Bill Batterman
Associate Director of Debate — Woodward Academy (2010-present)
Director of Debate — Marquette University High School (2006-2010)
Assistant Debate Coach — Marquette, Appleton East, Nicolet, etc. (2000-2006)
Last Updated 9/17/2021

Twitter version: Debate like an adult. Show me the evidence. Attend to the details. Don't dodge; clash. Great research and informed comparisons win debates.

My promise: I will pay close attention to every debate, carefully and completely scrutinize every argument, and provide honest feedback so that students are continuously challenged to improve as debaters.

Perspective: During the 2010s (my second full decade of judging/coaching debate), I coached and/or judged at 189 tournaments and taught slightly more than 16 months of summer debate institutes. I don't judge as many rounds as I used to — I took an extended sabbatical from judging during the 2020-2021 season — but I still enjoy it and I am looking forward to judging debates again. I am also still coaching as actively as ever. I know a lot about the water resources protection topic.

Pre-round: Please add billbatterman@gmail.com to the email chain. Respect your opponents by sending the same documents to the email chain that you use to deliver your speeches. If you create separate versions of your speech documents (typically by deleting headings and analytical arguments) before sharing them, I will assume that you do not respect your opponents. I like debaters that respect their opponents. I will have my camera on when judging; if it is off, confirm that I'm ready before beginning your speech.

1. I care most about clarity, clash, and argument comparison.

I will be more impressed by students that demonstrate topic knowledge, line-by-line organization skills (supported by careful flowing), and intelligent cross-examinations than by those that rely on superfast speaking, obfuscation, jargon, backfile recycling, and/or tricks. I've been doing this for 20 years, and I'm still not bored by strong fundamental skills and execution of basic, core-of-the-topic arguments.

To impress me, invite clash and show off what you have learned this season. I will want to vote for the team that (a) is more prepared and more knowledgeable about the assigned topic and that (b) better invites clash and provides their opponents with a productive opportunity for an in-depth debate.

Aff cases that lack solvency advocates and claim multiple contrived advantages do not invite a productive debate. Neither do whipsaw/scattershot 1NCs chock-full of incomplete, contradictory, and contrived off-case positions. Debates are best when the aff reads a plan with a high-quality solvency advocate and one or two well-supported advantages and the neg responds with a limited number of complete, consistent, and well-supported positions (including, usually, thorough case answers).

I would unapologetically prefer not to judge debates between students that do not want to invite a productive, clash-heavy debate.

2. I'm a critic of argument, not a blank slate.

My most important "judge preference" is that I value debating: "a direct and sustained confrontation of rival positions through the dialectic of assertion, critique, response and counter-critique" (Gutting 2013). I make decisions based on "the essential quality of debate: upon the strength of arguments" (Balthrop 1989).

Philosophically, I value "debate as argument-judgment" more than "debate as information production" (Cram 2012). That means that I want to hear debates between students that are invested in debating scholarly arguments based on rigorous preparation, expert evidence, deep content knowledge, and strategic thinking. While I will do my best to maintain fidelity to the debate that has taken place when forming my decision, I am more comfortable than most judges with evaluating and scrutinizing students' arguments. I care much more about evidence and argument quality and am far less tolerant of trickery and obfuscation than the median judge. This has two primary implications for students seeking to adapt to my judging:

a. What a card "says" is not as important as what a card proves. When deciding debates, I spend more time on questions like "what argument does this expert make and is the argument right?" than on questions like "what words has this debate team highlighted in this card and have these words been dropped by the other team?." As a critic of argument, I place "greater emphasis upon evaluating quality of argument" and assume "an active role in the debate process on the basis of [my] expertise, or knowledge of practices and standards within the community." Because I emphasize "the giving of reasons as the essential quality of argument, evidence which provides those reasons in support of claims will inevitably receive greater credibility than a number of pieces of evidence, each presenting only the conclusion of someone's reasoning process. It is, in crudest terms, a preference for quality of evidence over quantity" (Balthrop 1989).

b. The burden of proof precedes the burden of rejoinder. As presented, the risk of many advantages and disadvantages is zero because of missing internal links or a lack of grounding for important claims. "I know this argument doesn't make sense, but they dropped it!" will not convince me; reasons will.

When I disagree with other judges about the outcome of a debate, my most common criticism of their decision is that it gives too much credit to bad arguments or arguments that don't make sense. Their most common criticism of my decision is that it is "too interventionist" and that while they agree with my assessment of the arguments/evidence, they think that something else that happened in the debate (often a "technical concession") should be more determinative. I respect many judges that disagree with me in these situations; I'm glad there are both "tech-leaning" and "truth-leaning" judges in our activity. In the vast majority of debates, we come to the same conclusion. But at the margins, this is the major point of disagreement between us — it's much more important than any particular argument or theory preference.

3. I am most persuaded by arguments about the assigned topic.

One of the primary reasons I continue to love coaching debate is that "being a coach is to be enrolled in a continuing graduate course in public policy" (Fleissner 1995). Learning about a new topic area each year enriches my life in profound ways. After 20 years in "The Academy of Debate" (Fleissner 1995), I have developed a deep and enduring belief in the importance of public policy. It matters. This has two practical implications for how I tend to judge debates:

a. Kritiks that demonstrate concern for good policymaking can be very persuasive, but kritiks that ignore the topic or disavow policy analysis entirely will be tough to win. My self-perception is that I am much more receptive to well-developed kritiks than many "policy" judges, but I am as unpersuaded (if not more so) by kritiks that rely on tricks, obfuscation, and conditionality as I am by those styles of policy arguments.

b. I almost always find kritiks of topicality unpersuasive. An unlimited topic would not facilitate the in-depth clash over core-of-the-topic arguments that I most value about debate. The combination of "topical version of the aff" and "argue this kritik on the neg" is difficult to defeat when coupled with a fairness or topic education impact. Topical kritik affirmatives are much more likely to persuade me than kritiks of topicality.

Works Cited
Balthrop 1989 = V. William Balthrop, "The Debate Judge as 'Critic of Argument'," Advanced Debate: Readings in Theory Practice & Teaching (Third Edition).
Cram 2012 = http://cedadebate.org/CAD/index.php/CAD/article/view/295/259
Gutting 2013 = http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/a-great-debate/
Fleissner 1995 = https://the3nr.com/2010/05/20/chain-reaction-the-1995-barkley-forum-coaches-luncheon-keynote-speech/

Grady High School 2016 - 4 years Policy

I've been out of the debate scene for the past 2ish years so haven't kept up to date about the 'K affs vs. framework' debate. I've read K affs and gone for framework so I'm open to either side as long as positions are clearly argued.

CP's - Great. Generic Consult/Process counterplans are an uphill battle though.

DA's/Case - Always a solid option. If you can prove there's no risk of the aff, then I'm willing to vote on presumption.

Kritiks - I'm pretty comfortable with kritik literature so feel free to read whatever.

Topicality - Always a voting issue & I'll evaluate it before I look at theory.

Theory - Should always be contextualized with examples of in-round abuse.

I am a 2A at Westminster and this is my fifth year of debate.

Short Pre-Round Paradigm

- add me to the email chain b4 the db8 please -- daftari.manav@gmail.com

- Do you what you do best. Go for any argument you want to. I will vote on any argument that you win. Do NOT let this judge paradigm influence your arguments in the debate.

- I prefer debates to be about the topic.

- if you plan on going for the kritik make sure you explain the alt and most important parts of the K to me

- I love tricky and complex neg strategies to test the affirmatives internal links. Specific CPs are the most fun to see debated out. This doesn't mean I won't vote for a generic strategy.

- Be yourself-- I love jokes, especially good ones. Any jokes about people I know (especially harrison hall, Arjun Mohan, Chris Eckert, and Alex Greene) that are funny might influence speaks. But be respectful.

- I think all affs should defend USfg action.

- I will award each person will +.1 speaker points if they show me your flows before the decision is delivered and they are neat and have been used in the debate.

Long Version:

General Notes:

- Seriously, Do what you want!! Debate is an activity that should be fun for you and everyone else. Don't let this influence you in any way.

- Be respectful. I don't like disrespectful people. I think everyone should be treated equally and debate should be a place where everyone has respect.

- I have found myself nearly obsessed with specific, substantive engagement between the two teams — and increasingly frustrated when one team sidesteps opportunities for well-evidenced clash between arguments in favor of generic, all-purpose positions or supposed trump cards that set aside the majority of the debate. The team at fault — given its responsibility to respond — is often the negative, and on some topics I vote aff at a dizzying clip. -- Seth Gannon

- CLIPPING IS NOT ALLOWED -- I WILL FOLLOW THE SPEECH DOCS

Topicality:

- I think I defer to reasonability. If the aff's interpretation of the topic is reasonable for the topic and doesn't make it impossible to be negative, then I think there is no abuse and no reason to vote negative.

- I do love a good T debate though. Please have an adequate case list for the topic for the affirmative.

Kritiks:

- I am down for topic specific Kritiks. But not the best for 1-off K strategies.

- I think the permutation is the most important part to win for the negative. Random disads to the permutation are NOT reasons I will disregard the permutation.

- You have to win links to the permutation and not links to the aff where the permutation changes the way the aff works or is conceptualized.

- I think the aff gets to weigh it against the K, but can be convinced otherwise.

- The two most important parts of the K debate for me is the alternative and the link debate. Please explain these two parts very clearly.

- Aff-- I love the argument "links must be predicated on the plan text." If this can be executed correctly, I will probably vote on it, and maybe bump speaks.

CPs:

- Love them. Specific and complex CPs are great. Make sure to explain them.

- I am not great on counterplan competition questions. So if you think the CP is competitive, explain why.

- If you are aff, go for the best impacted out solvency deficit to the CP and don't try to spread yourself too thin. One amazing solvency deficit > a couple decent solvency deficits

DAs:

- Love them. Explain the link.

Theory:

- I don't have any pre-dispositions with theory questions. Prove in round abuse.

- I really do feel conditionality is not that bad UNLESS it is above 3 condo.

Have Fun.

I debated at Grady HS then at Emory in college. I graduated in 2016 and haven't been heavily involved in debate since. When I debated I mostly made policy-style arguments. I'll vote on any argument. I haven't judged much before but I am excited to.

My email is bendean837@gmail.com. Please add me to email chains.

I don't know much about the topic.

Favorite thing about debate: Research, I think.

Least favorite thing about debate: Sleep deprivation.

Have fun! Be nice!

sauljhonathanforman@gmail.com

The #1 tip I can give you is that debate is about comparisons - no matter what you're going for, explain why I prefer your stuff even if they win their stuff

1. Cliff Notes

- Not familiar with the topic

- No preference for the number of issues in a debate.

- An argument isn't dropped just bc there's no ink next to it

- Having to choose from non-specific strategies, I prefer politics/case d, a topic t arg, or a topic kritik to process counterplans and kritiks about death and omissions in the 1ac

- I'm going to try to find any way not to vote on cheap shots, so if you're going for "Neg fiat or perms are a voting issue" close all doors

- K frameworks that change the decision from yes/no policy can be won, but even if you win "the role of the ballot is to form ethical subjectivity" you still need to win why the Aff's subjectivity is bad, which sometimes requires beating the case

- Counterplan competition - I generally think of it as textual / functional competition - CPs that contain all of the words in the plan are usually cheating

- The only relevant question for T is the most predictable interpretation

- Neither "uniqueness controls the link" nor "link controls uniqueness" mean anything - they're both uncertain estimates of the future

- I probably won't vote on reasonability

- I like jokes, but I also like taking speaker points from people who make unfunny jokes at other people that make them feel bad

- An argument has both an explanation of its validity (warrant) and of how it alters the way I think about the rest of the debate (impact)

- Critiques - both teams should debate the alternative - even if it's a critical pedagogy or something, explain how that solves both your and the other team's impacts

2. T-USFG

(Note: these are my gut leanings - I'm not emotionally attached to these and could be convinced to vote the other way)

- The Affirmative should defend a topical plan

- That does not mean the Neg gets a free pass - you should still defend why a more limited topic is more important than their offense

- Still do impact calculus - it's even more important here - why is having a limited topic more important than the existence of a general antagonism outside of the debate

- Fairness/predictability is an impact because debate is a competitive activity centered around argument

- Connect your offense to the ballot - if debate is dead and the ballot is structurally exclusionary then I need to understand why an Aff ballot would then resolve that

- I probably won't think it's a reverse voting issue

- Critiques of the topic are not a reason "being topical" is bad

- Critiques of debate as "Truth forming" are not a reason argument is bad

- You don't need a "Topical Version" of the Aff - just that your model of debate preserves their form of education / subjectivity / whatever

3. Speaker points

- Basic scale – 29.2-29.5: one of the top 3 speakers at the tournament; 28.8-29.1: top 10 speakers at the tournament; 28.4-28.7: very good, expect to break; 27.9-28.3: pretty good, shows some competence, but lacking technical skills in other areas; 27.5-27.8: below average, lacking technical ability in more areas than not; 27.0-27.4: poor, doesn’t fully participate in the debate or exhibits one or two moments of comprehension; 26.9 and below: you were offensive – it doesn’t mean you are a bad person, but something you did was deeply unsettling or hurt someone else in the round

Public Forum Paradigm

***Updated for 2019 BFHS Tournament

About me: I am a member of Emory's Barkley Forum Debate Team, on which I formally competed for two years. I did Public Forum all four years at my high school in Maryland, serving as my team's captain as a sophomore. I have judged both Public Forum and Policy Debate, including two BFHS tournaments (I didn't judge last year's because I was studying abroad in Rome).

Judging Notes

1) Weigh your arguments versus those of your opponent, especially in the final focus. Judging PF both locally and nationally there is nothing that makes me more frustrated than when teams don't give me a reason why to prefer their arguments versus those of their opponents.

2) Extending arguments is more than giving an author name and publication date. You must explain the links and warrants of the card!

3) Saying your opponent dropped one of your arguments is not enough. You must tell me why whichever arguments they dropped are important and why that means I should vote for you.

4) Don't lie about evidence. This is especially true in PF given that because of time constraints teams often only cite 1 or 2 lines from a piece of evidence--and these lines are often totally out of the card's larger context.

5) Explain your impacts! Don't tell me that "_______ impact" will happen if I don't vote pro/con without explaining to me what that impact is and why it is so devastating.

Notes on Speaker Points:

1) For PF, I consider both quality and presentation of the arguments--doing well on both of these fronts will give you good speaks.

2) Being rude and not letting your opponents ask questions in crossfires is going to lower your speaks.

3) I will give high scores when warranted, but I almost never give 30's, because I have rarely seen a "perfect" performance.

Additional Notes:

1) You are welcome to go fast--but know that I don't think PF is meant for spreading a million miles an hour-that's for policy debate

2) Not a fan of teams reading a counterplan or K in PF

3) Crossfire answers are binding and I will flow it

4) Feel free to ask me any questions you would like after my RFD.

Policy Paradigm

Please include me on the email chain at ben.gross247@gmail.com

T

I will vote on T. If you are a team reading a planless aff, you better be able to tell me why you cannot meet the constraints of the topic to read a plan.

DA's

My favorite type of negative argument, make sure you clearly explain the uniqueness, link, and impact. There can be 0% risk of a DA, but it is extremely rare in my book. Also, I thoroughly enjoy DA's turn case arguments.

Kritiks

When I debate I mostly run policy arguments, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on the kritik. If you are running a kritik, you better understand it and be able to explain its premise. Give me a clear link, impact and alternative--preferably one that is more than simply to reject the other team.

CP's

I enjoy listening to well-written CP's. That being said, please keep the number of planks of your CP's to less than what I can count on both hands, and be sure to have a clear net-benefit attached. I do not like process cp's.

Theory

I will vote on theory. I will vote on conditionality bad, but I'm less inclined to do so if the negative team is reading only a few conditional advocacies. You also will have to spend more than 10 seconds on it in the 2AC and in 1AR if you are going for it in the 2AR. I think most other arguments like 50-state fiat bad are a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

Case Debate

I enjoy good case debates, and debating the level of solvency of the affirmative. I will vote on presumption, but it is a rare occurence.

Framework

If you want to view the round in a certain way, tell me how I should view it and why. I enjoy good framework debates.

Impact Calculus

Giving impact calc is key. Tell me why you outweigh on likelihood, timeframe, and magnitude.

Above all else, have fun, learn, and feel free to ask me any questions you might have.

Sam Heller

he/him/his or they/them/their

I haven't been heavily involved in debate since 2016, so don't expect me to up to date on trends in the activity or on this year's topic.

Be clear - I flow from your speech, not your speech doc.

I'm not a fan of ridiculous and contrived internal link chains. I think that the way debate as an activity values high-impact, low-probability risks over lower-impact, high-probability risks is fundamentally flawed and bad for the activity. You don't need a nuclear war/extinction impact for me to care about what you're saying. That being said, this doesn't mean if you make a nuke war claim I'm going to ignore everything else you say. It just means my default impact framing is not going to be "any risk of extinction outweighs everything else" like it is for most judges.

Debate is about arguments, not cards. You can make a good argument without reading a card, and you cannot use reading a card as a substitute for articulating an argument. Also, a card that simply states a claim without providing a warrant is useless.

If I don't know what the aff does after the 1AC, then the neg has a lot of leniency in their ground. You don't get to wait until the 2AC/1AR/2AR to explain the aff.

Framework/Topicality - K affs and T/Framework were the fastest-changing parts of debate when I left the activity, so I assume I'm behind the times a bit on these debates. That being said, I don't think I judge them fundamentally different than other args in debate. The neg needs to answer case, and the aff can't only extend case - they also need DAs to the neg's interpretation.

Reading cards after the round - I do it, but primarily only to verify the claims made in the debate when there's a disagreement between the two teams (i.e. aff: "our card says x", neg: "no it actually says y"). I will not give you credit for arguments in a card that are not articulated during the round.

I have a soft spot for arguments older than I am (inherency, T-Vagueness, voting net on presumption) - I know these args died for a reason but if you find a way to make them I'd be excited!

Former debater at the University of Georgia (2020), previously debated at Milton High School (2013-2016)

Email: alyssahoover98@gmail.com

Truly, you do you. I am just here to adjudicate the debate & ensure this is an educational and fun space. Do what you care about and what you're good at.

The things you came here for:

Framework: Generally, not the best judge for planless affs. I think affirmatives should defend the USFG, or have a relation to the topic and defend a change from the status quo. I won't bog you down with my thoughts on what an "ideal" model of debate should be, but the TLDR is -- debatability is important, fairness is an impact, the TVA doesn't need to solve, labeling things as "DA's" and grandstanding when the neg drops them doesn't auto-win you the round, and I won't evaluate things that happened outside of the debate.

Kritiks: A better judge for this than you think, really. Links in context of the aff are important, as well as a robust explanation of the alternative and a framework for how I should evaluate it / what voting for the alternative means for me as a judge. A good framework press will get you a long way (both for the aff and the neg).

The rest: I don't think I'm really that ideological about most policy things. Competing interpretations over reasonability, conditionality is probably good, agent CPs/consult CPs/international fiat/50 state fiat are bad but PICs aren't (as long as they have a solvency advocate), and the Nate Cohn card really needs to die.

I find myself frustrated in many high school topicality debates, as I think they often lack nuance and appropriate impact calculus, and thus I find myself having a higher threshold to vote for T, so take that as you will.

Impact out the arguments you're going for and why they matter -- give me a framework to evaluate the debate, and explain the big picture.

Best judge philosophies ever written

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

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

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

Experience: Debated nationally at Pace Academy. First-Year student at Emory. 2A.

General: My ideal debater shows interest in the round, speaks clearly, treats opponents and partners respectfully, reads specific strategies, frames the debate as a whole and impacts individual arguments, and knows their evidence. I care much more about how you debate than which arguments you read. However, I am human, so I do have some biases, which I will explain in the following sections. I try to keep a good flow but expect you to clearly flag important arguments that you don't want to risk me missing. 

Evidence: Your evidence can only hurt you. This means that I will only evaluate warrants and explanation you have given in a speech, not default to better evidence despite worse debating. On the other hand, if you make a claim that seems to require evidence to back it up, I will ignore your spin if your evidence quality is poor. I will only look at unhighlighted parts of evidence if the opponent brings it up.

DAs: I don't understand "link controls uniqueness" or vice versa. There can be zero risk of the DA (I am also more likely than most to vote neg on presumption). The politics DA is silly, though I will not hesitate to vote for it if the aff doesn't debate it well.

CPs: I weigh the CP against the status quo, not the aff. My default is that perms are a test of competition, but I can be convinced otherwise. 

Ks (Neg): I don't think I am bad for the K, but I do hold neg explanation to a high standard. I generally default toward the neg getting to read their K but the aff getting to weigh the effects of the plan. However, the critique can definitely bring the aff's solvency and predictions into question. I think most reps and epistemology Ks are repackaged case defense. You can fix this by impacting your specific links. Explain why what the aff said/why their specific scholarship was bad. "The aff securitized China which causes endless violence" is insufficient. Affs should either impact turn the K or attack alt solvency.

Ks (Aff) and T-USFG: You should have some relation to the topic. The closer to a resolutional US policy action, the more likely I am to vote against T. The aff should demonstrate that it is predictable, generates good neg ground, and is incompatible with the "T version." Debated evenly by both sides, I am not super persuaded by fairness bad, productivity bad, or predictability bad. The aff's best bet is winning their education outweighs a marginal loss in fairness. The neg will have an easier time defending fairness and argument testing than decisionmaking or other skills impacts

T: I'm kinda weird about T. Personally, I think the only thing that matters is the predictability of each side's definition. If the aff has the more predictable definition or neither side has a predictable definition, the aff wins. Otherwise the neg wins. Reasonability only makes sense if it is a claim that the aff's definition is approximately as predictable as the neg's. Obviously, this is not the norm, so I am happy to judge a typical limits/ground/topic education T debate as well. Just know that I am easily persuaded by "predictability turn x impact" arguments.

Theory:

General: Explain it well starting in earlier speeches. Slow down on your theory blocks. 

Conditionality- I lean neg. I don't see much of a problem with conditionality or even multiple conditional options. I am much more likely to vote aff if the aff can explain and impact an in-round contradiction or strategy skew that made the debate illogical or severely harmed the aff's ability to garner offense.

Process/agent/international/states- I lean heavily aff.

PICs- I evaluate competition based on the plan text. I am more likely to change my mind if the neg convinces me that the aff's plan is unfairly vague, the aff is too shifty, or the aff's solvency advocate clearly advocates something distinct from the CP.

Intrinsicness- Easier for the aff to win on CPs than DAs. I'm generally sceptical of intrinsicness unless the neg reads a CP that competes artificially or a net benefit that doesn't link to the plan.

Random things I don't like:

Death good- I'll vote for it if you outdebate the other team, but I find their arguments very persuasive. This includes dedev.

Making debates personal- If you like to win by attacking your opponents' character or discussing their activities outside the round, you should not pref me.

Prompting partners/taking over their cross-ex- It's okay every now and then, but if it gets excessive I will hurt both of your speaks.

Saying "they conceded" when they didn't- Self-explanatory.

Try or die without aff solvency- You can definitely win this framing, but you need a coherent explanation of how the aff may solve. If you say "an asteroid is coming so you might as well vote aff," you are probably not in a great position to win.

Pine Crest (’14)

Emory University (’18)

ericmarcus24@gmail.com – Include me on email chains, and feel free to ask me questions about decisions or Emory Debate

General Things:

I think of debate strictly as a highly technical game. Part of my job as a judge is to reward teams that play the game well. Technical concessions, even small ones, may have more impact with me than most judges. I also am likely to disregard arguments, even truisms, that are first presented in the 1AR/2NR/2AR, unless an explicit response to an argument made by the other team that could not have been answered in an earlier speech.

The 1NR is not a constructive. New DA impacts are fine, but new CP planks or case arguments are not.

Cards that use robust statistical or expert analysis > cards from staff writers with strong rhetoric.

Topicality:

Debate operates on a sliding scale, and my job is to keep the scale in the middle. I am likely to vote for neither the most limiting interpretation of the topic nor the one that makes debate easiest for the aff. Limits/Grounds/Aff Innovation impacts couched in terms of a list of arguments available to the other side and why that preserves an equitable division of topic literature are more likely to win.

Reasonability makes more sense to me than competing interpretations. Minor modifications always exist that can create an incrementally better model of debate, but if I am unconvinced the aff interpretation creates a substantive strategic imbalance for the neg, I likely will vote aff.

DA’s:

“Always a risk” logic does not make much sense to me. Even past a conceded argument, well contested arguments that are either a yes/no question or that I decide conclusively in one team’s direction can reduce the risk of a DA to statistical noise.

I will reward aff teams that strategically undercover bad DAs in the 2AC. This means one or two well-reasoned analytic arguments, as well as maybe an impact defense card to cover your bases.

CP’s/CP Theory:

Conditionality is either good or bad. Interpretations/Counter-interpretations as “compromises” aren’t particularly compelling to me.

All debating equal, I probably lean neg on all theory issues with the exception of counterplans that compete based on immediacy/certainty.

Intuitive counterplans don’t need solvency advocates to be theoretically legitimate.

I think judge kick is bad. If it is an explicitly stated 2NR option not answered by the 2AR, I will judge kick, but with equal debating by the affirmative, I likely will not judge kick.

K’s:

I am unlikely to vote neg if I do not believe that there are material bad consequences that happen as a result of the plan. If links are descriptive of the status quo, and I do not feel the alternative resolves those link arguments, I will almost assuredly vote aff at the end of the debate.

Given this, I am most likely to vote neg if I believe there is a problem with the plan/status quo larger than the impacts solved by the aff, the alternative resolves that problem, and the plan is mutually exclusive with a successful alternative.

If I believe the methodology used to defend the 1AC internal links and impacts are true, I will likely determine utilitarianism is the best moral framework.

Value to life does and always will exist.

Root causes and proximate solutions are not the same thing.

Links of omission are not links.

I do not believe someone’s personal identity and experience is independently sufficient to either prove or disprove any arguments made in the debate.

T-USFG:

Yes, it’s a topicality argument. No, it’s not “Framework”.

Affirmatives should defend a topical plan. While whether the political efficacy of that plan determines who wins and loses is up for debate, the presence of a topical plan is a minimum necessity for debate to occur.

Debate is a game. You chose to play this game. Games should be fair.

Topical versions of the aff are compelling to me. TVAs don’t need to solve the aff, they simply need to be able to access the same type of discussion that the counter-interpretation allows.

If you are affirmative and not planning to read a topical plan, you are unlikely to win on arguments about debate impacting subjectivity. The most compelling aff ballots include a well-defined and limited counter-interpretation with a reason topical debate trades off with essential skills or education.

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

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

Arguments I wont vote on ever

Pref Sheets args

Things outside the debate round

Death is good

General thoughts

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

Line by Line is important.

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

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

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

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

Only the debaters debating can give speeches.

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

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

Longer thoughts

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

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

Reading cards-

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

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

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

he/they

Coaching affiliations: Atlanta Urban Debate League Debate Ambassadors (Grady, Decatur, Drew Charter, etc.), 2018-2022; Emory University, 2022-

Scroll to the end for non-policy

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN - mnav453[at]gmail[dot]com

SEND OUT A TEST EMAIL 5-10 MINUTES BEFORE THE ROUND. Subject should be formatted something like: "Tournament Name and Year - Round Number - Aff team vs Neg team." For example, "ADA 2023 - Round 1 - Greendale Community College AA vs Springfield University BB"

ONLINE DEBATE NOTES: If I am judging you online, please go slower, especially when you are starting your speeches; my audio set up is not the best. You should also get some sort of confirmation that everyone is present before starting your speech. If I have my camera off, I am not there and you should wait until I have turned my camera back on before starting your speech or CX.

Feel free to email if you have questions about anything I've written here or if you thought of a question after post-round feedback.

I have organized the policy portion into a short version for the pre round and a long version for prefs. After that is some procedural stuff, i.e. how I handle ethics violations.

NDT 2024 UPDATES

I have not judged since the first semester, so I am pretty unaware of topic innovation and metagame shifts from Wake onwards. I am also trying to rely less on docs when flowing, so you may want to go slower than you normally do.

TL;DR (FOR THE PRE-ROUND)

If I'm judging you in person, then I would appreciate wearing masks when you're not actively speaking or eating/drinking. It's not a requirement and I won't change your speaks for it, but we are still living with COVID and I'd rather minimize risk if possible. Thank you for the consideration.

Do you and make choices. I am most experienced judging policy aff v policy neg and policy aff v critical neg debates, but I will try my best to judge the arguments in front of me in the ways that the debaters want me to. Just make sure to choose the most important arguments and resolve them in the final rebuttals. In other words not every argument on a sheet of paper needs to be extended into the final speeches.

I care a lot more about the flow then the card doc. I will read along during speeches, but I try not to read cards after the debate unless either the debaters have explicitly instructed me to do so or I feel that I have to in order to resolve an important argument. As a result, go slower and follow the line by line. That doesn't mean numbering every argument you make, but rather sticking to the arguments in the order they were originally presented in and explicitly saying so when you deviate from that order.

In the event that you want me to read cards, please do some evidence comparison: tell me how I should read, not just what, i.e. what does your ev assume that theirs doesn't, is their evidence rhetorically powerful instead of argumentatively substantive, etc. This can help in determining close debates.

I care more about big picture storytelling and substantive engagements than cheap shots and minor technical concessions. I'd rather decide a debate on the basis of well warranted evidence or great judge instruction than "multiple perms are a reason to reject the team".

If you're extending a negative advocacy (CPs & Ks), assume I know nothing about your mechanism/literature/whatever, and spend some time in the block just explaining the premise(s) of your argument.

2023-2024 college policy topic thoughts: Judged a few debates at Kentucky and UMW. More comfortable with the core affs/core DA's. Don't have a strong opinion on T questions.

LONG VERSION (FOR PREFS)

Still figuring myself out as a judge, so what follows are not my indelible Thoughts on Debate but rather what I happen to think at this moment in time. I will try my best to adjudicate the debate in the way(s) the debaters want me to. That being said, I think how someone approaches judging will be much more useful to you as you fill out prefs than the whats of their pre existing biases.

Most people seem to be debating to the 2AC/block and card doc instead of the 2NR/2AR and the flow these days. I don’t say this because I want to show off my flowing skills (I am pretty average with respect to flowing ability, perhaps slightly worse on a laptop), but because this an easy way to extend arguments but not resolve them. You can read all of your impact turns to T in the 2AC or every neg UQ card on politics in the 1NR, but extending all of them without saying why you’re extending them in a strategic sense makes it difficult to determine what the most important arguments are and how to resolve them. It also doesn’t help that most people blaze through their blocks without slowing down on tags, using transition words, or otherwise making their speech palatable to the human ear.

As such, I will try to reward strategic decision making and judge instruction more than just who read more cards. This does not mean I hate cards – obviously well-researched and well-prepared arguments are better than badly-researched and ill-prepared ones – but rather that, unless the debaters have instructed me to read specific cards or I feel I must do so in order to resolve an important argument, I will try not let the evidence speak in place of the debaters. I will note however that in close debates, good evidence comparison can be a massive help in resolving the debate. By “good evidence comparison” I mean telling me what parts of the evidence I should prioritize, what the implications of the comparison is, etc. In other words, evidence comparison is another aspect of judge instruction.

In terms of how this actually affects your debating, you should generally go slower and prioritize your flowability. Start the 2AR/2NR by isolating what is the most important argument to resolve and why resolving that one argument filters the rest of the debate. From there you pick the most important arguments on your flow, follow the line by line, and explain why each argument is a necessary component of my decision, and explain why I should resolve them in your favor. If you want me to read a specific card or set of cards, then you should tell me to do so.

What follows are my biases and thoughts on different genres of debates.

K aff v T: While I have run the occasional aff without a plan, most of my debate experience, whether competing or coaching, is policy affirmatives against either some version of CP/DA or K strategies. Most of how I think about debate follows on from this style. This does not mean that T versus an aff without a plan is an auto-win in front of me, but rather that I have less experience and knowledge about these types of affirmatives. I think that affirmative teams should at least have some relation towards the resolution and should try to offer some sort of model of the topic and/or debate in general. Conversely, negative teams need to explain why fairness/education/whatever your standard is would be a preferable to whatever standard the affirmative proposes. In other words, you can win fairness is an impact but still lose if you don't win it outweighs the aff's impacts. I am sympathetic to limits arguments, but only to the extent they resolve some kind of impact that interacts with the opponent’s impacts. TVA’s and switch side arguments can serve as useful tiebreakers for the negative. I also think these affs should defend some departure from the status quo.

Policy aff v K: I find that the two basic ways to win a K in front of me are either to explain why I should change my decision calculus from utilitarianism and/or consequentialism to a different model (“framework”) or why I should prefer a different way of approaching the world/politics than standard USFG action (“alt”). “Links as linear DAs” I don’t find super persuasive. With regards to more framework-type strategies, you need to explain the implications of winning framework: does it change how I evaluate the link debate? Is winning framework enough to justify a ballot? This also applies to the aff: you need to explain why I should care about your framework arguments beyond “now we don’t lose on framework”. I also find role of the ballot/role of the judge arguments not super useful, since they seem to be round about ways of doing framework and impact analysis; they most frequently appear in my RFDs when the other team has conceded them. For framework strategies, it may be useful to forefront your defense and minimize how much the other team can access their offense. For alt-type strategies, you should explain why the alternative is competitive with the affirmative's intervention and how it resolves the affirmative's offense and/or your offense. My biggest comment to affirmative teams is to pick the focus of disagreement in advance and not just let the negative dictate the terms of the debate.

Policy v policy: Please, go for "substantive" strategies and not cheap shots; those debates are maybe harder to execute well but are much more rewarding for everyone involved. Case debating is a lost art these days, between the rise of massive multi plank CPs that fiat everything possible and most people prioritizing impact defense in their 2NR case coverage. Cases tend to be weakest in their internal link chains and solvency, so negative teams should think about what the weakest part of the case is and not just what you have backfiles to answer. In other words I am willing to vote negative on presumption. I am not good for complex process CPs or CPs that fiat in offense. To go for that strategy, I find it requires a lot of theory debating, which I have more thoughts on below, but also the ability to impact your theory and competition arguments. I also don’t find “sufficiency framing” a useful argument in a vacuum since I don’t know what counts as sufficiently solving the case. I like DAs and impact turns, since they more or less force disagreement over some part of the case. Just make sure to highlight the important cards you want me to read after the round. You also need to explain why winning certain parts of the flow are enough to win you the debate even if you are losing other parts. For example, in a debate about de-development/degrowth, my ballot gets a lot easier to decide if you win that sustainability is more important than a transition or vice versa.

K v K: I have the least experience judging these kinds of debates. I need some sort of clear idea of what the aff does and why its intervention is important and a departure from the status quo, and the negative needs some reason why that intervention is not desirable. I would describe my knowledge of critical literature as broad but shallow: I have some idea of the main arguments of many of the most cited authors but either haven’t read most of the primary works or haven’t thought about how they function in the debate context. If you want to go for the cap k as a policy team versus an aff without a plan, you should explain why I should care about extinction impacts or the desirability of your political project as compared to the negative's.

T and Theory: I think of T against policy affs as fall back options for when substantive strategies don't work out. If you want to win T then you need to explain why the aff's interpretation of the topic so unlimiting so as to make the topic not worthwhile from either an education perspective or games playing one. Condo is pretty much the only theory argument for which I would reject the team. To win on condo as the aff you need to explain why the practice of conditionality makes debate uniquely worse, i.e. why is the skew in this instance worse than skew as a result of a lot of DAs and T violations. I think going for condo is all or nothing; there is no reason why 1 condo is good but 2 is bad, and so on. The negative should explain why the practice of conditionality makes debate uniquely better. I won’t judge kick unless told to do so. All that being said I think that CP theory is an underutilized toolkit for the aff considering how prevelant massive CPs are in contemporary negative strategies. I care more about functional competition than textual competition, at least with respect to process CPs.

PROCEDURAL STUFF (POLICY)

An accusation of an ethics violation i.e. clipping will result in the immediate stop of the round. The accusing team will need video/audio evidence of this accusation.

I am not fond of "insert this re highlighting." If you think the other team's evidence actually concludes in the opposite direction of their argument, you should be confident in re reading the evidence. The only insertion of evidence I would prefer is if your evidence is a chart/graph/visual information, something that doesn't translate into words/speech very well.

Arguments I will never vote on: death/self harm good; pref sheets args; out-of-round incidents

LD-SPECIFC STUFF

tl;dr I don't know much of the activity and thus you should approach like in a "policy-esque" way. Additionally, it would behoove you to do less theory work than you might be used to. Overall, my advice is to pref me only if you are comfortable with a standard policy debater judging; if not, then don't.

I have very little understanding of the nuances of the activity, i.e. what constitutes a well-constructed case for me might be different than what is generally considered to be such in the community. I'm also a policy debater by training and so I probably lean towards "progressive" trends than some (as in, I am fine with spreading). I also have ZERO knowledge of the topic and you should be prepared to break down its complexities for me. One other thing: I will probably use my policy speaker point scale from the beginning of this philosophy but I have no idea if that scale is typical of current LD numbers or not.

PF-SPECIFIC STUFF

PLEASE kick scenarios by the end of the debate; my ideal debate has each side go for 1-2 impacts and most of the final focuses being spent on impact comparison (Mr. T, for example).

Most crossfires I have seen are filled with bad or leading questions. Instead of asking "You failed to respond to our card about (insert issue here), so doesn't that mean we win" you should be asking questions like "why should the judge prefer your evidence over ours"

Pet peeves - offenders will be docked speaks:

don't say "we tell you about (insert issue here)": just say what you want to say about the issue

DO NOT END YOUR SPEECH WITH "FOR ALL THESE REASONS I STRONGLY URGE A (INSERT SIDE HERE) BALLOT": I know what side people are on and will intuitively understand what you say is a reason to vote for you...

Woodward Academy - C/O 2015

University of Alabama: Birmingham - C/O 2019

Add me to the email chain: krsh1pandey@gmail.com

***I'm coming into this season with no topic knowledge whatsoever. I can keep up with general arguments and the flow of speeches just fine; however, you may find it worth your while to take time to explain more specific/niche acronyms that pop up throughout the course of the debate.

Last Updated/Written prior to: The Fall 2018 Chattahoochee Cougar Classic

Background: Debate at Woodward Academy for 3 years. Was pretty much exclusively the 2N/1A. I'm 4 years out of the activity now so I'm not very familiar with many new community norms that have developed since my time debating.

Meta/Activity Preferences:

1) Prep time: I won't take prep for emailing speech docs in Varsity unless it becomes excessive (I will inform you before I start taking prep off if I decide things are taking too long). I do take prep time in JV/Novice in order to facilitate rounds running on time.

2) Tag team C-X: Fine if it happens once (maybe twice); if it happens too much, it will reflect in your speaker points and my general view of how much I think you know your arguments.

3) Be nice and respectful to everyone in round (me, the other team, your partner).

Critical/Performance/Non-traditional/No Plan Affs - I enjoy listening to anything that you as the affirmative feel comfortable presenting. I'm highly unlikely to vote for arguments that I find morally reprehensible. But if you are reading high theory or some other very obscure affirmative, you will have a higher burden of explanation if I'm not too well versed with the literature.

Theory - Smart theory debates are fun, but bad theory debates are some of my least favorite to watch (probably second only to a round involving ethics violations or a bad T debate). I usually lean neg when it comes to conditionality.

T - If you can do it well then go for it; I do tend to lean Aff on questions of topicality.

Feel free to ask for clarification or other specific questions before round if you have them! Bear in mind, these are just general thoughts/observations that I hold going into the round; they are not set-in-stone viewpoints.

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

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

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

3. Have a value structure.

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

5. Impact yourself.

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

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

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

You do you, and I will do everything to evaluate the round equitably.

HS Policy Debate for 4 years at Marist School

College Policy Debate for 4 years at the University of Michigan

Currently a 2L at Columbia Law School

Good for anything and everything as long as it's explained clearly. NGL I think all that Baudrillard and other high theory stuff is pretty w0nky slush but if you can establish a unique link, win FW, or win other parts of the critique, you taking a big W. Just make sure to explain it properly.

Make sure to impact things out -- tell me why those things matter, why they mean you win/the other team loses. I keep argument bias out of the room when I'm judging so if you want to full-send no neg fiat and make it a reason to reject the team and the other team doesn't have an answer, you taking a W.

9/25 update: Besides condo, I often don't know what's going on with theory.

2/1/23 update: If there's a nuclear war impact, I'll give extra speaks to the first time to clearly quote their favorite two lines from Megadeth's Rust in Peace... Polaris.

Email chain - solomonsonofwat@gmail.com

Whats good.

To treat people as people is my governing maxim, for debate it is to treat arguments as arguments. This activity lacks any coherence without a judge who adheres to such a universal. The energy generated in this activity relies on the thesis that everyone's argument will be heard, recognized, and reason will be in the decision.

Reason is the product of a unity between the particular argument and the universal debate, reason as the substantive new achieved only at the moment of synthesis of the particular and the universal. Biases are not only inevitable but to some degree necessary, to the degree any objectivity can be achieved it is through recognition of the self’s position in the universe.

I competed at grady (now midtown) high school as an ambassdor from the atlanta udl, later coaching for the atlanta ambassdors (grady, decatur, roswell, etc) from 2018-2020. In 2022, I graduated with a political science degree from utd, after competing there for 4 ½ years. And continued briefly coaching at utd before enrolling in the philosophy, politics, and economics masters program at the university of groningen.

While there is likely a good number in this judging pool with more experience/success in both debate and education, my experience can still make my ear somewhat demanding in certain conversations. As a competitor I approached debate as a game of exploiting strategic vulnerabilities, with the round itself a puzzle to be solved. This approach led to my participation (as both competitor and judge) in high level policy, K v K, and clash debates. My background has made me both familiar with a wide number of literature bases and argument genres, consequently I'm agnostic to both style and content. All I’m looking for are arguments.

When it comes to an argument, I’m looking for a claim with a warrant that’s has an implication for the round/debate at large. A conceded claim with a warrant is not a conceded argument, because it may lack an explicit explanation about the claim’s implication for the round. My commitment to treat arguments as arguments leads me to focus on reading arguments as they are presented and not if they are true. This commitment also leaves me in total deference to the arguments made by students about what the round is about, what the role of the judge or students are, and changes to the traditional calculation or weight of certain arguments.

Debates about the metaethics of the activity or the community are welcomed, in so far as you can articulate a reason why these ethical considerations are of more significance than the procedural concerns that come with alterations to the status quo of the activity. Deference to procedure for the sake of procedure is not always a sufficient defense of the procedure in question. Debates about the metaethics of debates are often most aided by comparing the benefits or harms of proposed models of debate rather than technical conversations that may proliferate the flow.

As the judge I do not allow, merely adjudicate. If you want to do something, make the argument for why you should do it. 2nc cps? Word PICs? Floating PICs? Make the argument and argue it, as the judge I will adjudicate who won. The door to creativity will be left open. Creation of arguments is the self-expression of debaters; self-expression is the life blood of self-aware creatures. Creativity can only exist with limitations, precisely as something for creativity to overcome. The precise boundaries of the limits of the round are for the competitors to argue.

Adjudication is a process of reading arguments through a combination of their technical presentation, offense defense framing, evidentiary/warranted support, and implication for the round. I flow on my computer and will passively read evidence throughout the round. Therefore, I tend not to need card docks after rounds, even in policy debates. That being said, if specific attention is made to a piece of evidence or the debate otherwise hinges on a piece(s) of evidence I will return to it.

My commitment to non-interventionism spills over to my conduct, I tend to say and interact as little as possible during the round. The debate is for the debaters to define, I’m merely an observer. My ballots tend to be littered with misspellings and grammatical incorrections. Generally, I use the ballot as a space for me to cohere my thoughts into a comprehensible rfd, from which I essentially use as a script for my oral feedback. If post facto questions exist about a ballot I encourage reaching out by email for clarity.

To treat people as people is very important to me, any actions on the part of competitors during the round that would negate this maxim will be rewarded with speaker point deductions or a loss depending on the severity. Moves that deny the personhood of participants based on otherization, class, race, gender, ability, religion, migrant status, etc are clear violations, be they epistemic, discursive, or interpersonal. Essentially, don't be an ass.