author are even better than that! I think process cp's are legitimate but prefer neg teams to explain how the net benefit is still a disad to the aff. Plan plus multi-plank advantage cp's are my new most hated CP on this topic - do with that info what you will.

Neg teams need to be sure to have a clear story/explanation for how the aff/perm links to the net benefit and the CP alone avoids it. I do not think the answer to solvency deficits is to go for "lens of sufficiency" or fiat, you need to explain how those deficits still allow the cp to solve the aff/avoid the net benefits. Severance/Intrinsic perm debates seem to be less common these days, but I still think they are important tools against "creative" aff perms.

I am okay with aff teams making multiple perms but those perms need to be explained and how they work before the 2ar is going for them. In that same regard, solvency deficits/perm shields the link analysis and implications must not be made for the first time in the 2ar either. Aff should be leveraging their "creative" permutation with their cp theory if the cp is even close to abusive, but I really don't like when rounds come down to just a theory question.

Theory that is more specific to the argument it is read against will typically have a higher chance of being viewed as a voter. I typically lean neg in most cases, except for bad PICs or convoluted process cp's. I think theory should also be used as a justification for other arguments you make in the round based on substance, not just a reason to reject the team.

My threshold for condo is very easily shifted by circumstances, but I generally believe it is a good idea for the aff to read condo in the 2ac if the neg is reading 3 or more counter-advocacies, though the likelihood of me voting on it largely depends on the amount of in-round abuse/sand-bagging strategy the neg is choosing to do. Aff needs to have a clear interpretation, and I find "no difference between 2/3/4 off" not very convincing by the neg, especially if the aff gives any type of intelligent analysis on time tradeoffs.

I believe frivolous theory bad is a voter, especially on procedural questions that the aff/neg themselves violate, but you need to do the work of showing how in round abuse is occurring and how the theory is frivolous.

On judge kick - if the neg tells me to and it's unanswered or the neg is ahead on the question of whether I should, then I will. Neg teams, you should tell me to do this in the block if you want it to be considered for the same reason 2ar condo strats are bad, you wouldn't want the aff to win on 5 minutes of judge kick bad in 2ar and it gives the aff plenty of time to respond/not respond to it by the 2nr.

I'm a tab judge.  Speed is fine.  I'll listen to any argument and I will vote on any argument as long as voters are given.  If you have any other questions, just ask.

I default policymaker but am willing to hear arguments for why my paradigm should change.

The time it takes you to flash your files over to your opponents will come out of your prep time.

Speed: I'm fine with most speed but can't handle the top-shelf stuff. Clarity is important for me.

T: It's a game of competing interpretations, argue it well. I'm skeptical of RVIs on their own but am willing to hear K of T counterarguments.

Kritiks: I dislike kritiks that can't articulate their theory of the ballot. What is the ballot doing? Is the role of the ballot limited to the round, or is it some real-world political act? I have good entry knowledge on almost all the K lit on this topic, but please ease me in to author-specific vocabulary.

Counterplans: My default reading of counterplans is as opportunity costs to the plan. I strongly encourage negative teams to clarify the status of the counterplan early.

Performance: I really want to be able to evaluate performance, but still usually need some clear, organized framework in the case.

I would like to be on the email chain: dsavill@snu.edu

Director of Debate for Southern Nazarene University since 2021 and former coach of Crossings Christian School from 2011 to 2023.

Things you need to know for prefs:

Kritiks: Very familiar with kritiks and non-topical affs. I like kritiks and K affs and can vote for them.

Policy: I am familiar with policy debates and can judge those. My squad is designed to be flex so I am good with either.

Speed: I can handle any kind of speed as long as you are clear.

Theory/FW/T: I am not a fan of FW-only debates so if you are neg and hit a non-topical aff I will entertain FW but that shouldn't be your only off-case. Contesting theory of power is a good strat for me.

Performance/non-traditional debate: Despite what some would think coming from a Christian school, I actually like these kinds of debates and have voted up many teams.

I try to be a tab judge but I know I tend to vote on more technical prowess. I believe debate should be a fun and respectful activity and I try to have a good time judging the round. I think debaters are among the smartest students in the nation and I always find it a privilege to judge a round and give feedback.

2023 Paradigm Update

Sav J. Seelinger

Blue Valley North High School '13

Baylor University '16

Cornell Law School '20

I am not going to Post one of these In Public, because real (Supreme Court) (Federal) (State) (local) (civil) (criminal) Judges don't have to.

Or they can just lie to The Public about their beliefs and respond to Intimidation Tactics instead of Arguments with their ballots.

And that's how we got here (Hell).

Now I DARE you to put me in the Back ;) #PepsiChallenge

Email: msyesha@gmail.com

1. I’m fine with speed, just be clear.

2. Kritiks and kritikal affs are fine (not my favorite) but make sure to explain everything because I don’t read K literature in my free time nor did I debate the K in high school.

3. I love Disads (especially politics) and CPs (except for abusive ones)

4. I like good Topicality debates but please don’t just reread your 1NC/2AC standards in rebuttals. I’ll default competing interpretations but if you debate it right, I can do reasonability. I give the aff a lot of leeway in terms of T.

5. I love theory debates so feel free to go for conditionality, international fiat, 50 state fiat, anything really where the negative is abusive.

6. Other things: I’ll look at tech over truth.

There’s always at least a 1% risk of the DA

If the neg goes for CP+DA and I think the DA outweighs the case, I’ll kick the CP for the neg

This paradigm was pretty sparse for a while, but I've decided these are pretty useful.

I debated in policy for four years in high-school. I debated at the University of Oklahoma for 4 years.

***** slow down in online debate.

*** LD Addendum's

I've been judging and coaching LD for about 4-5 years now at this point. I'm relatively cool with whatever you do. Tricks will probably be a harder sell with me, but I have and will vote on it if they're impacted out and made relevant. I probably have a higher inclination to lean towards rejecting the argument rather than the debater in most instances.

Pretty good for T on this topic.

** Most of this stuff is in relationship to policy debate.

Debate is up to the debaters. Do what you will with the debate, I will do my utmost best to evaluate the arguments in front of

I view debate largely as a set of questions I'm asked to resolve. Depending on how I answer those questions my ballot changes. I find debaters who effectively tell me which questions ought to come first, and how answering those questions informs the rest of the debate.

I'd like to think I don't have any wild idiosyncrasies as part of my judge habits, but here are some of my thoughts, they may or may not help you make a decision on where to pref me
Counter-plans

1. New Planks in the 2NC are probably bad.

2. I can be persuaded conditionally is bad if the negative gets a little too wild.

DA's][1. These are cool. Specific links are cool, but I understand the game. If you gotta run 10 generic links because the aff is small, then do what you gotta do.

K's

1. I'd like a little more explanation when you make an ontology claim. "Settler-colonialism is ontological," for example, is much more expansive than a 'politics doesn't succeed argument. Explain what you think settler-colonialism is and how it influences society, and then explain why that informs what forms of politics are successful or violent. This will make it much easier to evaluate your argument!

2. Be clear about what your FW argument is. 9/10 times its helpful to be clear.

3. Reference the aff. if I could imagine the 2nc being read against another aff with no changes, then your speaks will reflect that.

4. Permutation is probably not a negative argument.

Critical Affirmative's

1. Clear counter-interpretation/Counter-model tends to be a much better way to achieve my ballot than straight impact turns. Explain to me what clash happens in your model of the debate, and why that solves the neg's internal link. However, if the strategy is impact turns then make sure to spend time doing impact calculus.

2. I'm not really concerned with whether or not the performance of the 1ac solved the bad parts of the world. I view K-Aff's much like Policy affs. I.E. Explain how your model of politics would be good if exported.

3. I really do appreciate when teams apply their arguments in interesting and thoughtful ways. Regardless of you making a "new" argument, if you add your own bit of character to the argument I will appreciate the effort.

FW

1. I'm not as bad for FW as my debate choices would indicate. The way to get my ballot in the vein of Michigan GW, lots of clash and debate focused I/L's. Explain why the C/I collapses into an ever expansive interpretation., and why the affirmative can't square the circle of competion.

2. I am a bad judge for FW teams who are dismissive and don't respond to the affirmative. I think negative teams sometimes miss some basic responses to the affirmative in the pursuit of using academic language. Sometimes aff's just assume illogical things that you can point out, even if it seems simple! Don't ever think an argument is too simple or someone's argument sounds too smart to make a basic response!

3. I'm not a good judge for "Truth-testing means no aff"

Frivolous Theory

1. Not my cup of tea, but I'll vote on it. It will be reflected in your speaks tho.

Experience

Currently the Director of Debate at Casady School.

Competed at the University of Oklahoma and Owasso High School.

Put me on the e-mail chain: snidert [at] casady [dot] org

On Evidence

Evidence quality and consistency is very important to me. I can easily be convinced to disregard a piece of evidence because it lacks quality, is insufficiently highlighted, or is not qualified.

Author qualifications are under debated and if a piece of evidence lacks a qualification then that should definitely be used in debate.

K Things General

One line should dictate how you approach reading the K in front of me:

“You are a debater, not a philosopher.”

This should be your guiding principle when reading and answering a kritik in front of me. Debaters seem to rely more on jargon than actually doing the work of explaining and applying their argument. Unnecessarily complex kritiks won't get good speaker points (90% of the time you could have just read the cap k).

I will not flow overviews on a separate sheet of paper.

If you plan on reading the K

I've got good news and bad news. I'll start with the bad news: You are very unlikely to convince me not the weigh/evaluate the aff. I'm not persuaded much by self-serving counter interpretations on framework.

That said, the good news is that I think people give the aff too much credit and most of the reasons why I shouldn't evaluate the plan are typically offense against it. For example while I don't find the FW interpretation "Debate should be about epistemological assumptions" very convincing, I will definitely vote on "the affirmative's plan relies on a flawed epistemology that ensures serial policy failure, which turns case."

If you're answering the K

While the above may seem like good news for the aff answering the K, I tend to hold the aff to a higher threshold than most in K debates. I don't think "you need a specific link to the plan" is responsive to a K of the aff's epistemology. Likewise, aff framework interps that exclude Ks entirely are pretty much a non-starter.

Theory Issues

Condo seems to be getting a bit excessive, but no one goes for condo anymore so I'm sort of stuck with it.

Tech vs Truth

I think of this as more of a continuum as opposed to a binary. I lean more towards tech than truth, but I'm not going to pretend that I evaluate all arguments with equal legitimacy. For example, I have a higher threshold for arguments like “climate change not real” than “plan doesn’t solve climate change.” I traditionally evaluate the debate in offense/defense paradigm, but there is a such thing as a 0% risk.

K affs/T-FW

I enter every debate with the assumption that the resolution is going to play a role in the round. What role it plays, however, is up for debate. I don’t have a preference between skills or fairness standards.

Common reasons I vote aff on FW:

The neg goes for too many “standards”/"DAs"/whatever-youre-calling-them in the 2NR.

The neg doesn’t even try to engage the aff’s 2AC to FW.

Common reasons I vote neg on FW:

The aff doesn’t have an offensive reasons why the TVA is bad.

The aff doesn’t even try to engage the neg’s standards on FW.

Misc

I only flow what I hear, I won't use the doc to correct my flow. If I don't catch an argument/tag because you're too unclear then *insert shrug emoji*. That said, with online debate I will flow what I hear and use the doc to correct my flow after the speech. Including your analytics in the speech document will make correcting my flows much easier.

Guaranteed 30 if you’re paper debate team #PaperDebate

My facial reactions will probably tell you how I feel about your arg.

1. You have to have truth

I like to say that I am tab and I do my best to judge the round via the flow, but I realize we all have biases of one degree or another. Therefore I will try to explain how I think to help you evaluate if you would like me to be the judge in the back of the room.

Some background. I attended Miller High School in Corpus Christi, TX. For those of you unfamiliar with Corpus Christi. In my day it was known as the "ghetto" school where the "hood" and "bario" intersect. I debated LD for 4 years in high school from 1987-1991. In 1991, I was the top speaker and quarterfinalist at TFA state.

Currently, I own a wealth management firm in Corpus Christi and have a radio show called "Fit to Retire". I have two sons that have participated in debate for the last 7 years mainly in policy. This is who I have voted for President; 1992 Bill Clinton, 1996 Bill Clinton, 2000 Al Gore, 2004 John Kerry, 2008 John McCain, 2012 Mitt Romney, 20016 Donald Trump. I tend to vote Republican, but consider my real political ideology to be libertarian.

LD philosophy

I like traditional value, criterion, contention level debate.

I like critical arguments. With this said, please know that I am strong believer in capitalism and freedom. However I have found that I often vote up critical arguments because the debaters running them have typically debated better.

I am not a fan of theory unless true abuse is occurring. I really do not like debates about debate. I think the appropriate place for changing norms in the space is the rules committee not the debate round. With that said I will vote for theory, but it has a higher burden. If a debater runs theory and has a claim, warrant and impact on the flow and blows it up in the rebuttal, I will probably vote on it.

I am fine with LARP, but I could be persuaded by theory that policy does not have a place in the world of LD.

I am fine with CP's, PIC's, and PIK's, but I want to know what the net benefit is.

Arguments = claim + warrant + impact

Cards do not equal warrants. Warrants justify the claim. Impacts tell me why and how the claim is important to the resolution and our world.

The easiest way to when a round in front of me is comparative worlds. Tell me what the world of the AFF and the world of the NEG look like. Tell me why I would prefer to live in the world that you are advocating for over the world of your opponent’s advocacy.

My kids have told me that I need to disclose how I flow. I typically do not flow tags. I flow warrants. I often find that the tag vs. how the card is cut is different. Therefore I am flowing the warrant coming out of the card instead of the tag that is being used.

I am not a fan of prewritten overviews. I would really prefer to see the time spent analyzing and impacting the arguments that are on the flow. I love contextualization in the round.

I do listen to CX. I love when CX is brought into the round. When you extend and argument, please do not just say extend the Butler 12 evidence against my opponents 3rd contention, But tell me what the 3rd contention is and why the Butler evidence refutes or turns your opponent's argument.

https://debate.msu.edu/about-msu-debate/

Pronouns: she/her

Yes, put me on the chain: jasminestidham@gmail.com

Please let me know if there are any accessibility requirements before the round so I can do my part.

Updated for 2023-24

I currently coach full-time at Michigan State University. Previously, I coached at Dartmouth for five years from 2018-2023. I debated at the University of Central Oklahoma for four years and graduated in 2018. I also used to coach at Harvard-Westlake, Kinkaid, and Heritage Hall.

LD skip down to the bottom.

January 2024 Update -- College

The state of wikis for most college teams is atrocious this year. The amount of wikis that have nothing or very little posted is bonkers. I don't know who needs to hear this, but please go update your wiki. If you benefit from other teams posting their docs/cites (you know you do), then return the favor by doing the same. It's not hard. This grumpiness does not apply to novice and JV teams.

At the CSULB tournament, I will reward teams with an extra .1 speaker point boost if you tell me to look at your wiki after the round and it looks mostly complete. I will not penalize any team for having a bad wiki (you do you), but will modestly reward teams who take the time to do their part for a communal good.

October 2023 Musings

I don't mean to sound like a curmudgeon, but what happened to flowing and line-by-line? Stop. flowing. off the doc. Flowing is fundamental and you need to actually do it. Please stop over-scripting your speeches. I promise you will sound so much better when you debate off the flow.

I could not agree more with Tracy McFarland here: 'Clash - it's good - which means you need to flow and not script your speeches. LBL with some clear references to where you're at = good. Line by line isn't answer the previous speech in order - it's about grounding the debate in the 2ac on off case, 1nc on case.'

In most of the college rounds I've judged so far this year, I have noticed that debaters are overly reliant on reading a wall of cards to substitute for actual debating. I don't know who hurt you, but you don't need to read 10 cards in the 1AR. Reading cards is easy and anyone can do it. I want to see you debate.

Tldr; Flexibility

No judge will ever like all of the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate them fairly. I appreciate judges who are willing to listen to positions from every angle, so I try to be one of those judges. I have coached strictly policy teams, strictly K teams, and everything in between because I love all aspects of the game. I would be profoundly bored if I only judged certain teams or arguments. At most tournaments I find myself judging a little bit of everything: a round where the 1NC is 10 off and the letter 'K' is never mentioned, a round where the affirmative does not read a plan and the neg suggests they should, a round where the neg impact turns everything under the sun, a round where the affirmative offers a robust defense of hegemony vs a critique, etc. I enjoy judging a variety of teams with different approaches to the topic.

Debate should be fun and you should debate in the way that makes it valuable for you, not me.

My predispositions about debate are not so much ideological as much as they are systematic, i.e. I don't care which set of arguments you go for, but I believe every argument must have a claim, warrant, impact, and a distinct application.

If I had to choose another judge I mostly closely identify with, it would be John Cameron Turner but without the legal pads.

I don't mind being post-rounded or answering a lot of questions. I did plenty of post-rounding as a debater and I recognize it doesn't always stem from anger or disrespect. That being said, don't be a butthead. I appreciate passionate debaters who care about their arguments and I am always willing to meet you halfway in the RFD.

I am excited to judge your debate. Even if I look tired or grumpy, I promise I care a lot and will always work hard to evaluate your arguments fairly and help you improve.

What really matters to me

Evidence quality matters a lot to me, probably more than other judges. Stop reading cards that don't have a complete sentence and get off my lawn. I can't emphasize enough how much I care about evidence comparison. This includes author quals, context, recency, (re)highlighting, data/statistics, concrete examples, empirics, etc. You are better off taking a 'less is more' approach when debating in front of me. For example, I much rather see you read five, high quality uniqueness cards that have actual warrants highlighted than ten 'just okay' cards that sound like word salad.

This also applies to your overall strategies. For example, I am growing increasingly annoyed at teams who try to proliferate as many incomplete arguments as possible in the 1NC. If your strategy is to read 5 disads in the 1NC that are missing uniqueness or internal links, I will give the aff almost infinite leeway in the 1AR to answer your inevitable sandbagging. I would much rather see well-highlighted, complete positions than the poor excuse of neg arguments that I'm seeing lately. To be clear, I am totally down with 'big 1NCs' -- but I get a little annoyed when teams proliferate incomplete positions.

Case debate matters oh so much to me.Please, please debate the case, like a lot. It does not matter what kind of round it is -- I want to see detailed, in-depth case debate. A 2NC that is just case? Be still, my heart. Your speaker points will get a significant boost if you dedicate significant time to debating the case in the neg block. By "debating the case" I do not mean just reading a wall of cards and calling it a day -- that's not case debate, it's just reading.

I expect you to treat your partner and opponents with basic respect. This is non-negotiable. Some of y'all genuinely need to chill out. You can generate ethos without treating your opponents like your mortal enemy. Pettiness, sarcasm, and humor are all appreciated, but recognize there is a line and you shouldn't cross it. Punching down is cringe behavior. You should never, ever make any jokes about someone else's appearance or how they sound.

Impact framing and judge instruction will get you far. In nearly every RFD I give, I heavily emphasize judge instruction and often vote for the team who does superior judge instruction because I strive to be as non-interventionist as possible.

Cowardice is annoying. Stop running away from debate. Don't shy away from controversy just because you don't like linking to things. This also applies to shady disclosure practices. If you don't like defending your arguments, or explaining what your argument actually means, please consider joining the marching band. Be clear and direct.

Plan texts matter. Most plan texts nowadays are written in a way that avoids clash and specificity. Affirmative teams should know that I am not going to give you much leeway when it comes to recharacterizing what the plan text actually means. If the plan says virtually nothing because you're scared of linking to negative arguments, just know that I will hold you to the words in the plan and won't automatically grant the most generous interpretation. You do not get infinite spin here. Ideally, the affirmative will read a plan text that accurately reflects a specific solvency advocate.

I am not a fan of extreme or reductionist characterizations of different approaches to debate. For example, it will be difficult to persuade me that all policy arguments are evil, worthless, or violent. Critical teams should not go for 'policy debate=Karl Rove' because this is simply a bad, reductionist argument. On the flip side, it would be unpersuasive to argue that all critiques are stupid or meaningless.

I appreciate and reward teams who make an effort to adapt.Unlike many judges, I am always open to being persuaded and am willing to change my mind. I am rigid about certain things, but am movable on many issues. This usually just requires meeting me in the middle; if you adapt to me in some way, I will make a reciprocal effort.

Online debate

Camera policy: I strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but there are valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.

Tech glitches: it is your responsibility to record your speeches as a failsafe. I encourage you to record your speeches on your phone/laptop in the event of a tech glitch. If a glitch happens, we will try to resolve it as quickly as possible, and I will follow the tournament's guidelines.

Slow down a bit in the era of e-sports debate. I'll reward you for it with points. No, you don't have to speak at a turtle's pace, but maybe we don't need to read 10-off?

Miscellaneous specifics

I care more about solvency advocates than most judges. This does not mean I automatically vote against a counterplan without a solvency advocate. Rather, this is a 'heads up' for neg teams so they're aware that I am generally persuaded by affirmative arguments in this area. It would behoove neg teams to read a solvency advocate of some kind, even if it's just a recutting of affirmative evidence.

I will only judge kick if told to do so, assuming the aff hasn't made any theoretical objections.

I am not interested in judging or evaluating call-outs, or adjacent arguments of this variety. I care deeply about safety and inclusion in this activity and I will do everything I can to support you. But, I do not believe that a round should be staked on these issues and I am not comfortable giving any judge that kind of power.

Please do not waste your breath asking for a 30. I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen.

Generally speaking, profanity should be avoided. In most cases, it does not make your arguments or performance more persuasive. Excessive profanity is extremely annoying and may result in lower speaks. If you are in high school, I absolutely do not want to hear you swear in your speeches. I am an adult, and you are a teenager -- I know it feels like you're having a big ethos moment when you drop an F-bomb in the 2NC but I promise it is just awkward/cringe.

Evidence ethics

If you clip, you will lose the round and receive 0 speaker points. I will vote against you for clipping EVEN IF the other team does not call you on it. I know what clipping is and feel 100% comfortable calling it. Mark your cards and have a marked copy available.

If you cite or cut a card improperly, I evaluate these issues on a sliding scale. For example, a novice accidentally reading a card that doesn't have a complete citation is obviously different from a senior varsity debater cutting a card in the middle of a sentence or paragraph. Unethical evidence practices can be reasons to reject the team and/or a reason to reject the evidence itself, depending on the unique situation.

At the college level, I expect ya'll to handle these issues like adults. If you make an evidence ethics accusation, I am going to ask if you want to stop the round to proceed with the challenge.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LD Specific

Updated March 2024 before TFA to reflect a few changes.

Conflicts: Harvard-Westlake (assistant director of debate 2018-2022), and Strake Jesuit (current affiliation).

My background is in policy debate, but I am very fluent in LD. I co-direct NSD Flagship and follow LD topics as they evolve. I assist Strake in LD and policy.

If you are asking questions about what was read or skipped in the speechdoc, that counts as CX time. If you are simply asking where a specific card was marked, that is okay and does not count as CX time. If you want your opponent to send out a speechdoc that includes only the things they read, that counts as your CX time or prep time -- it is your responsibility to flow.

You need to be on time. I cannot stress this enough. LDers consistently run late and it drives me bonkers. Your speaks will be impacted if you are excessively late without a reasonable excuse.

I realize my LD paradigm sounds a little grumpy. I am only grumpy about certain arguments/styles, such as frivolous theory. I do my best to not come off as a policy elitist because I do genuinely enjoy LD and am excited to judge your debate.

FAQ:

Q:I primarily read policy (or LARP) arguments, should I pref you?

A: Yes.

Q: I read a bunch of tricks/meta-theory/a prioris/paradoxes, should I pref you?

A: No thank you.

Q: I read phil, should I pref you?

A: I'm not ideologically opposed to phil arguments like I am with tricks. I do not judge many phil debates because most of the time tricks are involved, but I don't have anything against philosophical positions. I would be happy to judge a good phil debate. You may need to do some policy translation so I understand exactly what you're saying.

Q: I really like Nebel T, should I pref you?

A: No, you shouldn't. He's a very nice and smart guy, but cutting evidence from debate blogs is such a meme. If you'd like to make a similar argument, just find non-Nebel articles and you'll be fine. This applies to most debate coach evidence read in LD. To be clear, you can read T:whole rez in front of me, just not Nebel blog cards.

Q: I like to make theory arguments like 'must spec status' or 'must include round reports for every debate' or 'new affs bad,' should I pref you?

A: Not if those arguments are your idea of a round-winning strategy. Can you throw them in the 1NC/1AR? Sure, that's fine. Will I be persuaded by new affs bad? No.

Q: Will you ever vote for an RVI?

A: Nope. Never. I don't flow them.

Q: Will you vote for any theory arguments?

A: Of course. I am good for more policy-oriented theory arguments like condo good/bad, PICs good/bad, process CPs good/bad, etc.

Q: Will you vote for Ks?

A: Of course. Love em.


Any other questions can be asked before the round or email me.

Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS

email: s.stolte33@gmail.com

*I don't look at docs during the debate, if it isn't on my flow, I'm not evaluating it*

**prep time stops when the email is sent, too many teams steal prep while 'saving the doc'**

Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. The most enjoyable rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. You are likely better off doing what you do and making minor tweaks to sell it to me rather than making radical changes to your argumentation/strategy to do something you think I would enjoy.

-Clash Debates: No strong ideological debate dispositions, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. I think there is value in K debate and think that value comes from expanding knowledge of literature bases and how they interact with the resolution. I generally find myself unpersuaded by affs that 'negate the resolution' and find them to not have the most persuasive answers to framework.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I often find this to be the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and permutation evidence for kritiks.

-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow/decision. This is almost always an issue of clarity and not speed and has only gotten worse during/post virtual debate.

-Inserting evidence/CP text/perms:you have to say the words for me to consider it an argument

-Permutation/Link Analysis: I am becoming increasingly bored in K debates. I think this is almost entirely due to the fact that K debate has stagnated to the point where the negative neither has a specific link to the aff nor articulates/explains what the link to the aff is beyond a 3-year-old link block written by someone else. I think most K links in high school debate are more often links to the status quo/links of omission and I find affirmatives that push the kritik about lack of links/alts inability to solve set themselves up successfully to win the permutation. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses is something that strategically helps the negative team when it comes to contextualizing what the aff is/does. I also see an increasingly high amount of negative kritiks that don't have a link to the aff plan/method and instead are just FYIs about XYZ thing. I think that affirmative teams are missing out by not challenging these links.

FOR LD PREFS (may be useful-ish for policy folks)

All of the below thoughts are likely still true, but it should be noted that it has been about 5 years since I've regularly judged high-level LD debates and my thoughts on some things have likely changed a bit. The hope is that this gives you some insight into how I'm feeling during the round at hand.

1) Go slow. What I really mean is be clear, but everyone thinks they are much more clear than they are so I'll just say go 75% of what you normally would.

2) I do not open the speech doc during the debate. If I miss an argument/think I miss an argument then it just isn't on my flow. I won't be checking the doc to make sure I have everything, that is your job as debaters. This also means:

3) Pen time. If you're going to read 10 blippy theory arguments back-to-back or spit out 5 different perms in a row, I'm not going get them all on my flow, you have to give judges time between args to catch it all. I'll be honest, if you're going to read 10 blippy theory args/spikes, I'm already having a bad time

4) Inserting CP texts, Perm texts, evidence/re-highlighting is a no for me. If it is not read aloud, it isn't in the debate

5) If you're using your Phil/Value/Criterion as much more than a framing mechanism for impacts, I'm not the best judge for you (read phil tricks/justifications to not answer neg offense). I'll try my best, but I often find myself struggling to find a reason why the aff/neg case has offense to vote on

6) Same is true for debaters who rely on 'tricks'/bad theory arguments, but even more so. If you're asking yourself "is this a bad theory argument?" it probably is. Things such as "evaluate the debate after the 1AR" or "aff must read counter-solvency" can be answered with a vigorous thumbs down.

7) I think speaker point inflation has gotten out of control but for those who care, this is a rough guess at my speaker point range28.4-28.5average;28.6-28.7 should clear;28.8-28.9 pretty good but some strategic blunders; 29+you were very good, only minor mistakes

"Underneath all reason lies delirium, and drift."

I think the structural ins-and-outs of debate arguments are very important foundations that the activity and the debate round specifically require to function properly. But, I err on the side of reasonability. I tend to treat theory args as checks rather than round-deciders, and as such it is very difficult to get me to vote on hypothetical abuse. If you want to win the ballot *on* theory/topicality, you need to show me how you were abused *in this round*. Otherwise, if a team passes the theory/topicality check, then we move on to other arguments.

I think Framework is a complicated issue. On one hand, it’s a check for policy-leaning teams to prevent abusive K args from the neg and a right to define how you want the round and ballot act to be seen, but more often I see it used as an attempt to abuse neg ground by somehow removing their ability to kritik altogether. In practice, the stronger argument and legitimate, warranted crystallization will win my ballot.

I’m okay with speed, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE signpost. This means *don't* speed through tags!!! Please just pause/vary your tone when switching between tags and evidence. I’m able to come back to judge at most 3 times a year, so it takes some energy to “knock the rust off” my ears and my flowing abilities.

I find really good policy rounds a thing of beauty, when there’s CLASH and real discussion between competing arguments and evidence. It shouldn't make a difference what the subject of those discussions is.

Ultimately, if what you really want to think and speak on in your time in this activity is the granular interactions between congress and the president or how likely nuclear war is, then I think you should be able to; but I also think that if the other team wants to spend their time in this activity speaking on issues that affect them in the real world, they should be able to find a way inside the boundaries of the debate “game” to do so without being punished.

Here’s a paradox: you can be behind on every single flow and still win the ballot, or ahead on every single flow and still lose the ballot. What’s important to me is that you tell me a compelling story at the end of the round, and not just repeat taglines and “extend x”; that you crystallize and have warranted reasons for why I should vote for you; and, above all, that you are clearest in telling me what the ballot means or what my act of voting accomplishes.

I will do my best at the end of the round to objectively decide "who did the better debating", but it's up to you as debaters to tell me what those words mean in the round you're in.

I like parts of both David Kilpatrick's and Ryan Malone's paradigm, so a lot of this is taken from the two of them.

I will also add this note from Kevin Clarke as the TL;DR: "Do what you do best and I will make a decision afterwards"

Things to Know

1. I believe debate is fundamentally about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand the argument that you are making (whether it's because you're unclear or the argument doesn't make sense), it likely won't factor into my decision. There are pretty much no arguments that I think are off limits. If you think an argument is egregious, rude, or absurd, you should be able to beat it.

2. Framework: I liked going for framework and I liked debating against framework a lot in college. Some trends I've noticed:

- A lot of aff's seem to not pick a side as to whether or not they're going to impact turn the resolution or go for a middle ground. Picking one is crucial to developing a coherent strategy against framework.

- A lot of neg's seem to not do terminal impact calculus in the 2NR. This is absolutely imperative to you winning the debate, because the aff is never going to forget to do it in the 2AR.

- It seems like a lot of teams just end up saying "procedural fairness is an impact" or "procedural fairness isn't an impact" and just hope that the judge is on their side at the end of the debate. I don't believe either one of these things to be fundamentally true. Debate the value of procedural fairness and the value of clash instead of just hoping I'll dogmatically agree with you.

- Sound topical versions are important. For the aff, it's important to debate the merits of topical versions that have some chance of solving some of the aff's impacts. For the neg, it's important to explain which of the aff's impacts the topical version specifically solves for.

3. Theory: much like framework, I think teams can win just about anything if well-warranted and impacted. That being said, it shouldn't be too hard for you to beat a counterplan that competes based off the certainty or the immediacy of the plan.

I won't kick the counterplan or the alternative unless told to do so by the negative.

4. Zero Risk: It seems more realistic to talk about the negligibility of a risk either in and of itself or vis a vis another impact, instead of totally-nullified-zero-% risk. Defense-heavy responses would seem to benefit from arguments about how risk should be assessed and problems with the other team’s assessment.

How I Make Decisions

1. What arguments have either been identified as or appear to be the most important arguments in the debate and what is comparative impact to those arguments is?

2. Are both teams winning the arguments they claim they are? This involves evaluating whether or not a team has identified clear links/internal links to their impact and whether or not the opposing team has played sufficient defense against those arguments.

It also can involve evaluating whether or not the arguments in the 2NR/2AR resemble those from the block/1AR. Unless there are arguments about how I should or should not flow, I appreciate when debaters are attentive to line-by-line, but I understand that strategy sometimes calls one to deviate from it. That being said, for arguments that appear to be new in the final rebuttals, I'm much more inclined to evaluate those arguments when a line is drawn to previous arguments.

If necessary, this step can also involve evaluating evidence, although it's pretty rare for me to do so to avoid reconstructing the debate.

3. After evaluating all of these things I get to a general decision and then try to do some even-if scenarios. I run through a few even-if scenarios: what, if any, central arguments the losing team could have won, but still lose the debate, and what arguments the winning team would have had to lose or the losing team would have had to win for the losing team to win the debate.

4. I decide any independent voting issues and theoretical objections to determine if winning any of those issues would help the losing team win the debate.

5. I deliver a reason/list of reasons that compelled me to vote the way I did. I'll then explain how I arrived at that conclusion as well as some of the issues that gave me pause. I try and do this fairly quickly to give you as much time as possible to vet my decision.

Email: stransky.alex@gmail.com

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

Include me to any email chain please! travis.tiffany95@protonmail.com

(this paradigm template was borrowed from another paradigm on tabroom, thanks for making writing mine easier!)

Debate to your strengths, don't feel intimidated by me as your judge, I am in no way "above" you. These are my paradigms, not a rule book. I don't want anyone to 'feel' like they need to adjust to me - I want you to debate comfortably but competently.

I would say that I am willing to listen to just about any argument so long as it has warrants that are legitimate. I was a Policy debater in High School, but enjoy and am comfortable with LD and PF.

Housecleaning issues:

1) Case extentions!!! I look at debate like a football game. If the team decided to not show up for the second half how are they supposed to win? Same is true here, extend your offense to give me a reason to vote for you. With that said, even if your points go conceded, extend your offense - I need you to also not drop your own arguments.

2) Obvious one, I don't flow new arguments in rebuttals. This should go without saying, but regardless of if your opponent acknowledges the new arguments, I will not vote on them.

3) Be respectful and have class. My biggest pet peeve is a great debater hitting someone not as good and the great debater being confusing or not helpful. You were there once, don't be a jerk. If this happens, I cannot justify giving you a loss, but don't be surprised when your speaks suck, so please be conscious. I am a coach as well, so keeping this event educational and fun for everyone is of upmost importance. So respect this event that has done so much for you by just being respectful and classy.

4) Disclosure, please comply with your opponent if they request for you to disclose your case. With that said, I only evaluate disclosure theory if there were attempts to request for disclosure and your opponent refused. DO NOT read disclosure theory on novices with stock cases. I won't vote on it.

When evaluating any round the first thing I look to is framework. You can lose the framework debate and still win my ballot, your impacts just have to be weighed in the framework that won the round. However, when it comes to how to win framing issues, I want you to respond to the clash if it exists. For example, util and Kant don't see eye to eye on much so if these two frameworks are competing, I expect some sort of weighting analysis as to why one or the other should be used to evaluate impacts in the round. Keep in mind that my understanding of philosophical concepts is pretty solid. Thus, don't be surprised if you lose for misrepresenting a philosophical idea, your opponent doesn't even need to point this out for me to get upset about this. I'm not super picky about this unless it's a gross misrepresentation. I cannot justify giving you my ballot when you're misinforming yourself and your opponent on the merits of particular philosophical ideas. With that said, please do not be scared to experiment with positions, I enjoy unique debates, just know what the author of your cards actually advocates for and we're gravy.

In rounds where pre-fiat issues present themselves I default to Topicality first, theory, Kritiks, and then substance, unless the debater argues why that order should be reorganized. With that said, I am not a fan of theory as an out, so read paradigm issues. Notice tricks aren't on that list... I don't vote for tricks :). Oh and if you haven't listened already, if your opponent ask if you read any a priori and you try to deny this, yeah congrats now you get an L and lowest possible speaks, hopefully you read this paradigm and this isn't an issue.

DAs: Not a fan of generic DAs, will vote on them though. Make sure your uniqueness is clear as well as the link.

Ks: Not a fan of generic Ks, will vote on them though. The link is of upmost importance for me to evaluate the K. The alt should be feasible and clear. Illustrate why perms don't work and how it better solves the framing issues presented in the K. When judging kritiks I often lean towards the Link vs Perm debate - I assume that the kritiks impacts are true unless you argue they aren't.

AFF Ks: I ran this position in policy and I'm comfortable with 'weird' stuff. That being said, as a coach I default to education as the priority issue in every debate. If an opponent makes a convincing argument you're bad for debate - I can still be persuaded.

T and Theory: Yes, when needed. Go for RVIs they're cool. You can also argue against them, I'm just a coach - if a particular AFF or NEG should be in the topic persuade me.

1AR Theory: Please have a more thought out shell if you do go this route. 5 sec shells tend to lead to new in the 2s like 99% of the time. But go for 1AR theory!

Speaker Points: So I evaluate speaks pretty systematically, speaking skills are important, but some are more naturally gifted in this aspect than others so it's not the end all be all for me.

30: You should win this tournament.

29.9-29.5: You killed it, I probably signed my ballot immediately following the round. Round was clear.

29.4-29: You won, but it wasn't obvious.

28.9-28.5: Messier but I knew how to give you the ballot.

28.4-28: You may or may not have won, the round was messy and hard to evaluate.

27.9-27: Really messy and there's no clear picture for me to give you the ballot.

26.9-26: I wanted to cry watching this, or you're probably new here.

25: Reprehensible, you were a complete jerk in the round.

I count flashing as part of your prep time. Prep use stops when you eject the flash drive. 

Debate background: I did high school CX debate at the Liberal Arts and Science Academy. 

Speed: As long as you're clear, I'm fine with speed. If you are very fast, make sure to slow down on important arguments, theory, and tags. 

Kritiks: I ran a lot of the neoliberalism K. THAT SAID, I don't read K authors in my spare time for funsies so all relevant vocabulary needs to be explained VERY WELL. Assume I do not know your author, you may ask me specifics before the round if you'd like. It is your responsibility to develop a coherent link-impact-alternative story that I can understand at least on an elementary level.

Performance: I ran some of this in high school, so I'm totally okay with it. Solidify your advococy and answer CX questions that clarify your position. Like kritiks, I need to be able to understand your position on an elementary level, and need to know what the role of the ballot is to vote for you. I will not under any circumstances award double wins or double losses.

Theory: A substantial amount of work needs to be done here for me to vote on theory. Even if your opponent drops a single-line theory argument, you need to explain the voting issue to me.

Topicality: I have yet to vote on T this season, but I do love listening to GOOD topicality debates.

Disads and Counterplans: Thumbs up. Do impact calculus with actual comparison to your opponent's advantages please!

Miscellaneous:

• We're all here to have a rockin' time, so DON'T BE RUDE DURING CX. 
• Racist and sexist comments will be awarded with very low speaker points, and if your opponent makes it a voting issue I will gladly vote you down. 
• If you say "mark the card" you need to actually mark the card.
• I count flashing as part of your prep time. Prep use stops when you eject the flash drive. I will throw a timer at you if you steal prep.

Tab judge. Speed is okay, but not crucial. Clarity at any speed is important. I have no predispositions to any types of arguments, just make sure you explain everything thoroughly.

Graduate Student - Johns Hopkins SAIS 2020-2022 (Haven't been in debate for the past two years, haven't judged virtually yet)

Debate Coach - Hebron High School 2015 - 2020

Sure, I'll be on the email chain: camerondebate@gmail.com

Overview:

I'm extremely tired of framework v. K debates. I get why it happens but please...

If the teams aren't an actual clash of civilizations then please just let me have a K v. K round.

I don't mind what arguments are made in a round, there is almost no argument that I can see myself just not voting for. I will evaluate the arguments as they are ran, which means that explanation and analysis are more important than number. I have experience with policy, critical, theoretical, and stupid debate arguments and, as such, am willing to hear any of these. To win a round, all I think that can/needs to be done is for the team to explain their arguments, do the impact work, and be strategic (both in how their arguments interact and where the team's focus should be). A team that does this will have told me what to vote on and why (this should be the top of your 2NR/2AR).

A few notes:

1. Don't assume I know what your acronym means.

2. I'm fine with speed, I'll tell you if you are going too fast or are unclear.

3. Understanding your arguments is the key to a good debater. Don't run arguments you don't know. Misapplying an author annoys me. There is room for interpreting and using an author but there's a limit past which your evidence is no longer relevant.

4. Quality matters. Quantity is almost entirely irrelevant to good debate.

5. I don't care about the "community consensus." Your argument is acceptable and winnable based off of how effectively you utilize it.

6. Kritik probably should be spelled Critique except on flows where writing "K" is easier.

Topicality:

I am probably more willing to vote on topicality than most judges are now.

The best topicality debates and the ones I'm likely to vote on are those that have a depth of theoretical understanding. Nuances such as textual versus functional violations and how those specifically link to standards or the relationships between the various standards (limits key to ground or predictability outweighs) are key to a good topicality/theory debates that can devastate opponents.

I don't take "reasonability" to mean reasonably topical. I don't know what it means to be "reasonably" topical when there is a violation. "Reasonability" is a response to "Competing Interpretations," namely it is a framework for evaluating topicality and differing readings of the resolution. Thus, "Reasonability" is supposed to legitimize your reading of the resolution or your "Counter-Interpretation." Was the counter-interpretation a reasonable reading of the resolution? Does the counter-interpretation provide a reasonable expectation of debatability? If so, then under a "Reasonability" framework you will win your topicality violation. Only in this way does "Reasonability" solve the arguments against "Competing Interpretations" such as "Race to the Bottom" arguments.

If you wish to critique topicality, go ahead. However, explanation as to why this comes before the violation is required, do not assume it is a given. Also, a critique of topicality is a critique, as a result, it is not simply another analytical response that is used to counter a time-suck. If you want to critique topicality, then critique topicality. I will evaluate critiques of topicality as I would a critique, thus look below.

Theory:

I evaluate theory similar to topicality. Having an interpretation of what is legitimate and justifying it via standards is better than just a 10 second spew of random claims to biases. I understand the utility of theory arguments as time-sucks, however, 10 seconds is probably not enough to leave that option open for later in the debate. Either way, I will initially evaluate theory arguments as a reason to reject arguments unless told to otherwise and provided a reason. Every theory argument can be made into offense except Aff/Neg Bias claims, doing so will show you take the argument seriously.

Disadvantages:

I evaluate disadvantages under an offense-defense framework. I interpret this to mean that defensive arguments primarily serve to effect the impact calculus rather than directly take-out the Disad. For example, no link claims can mitigate the probability of the 1AC triggering the DA's impacts meaning the case outweighs the DA.

I tend to err towards a risk of the DA rather than 100% defense takeouts so make sure you make impact calculus comparisons if you only have defense in the last speech that account for the mitigating defense arguments. However, "Fiat Solves the Link" and "Process" (i.e. congress links to a courts Aff) defense are obviously 100% takeouts.

Counterplans:

I like debates involving very specific PICS and/or very unusual mechanisms. I don't think that a solvency deficit means that the counterplan is nullified, just that the 1AC's advantages are now risks of a DA to the CP so it would come down to impact calculus (see above). Permutations require more response than simply theory. If theory seems like your best/only way out on a permutation then don't make it a small argument (see above).

Critiques or Kritiks:

This is probably what I am most adept to judge because of my academic work. I prefer and am more experienced with "high theory" arguments than identity ones. I expect critique debates to focus on elucidation rather than the number of cards or arguments ran. Your understanding of the argument is essential to a critical debate. As such, I think critique debates that use less cards and focus more on elucidating the position are superior. I think that most critique literature is rich enough that any critique can find good enough evidence to merit not reading much more, if any, after the initial presentation and still be able to draw offense against the other team's responses. In short, card dumping on a critique is the opposite of efficient, smart, and strategic. Put another way, if you can explain a specific link story that ties back to the logic of your generic link evidence then you have a specific link.

I understand critiques as Foucault describes them, "a critique is not a matter of saying that things are not right as they are. It is a matter of pointing out on what kinds of assumptions, what kinds of familiar, unchallenged, unconsidered modes of thought the practices we accept rest.... Criticism is a matter of flushing out that thought and trying to change it: to show that things are not as self-evident as one believes, to see that what is accepted as self-evident will no longer be accepted as such." However, that is not to say critiques attempting to do something else are illegitimate. This is just how I will understand your argument until told differently.

You do not win a critique because of your sweet jargon. Know what you're talking about.

I'm not inherently against a project team. However, I am against teams that make the argument that their opponents are inherently racist/sexist/ableist/heteronormative, etc. the moment they walk into the room.

Framework:

This is what I judge most it seems and I'm just bored of it now. I evaluate the theory parts of framework as I would a topicality or theory argument meaning that you should read what I wrote above. Some notes:

TVA's should at least be viable as strategies to access the education claims that would come from having the topical debate. (I need to believe that there may be some form of solvency mechanism.)

Fairness as a voter is something I may view differently than most K-oriented judges. I think of fairness as a sort of morality claim, you harmed my ability to participate because your crazy K stuff is unpredictable or whatever and that's exclusionary. That can be weighed against the morality claims about good education, ethical subject formation, debate bad, or whatever. However, it most often doesn't single-handedly outweigh as the K team probably has a bunch of impact cards for their education claims.

This may date me a bit but I do think there are jurisdictional arguments that can be made to combat this. This may be a bit more of how policy teams tend to think of fairness now anyway but I tend to consider them separate as this is more of a Role of the Judge/Ballot argument. I don't think it's inherently problematic to say that I, as a judge, have to ensure that a debate is legitimate or viable before I fulfill whatever Role of the Judge the K team says I must fulfill (after all I can vote on alt theory that many K teams don't even critique). However, your framework arguments need to connect to this procedural voting mechanism (i.e. ground arguments apply but advocacy skills probably aren't a procedural issue). K teams need to critique the idea of a procedure or a gatekeeper that comes before ethics.

I say all this because when teams get on the fairness debate, I am sometimes forced into making assumptions about the relationship between these arguments because teams don't explain their internal link connections well. For example, when you are talking about debatability, I'm probably thinking jurisdiction claims. Or when you're talking about advocacy skills I'm thinking of fairness as an internal link to education. If you don't want me to make these assumptions then fill-in-the-blanks for me and explain which arguments are internal links and which are impacts and why.

Please make sure that you clearly explain your interpretation or counter-interpretation and repeat it throughout the debate when necessary. I think that too often teams assume the judge is clear on the nuances that their interpretations provide and how they avoid some bit of offense or something and I'm sitting in the back wondering how you expect me to type out 10-15 words verbatim without paraphrasing when you have already moved onto another analytic.

Any questions, feel free to ask or email the address above.

Good Luck!

Updated 1/7/23 for clipping/ethics challenge policy (at bottom)

4 years in Kansas in high school, 4 years at Baylor University, now a grad student and coach at KU and Barstow.

Add me to the email chain please: aewalberg@gmail.com and rockchalkdebate@gmail.com (college only)

Top Level

Do what you do best, I will do my best to be unbiased when evaluating arguments. I tend to take a long time making decisions regardless of the round, so don't read into it.

Judge instruction/telling me how to write my ballot is really important, points will be higher and you'll be more likely to win if you put the pieces together in the 2NR/2AR, are honest about the parts of the debate you're winning and losing, actually make decisions about what to go for, etc.

As I continue to judge, I find myself prioritizing tech over truth more and more, exception being when arguments/debates are violent, unsafe, etc. This means that you might think an argument is totally nonsensical, nonresponsive, etc. and I might agree, but you have to make those arguments in a speech in order for me to consider them when making my decision. If you want me to evaluate the debate through a lens other than tech, you should say that and explain what that means/why that mode of evaluation is better.

I think you should probably have to read re-highlighted ev, not just insert it. Open to persuasion but debates where both teams are inserting re-highlightings without analysis or explanation are negative persuasive to me.

I am generally open to whatever arguments you want to run, the substantive exception is wipeout. More critical arguments about death are fine, but I am not particularly interested in listening to or voting on suffering outweighs any potential for pleasure/we are primed to be afraid afraid of death but should die anyway.

I will read along with you in the doc while you are reading cards but I will not read along with the analytics you send, that's not a substitute for clarity or slowing down to give pen time. I also don't generally re-read a ton of evidence at the end of the debate unless told to, your analysis/explanation in round is much more important to me. If I'm in a position at the end of the debate where I have to put things together myself by sorting through a lot of evidence that received very little explanation, neither of us will probably be particularly happy with the decision.

Pet peeves: talking over each other in CX excessively---I cannot hear or understand anyone when this happens especially online, asking what cards were/weren't read in a speech if it's not prep time or cx, not having the email chain ready or sent when round start time hits, stealing prep (if it's not speech, cx, or prep time you shouldn't be typing/talking), calling me by my first name when we don't know each other. They're small things and old grumpy judge complaints, but they'll give you a sizable speaker point boost.

Online Debate

Slow down, be clearer. Make sure you can hear judges/other people in the round so you don't miss people telling you to pause or repeat an order.

Theory

I will vote on it if you win it, but that probably means you need more than one sentence on it in the 2AC. Slow down on these debates. I lean condo being the only reason to reject the team.

T

Slow down some. Impact it out in the 2NR. Don't forget to explain what winning competing interps or reasonability actually means for you.

DAs and CPs

I don't do a lot of topic research, so it'll be helpful for both of us if you do a little more explanation on topic specific things like link stories/solvency mechanisms/etc.

Good analytics can definitely beat a crappy DA. Winning terminal defense/zero percent risk is possible.

Ks

Explain why winning framework matters for you and how you still win the debate even if you lose framework.

You don't necessarily need a material alt to win if you go for framework.

2ACs should explicitly answer each of the link arguments even if it's just by explaining that it's a link to the status quo, a block that can impact out a dropped link argument well is likely to get my ballot as long as they are somewhat ahead on the framework or impact framing debate.

K Affs

Good. I do think it is possible to vote neg on presumption, so specific analysis about aff solvency or method is important. I find myself voting overwhelmingly aff in debates where the negative concedes the aff in the 2NR, so I strongly recommend extending your best 1 or 2 case arguments regardless of what else you're going for.

Framework

Neg: Best neg args are usually about models but can be persuaded it's about this round. Explain why fairness, clash, etc. is an impact and how your model accesses the aff's impacts. A well-developed TVA is great. These debates are pretty hard to win in front of me if you fully concede case.

Aff: Explain what debate looks like under your counter interp or counter model of debate or explain why you don't need a counter model. I am not a huge fan of the 2AC strategy of saying as many disads to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out, two well-developed disads are more powerful than seven one-line ones.

Debate Ethics

If I cannot follow along in the evidence as you're reading it due to clarity issues or I can see you're skipping words as I'm following along, I will clear you once. If you continue skipping words or clipping and the other team does not call it out, I will let the debate continue and give feedback for educational purposes but will drop the team clipping. If you're clipping and the other team does call it out and issues an ethics challenge or otherwise ends the debate, I will end the debate, drop the team clipping, and give feedback based on the debate thus far.

If there is an ethics challenge issued and the debate is stopped, the team who is correct (about the clipping, miscut evidence, citation problem, etc.) wins the debate. Arguments about evidence ethics can be made absent an ethics challenge and without stopping the debate; for example, when connected to a citational politics argument. However, if one team says to stop the round because something is an ethics challenge, the round will stop and the team who is correct about the issue will win.

Arguments that are racist, transphobic or queerphobic, sexist, or that otherwise make the debate violent or unsafe will result in contacting your adults/coaches and a response proportional to/appropriate given what is said.

Rhys Waters

I've been in the debate world since 2010 in both Policy and IPDA. I debated in college with the IPDA format until 2017 and I currently assist with high schools' CX squads.

General

While spreading please speak clearly with the taglines/analytics. If I can't understand you then I can't flow your arguments. I will say "clear" if I can't understand you. I will only say it twice. After the 2nd time I will only flow what I can understand.

I don't like messy debates (just like everyone else). I like a good line by line.

I don't take prep time for flashing evidence unless it starts taking way longer than it should.

K

I'm fine with Ks, even if they're squirrelly. That being said, if you plan to run a K, make sure you make it understandable. If it's messy and confusing then don't expect me to evaluate it. Explain it like I'm five. I'm a history major, not a philosophy major. If you don't, I will tend to default to policy.

That being said, if I understand it I'm down for whatever you want to run.

T

I love Topicality and so I have high expectations for it.

I won't vote on it if you don't show abuse, even if the other team drops the argument completely.

CP and DA

I can dig it.

Framework

Again, if I understand it I'll run with it. I love being told how to weigh the round.

CX

I prefer closed CX. I want to know what you know, not what your partner knows.

With that being said, for NCX I want only closed CX.

For VCX I'll allow open but if one partner is answering too much then I will close it.

Other

If you have questions please ask them! It won't hurt my feelings and it can only help you!

You can also email me at rhyswaters7497@yahoo.com

tl:dr

I'm down with anything but if I don't understand it, I don't flow it.

I am a policy maker, but I like stock issues. I was a rather traditional debater, so I'm not big on K's ... run them at your own risk.

I'm not a fan of spreading. If you insist on doing it, I had better at least hear your taglines. Please road map and sign post so everybody knows where you are on the flow.

Be respectful of each other! Ask me any specific questions.

sophiewilczynski at gmail dot com for email chains & specific questions.

I debated for UT austin from 2014-17 & have remained tangentially affiliated with the program since. my degree is in rhetoric, and as a debater I read a lot of big structural critiques and weird impact turns.

***

tldr: I have been doing this for a while. I don't really care what you say as long as you engage it well. do what you do best, make meaningful distinctions, & don't be rude while you're at it!

clarity matters, esp in the age of virtual debate. as long as I can understand what you are saying I shouldn’t have trouble getting it down - that being said, debaters have an unfortunate tendency to overestimate their own clarity, so just something to keep in mind. slowing down on procedurals, cp/alt texts, & author names is very much appreciated.

topicality - fun if you're willing to do the work to develop them properly. I think evidence comparison is a super under-utilized resource in T debates, and a lot of good teams lose to crappy interps for this reason. as with anything else, you need to establish & justify the evaluatory framework by which you would like me to assess your impacts. have a debate, don't just blast through ur blocks

disads/CPs - fine & cool. i find that huge generic gnw/extinction scenarios often don't hold up to the scrutiny and rigor of more isolated regional scenarios. will vote on terminal defense if I have a good reason to do so. pics are usually good

K debates - make a decision about the level at which your impacts operate and stick to it. and talk about the aff. this applies to both sides. the neg should be critiquing the affirmative, not merely identifying a structure and breaking down the implications without thorough contextualization. the mechanics of the alternative & the context in which it operates have to be clearly articulated and comparatively contextualized to the mechanics of 1AC solvency. i think a lot of murky & convoluted perm debates could be avoided with greater consideration for this - impact heuristics matter a lot when establishing competition (or levels of competition). likewise, blasting through thousands of variants of "perm do x" with no warrants or comparative explanation does not mean you have made a permutation. will vote on links as case turns, but will be unhappy about it if it's done lazily.

framework - i think it's good when the aff engages the resolution, but i don't have any particularly strong feelings about how that should happen

theory - if you must

misc

case matters, use it effectively rather than reading your blocks in response to nothing

i find myself judging a lot of clash debates, which is usually cool

prep ends when doc is saved

be nice & have fun

Affiliation: Westwood High School

General: I'm open-minded and willing to vote for any argument if you can convince me to vote for it. Spark/Nuclear malthus/wipeout/your weird K are potentially interesting, racism good/patriarchy good/other things along these lines aren't arguments. Try to be nice in round, have fun, and learn something. Keeping this in mind, take everything I say below with a grain of salt.

Email for evidence chain purposes: mjrwyzykowski@gmail.com

Slight personal biases:
I tend to not find "risk of" arguments compelling. It is possible for a side to win impact/internal link take outs and have that effect the round in a meaningful way in the context of net benefits etc.

I tend to be more compelled by structural impacts more so than risks of nuclear war etc.

Topicality: I don't particularly enjoy topicality debates and I tend to think of T in terms of competing interpretations.

Theory: I don't particularly enjoy theory debates.
I tend to err aff on theory in the context of abusive counterplans.
I tend to err neg on conditionality, unless the neg has presented an obnoxious number of conditional advocacies.
Most theory is a reason to reject the argument, unless it's an argument the negative has gone for (you said 50 state fiat was bad and won that argument when they went for the states counterplan), or conditionality. As a result, don't waste time reading your theory block (except in the context of condo) when you're kicking the counterplan in the block. Just address them as a reason to reject the counterplan. Aff's conversely shouldn't try and win on these theory arguments that a negative has kicked out of (except in the context of condo).

Disads: They're great. The more specific the evidence, the better. Super specific, well researched disads are probably the most compelling arguments in front of me.
I usually think the link determines the direction of the link.

Counter Plans: Not a large fan of abusive counterplans or pics, but otherwise they're cool.

Kritiks: I really like K's. They're interesting, and force both teams to view the debate in a new lens. My largest complaint however is when a team comes up, reads a generic K with generic evidence and doesn't really explain how it interacts with the other side.
On the neg-
There is a large chance I won't really know what you're talking about if your argument isn't biopower/security/cap/fem. That's okay if you want to read a critical argument that's not one of the above, it just puts extra emphasis on your ability to explain it well.
I'm generally not persuaded by generic links with little to no analysis specific to the affirmative.
Explain to me why I should evaluate your criticism first
Explain to me how your criticism interacts with the affirmatives impacts and internal links
On the aff-
Instrumentally affirming the resolution on the affirmative is important. If you don't instrumentally affirm the resolution in some way, I am very sympathetic to framework arguments. I think policy making is an important mechanism for enacting change in the real world and we should play devil's advocate if we don't agree with that sentiment. That being said, I am much happier judging non-instrumental affirmatives that do topic specific research instead of reading generic colonialism bad, state bad etc arguments.