I debated parli for 2.5 years at Irvine Valley and had intermittent experience in BP and IPDA during that time. 

As of this semester I coach Campolindo HS's parli team and am a member of UC Berkeley's parli team, although my schedule rarely allows me to compete for Cal. 

I have judged policy, parli, ld, public forum, congress, BP, and a plethora of IE's, and privately tutored speech students.

Overall:

I will not protect against new arguments in the rebuttals unless it is clear--after a few pts of order--that the speaker is trying to be sneaky. I expect that if your opponent asks for a text of the plan/cp/alt/perm(s), it will be provided. I can flow speed to a reasonable extent, but will dock speaks/not be able to evaluate your arguments if you are so fast that you're unclear. Please answer at least one question per speech if asked. Tag-teaming is fine.

Case debate:

AFF--Please make warranted and impacted arguments. I don't like voting on any remotely slippery scenarios and very much enjoy interrogative link debate. I am not keen on intrinsic permutations, otherwise perms are fine as tests of competition. I am also fine with unconventional affs so long as I am given a clear way to evaluate your performance and the other team is given a clear way to engage the aff/compete for the ballot. I will not vote on an RVI.

NEG--I believe theory precedes all other arguments in the round and will vote on it with a proven violation. I do not need articualated abuse to vote on theory. I am fine with DAs and CPs (including PICs). I do not like politics DAs because the links are usually awful. 

Trichot:

Please always debate policy. 

K:

I am fine with k affs and neg k's. I am not a k debater myself but will vote on one. However, I have a very high threshold for buying the efficacy of the alternative, and I view k debates as a comparison between the alternative and the plan. Please try to include specific links

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have before the round! Best of luck! 

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

Director of Speech & Debate-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)



General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 16 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 8 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments). **I don't vote on defense. It's important but you won't win on a defensive answer.**

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.

Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.


Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind. PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.


I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

Hello! My name is Michael Dittmer and I have 4 years of HS LD experience and 2 years of NPDA experience in college. I am currently an LD and Parli coach for Evergreen Valley High School.

A couple notes on my paradigm:

1. I debated for Cal parli and understand tech arguments and am fine with speed. However, I was not the fastest nor most technically advanced debater on the college NPDA circuit, so please accord a little slowing down and explanation in case you're running a complicated position or are telling me how to evaluate certain args, especially in rebuttals. I'm a few years out so if you need to explain to me what functional vs. text comp, competing interps vs. reasonability, etc. please do since I always appreciate the clarity.

2. Generally, the most important thing is having clear, supported, and impacted arguments. I will default to a policy making/net benefits paradigm but am totally fine being told how to evaluate otherwise (e.g. K's, ROB, etc.).

3. I otherwise don't have a whole lot of preferences regarding certain paradigmatic issues, eg related to evaluating theory, K's, etc. Regarding theory I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. I'm open to reasonability but probably will err on little more on comparing interps. Theory/procedural needs to be justified as a priori in order to be treated as such. Most importantly, please slow down and clearly read interpretations and violations-both for the sake of me and also in fairness to your opponents.

4. I understand RVIs and metatheory are becoming more a thing these days, but I generally have a pretty high bar for voting for RVIs or arguments that criticize the act of running theory (e.g. in the 1AR) unless abuse is strongly demonstrated.

Feel free to ask questions before round if you see something not listed here. Good luck!

UPDATE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2022: Please be aware that as of February 24, 2022, the post-Cold War geopolitical/international security world underwent a monumental (and likely permanent) change. If you are going to make any arguments -- whether you're AFF or NEG, asserting internal links or existential impacts -- built around a conventional war in Europe; America's, NATO's, or Russia's propensities to escalate; the threshold between conventional and nuclear conflict; etc., please ensure that your evidence is up-to-date and timely (and, yes, that probably means written sometime after February 24, 2022) and/or please be prepared and able to explain logically and analytically how any older evidence/logic still applies in light of real-world developments in Central and Eastern Europe. Also be aware that if you read evidence (or make an argument) that fails to take account of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I will almost certainly accept your opponent's analytical arguments -- provided they're logical and persuasive in post-February 24 terms -- as more valid than out-of-date evidence and pre-invasion academic theorizing. And your opponents should feel free to ask you, in CX, to explain how and why any pre-February 24 evidence/arguments are still applicable to the position you're advocating or negating. I'm not trying to be difficult, but the world of geopolitics and international security has been radically altered over the past six months. Also, be aware that I spent a large chunk of my 30-year diplomatic career working on NATO issues (including stints at NATO headquarters and on the NATO desk at the State Department). While I don't expect high school debaters to understand or appreciate every detail or nuance of how the Alliance functions on a day-to-day or issue-to-issue basis, please do your best to avoid completely mischaracterizing NATO decision-making or policy implementation.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Note on Timekeeping: In all forms of debate I expect competitors to keep their own time (to include tracking prep time for both themselves and their opponents). Also, debaters should keep track of their opponent’s time (including prep). I will make an exception for novices at their first few tournaments, but otherwise time yourselves, please.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

After retiring from a three-decade career in the U.S. Foreign Service, I returned to high school debate as a (volunteer) coach and frequent judge in 2013. I'm no longer the head coach at Oak Hill School (as of June 2020), but I still provide some assistance (to South Eugene High School) and judge fairly regularly. Beyond that, I teach public policy and international affairs -- as adjunct faculty -- at the Univ. of Oregon.

CX Paradigm (you should read this even I'm judging you in a different debate format because it speaks to my overall approach): My judging style and philosophy has evolved significantly over the past decade. While I still consider myself more of a truth-over-tech/policymaking-paradigm judge, I don't believe -- as some would suggest -- that policymaker automatically equates with a simple utilitarian approach. Far from it. Essentially, I view the two teams as playing the role of competing actors within a government or other policymaking body, each trying to convince me to endorse their policy option. But I remain open to an alternative framework if one of the teams can convince me that that alternative framework should or best applies.

And while I have an inherent bias toward the realistic (particular as it involves global security issues such as nuclear weapons, NATO and Russia, and the nature and distribution of power and influence within the international state system), I'm fine with K debate. That said, although I know my Marx/Engels/Lenin pretty well from my academic training and Foreign Service experience in Moscow and the former Soviet bloc, if you want to run French post-modernist arguments -- or anything of that sort -- you'll need to explain it to me in terms I can understand and appreciate. And that may mean slowing down enough to make yourself more comprehensible and persuasive. I would also advise you against running any sort of performance AFF...I'll judge it if you run it, but it's as difficult for me to evaluate as Dramatic Interp. For better or worse, I still view the resolution as the starting point of any policy debate, and I still believe that an AFF case needs some version -- however abbreviated -- of a case and a plan. And case matters. A significant percentage of the AFF ballots I write end up noting that NEG essentially conceded case...that shouldn’t be the norm. (And, yes, on the other side of that I still very much believe that presumption lies with the NEG...and that going for it is a legit approach that can easily win a debate for NEG if AFF fails to meet its burdens.) Unless something is truly and grossly abusive, I am not particularly keen on RVIs or similar arguments for a behavior as opposed to a policy issue on the flow.

As for T, I am more than open to T arguments and will vote NEG on T if the AFF can't make a coherent topicality defense. But be aware that I have a very inclusive topicality threshold (to put it in 2014-15 oceans topic terms, if a case involved salt water I was ready to accept it as reasonable... provided the AFF made that argument).

I'm good with aggressive spreading, but recommend you slow down enough to allow me to hear and easily flow your tag lines and organizational structure; sign-posting may seem old-fashioned, but if you want me to flow your argument in the correct spot, intelligible sign-posting remains an important element in the process. Pet peeve addressed to 1NCs: LABEL YOUR ARGUMENTS, please. 'Next' is not a label. Off-case, tell me whether you're reading T, a DISAD, a CP, a K, or something else. Similarly, ‘case’ is not a label. Tell me where you want your argument flowed. It may seem 100% clear to you, but it may not be as clear to me (even if I have your speech within the email chain). Assuming there is an email chain, I expect to be part of it: eddinska@gmail.com.

Tag-team CX is fine, but recognize that if the debater who is the designated questioner or respondent is completely overwhelmed by their partner, both team members will likely receive reduced speaker points.

Lincoln-Douglas and Parli Paradigm: I'm pretty much tabula rasa in both these formats, happy to judge the debate as it's presented and debated. I will always be a flow judge (who values line-by-line clash as much as possible). But I'm generally more 'progressive' in judging LD and Parli than I am in judging Policy. Go figure. In both LD and Parli, I very much appreciate theory/framework arguments. I also think both LD and Parli debates benefit from explicit plans/advocacies, which thus opens up the NEG option of CPs/counter-advocacies. Ditto K debate in LD and Parli...go for it, provided you know what you're doing (and can present the K clearly and coherently). Basically, the more LD and Parli resemble Policy, the better.

Public Forum Paradigm: You should follow the rules, of course, but I'm comfortable with pushing the limits (in terms of advocacies and counter-advocacies and such)...that said, I'm open to the other team pushing back on PF rules/norms regarding plans and CPs and such (i.e., to debate the very theory of PF). In a more traditional PF round, I see framework as a key element; it's important to establish (and win) your framework (and then, having secured the framework, explain how and why it matters to your case). I will always evaluate the debate off my flow, so line-by-line clash and full coverage of the key issues are important. That means that what passes for spreading in PF is fine with me...you don't have much time for each speech, I know, so use what you have to the fullest. Again, PF is kinda/sorta Policy Lite, and I'll always prefer -- but not insist upon -- a more Policy-like approach.

Quick Summary - Run whatever you want, be clear. It's your round, take advantage of it! Flow judge, give me articulated arguments. Kritiks are appreciated, warrants are awesome and taglines are not enough. The squo is more scarier now than ever - tell me whatever I can do to make debate a welcome space for you.

Background -

NPDA Debate - 3 years - Enough tournaments and practice to be very familiar with pretty much anything you can throw at me in the debate space.

Judging for 3 1/2 years - judged parli, policy and LD a lot (and I.E.s but whateverrr)

Approach to Judging -

-I am pretty tabula rasa, within reason. I default to reasonability inmost debates unless there is framework that asks me to change my perspective.

-I like high-probability, systemic impacts first and foremost. Give me real warrants and evidence and ANALYSIS I can weigh and you'll find my ballot favorable. I will vote on any framing though.

-I am a flow judge. I always walk the path of least intervention and won't extend or make arguments for you. Give me voters to refer to and it'll make my life easier. I'm really serious about this.

-I love anything kritikal, but it isn't necessary. I like topical and non-topical affs, but be careful with ID tix and other super generic non-topical advocacies. I like straight-up policy cases with advantages and DA's and the like. I like contentions with good framework articulated. Essentially, you can do anything if you do it well and make it easy for me to follow.

-I need articulated impacts, and arguments in general. Taglines are not enough. Explain to me the directionality and extent of your impacts.

-I don't like arguments dropped in member speeches to be suddenly voters in rebuttals AKA shadow extensions but people need to point of order it for me to not evaluate it.

-Let me know if there's anything I can do to make the debate space more inclusive for you. If you have any needs or preferences, I'm happy to help.

Argument Prefs -

Framework - I will evaluate the round as you want me to as long as you win framework. I do default to net benes/util, but am totally open to other ways of viewing the round.

Spec -I think spec arguments are rough to win, but I'm open to them. Give me solid standards and proven ground loss and I might pick you up on it.

Topicality - I don't like time-suck T's, and I think that a lot of T arguments don't actually really impact the debate except to inhibit clash. I have a medium threshold for T. You need articulated ground loss usually. However, if you drop it, or any a-priori arguments, you're going to lose the debate. Just be careful.

CPs - Always a great idea. I think CP's are super underused and really effective. I like PIC debates and if you run a CP, you just need to be careful about mutual exclusivity. I don't have a problem with condo CPs.

RVI's - I will vote on them, but only for a good reason i.e. rhetoric in the procedural/DA/whatever, timesuck arguments that are fully fleshed out, etc. Just like all other arguments, if it's blippy I probably won't vote on it and your time is probably better spent elsewhere.

Perms - Always go for the perm. I think the Opp has to really win the perm doesn't function to have a good shot in the round because it is often one of the easiest places to vote.

Kritiks - I like K's! I don't have a ton of background knowledge on some kritiks but have run a lot of Nietzsche, some D&G, Baud, Wilderson, but not enough of any lit other than Nietzsche that I feel confident with, so you need to explain it to me thoroughly. Any form, whether it's performance, rhetoric or otherwise, I am totally cool with. Be careful of overly-generic links.

Performance Prefs -

-I personally can handle speed as long as it's clear, but if your opponents clear or slow you, I expect you accommodate them. Additionally, attempting to spread opponents out of the round will destroy your speaks.

-I couldn't care less if you sit or stand - it's your space, make yourself comfortable

-Partner communication is fine, verbally or through notes, as long as you aren't puppeting. I will only flow what the designated speaker says.

-I don't have an issue with sass or playfulness, but don't be mean to your opponents or partner. There's a fine-line between the two and if you have trouble walking it, I'd be nice to be safe.

-Use your time as you wish, but try not to be too repetitive.

-I don't think you need to yell or be overly angry to try to project confidence. At the same time, you do you.

-If you are being sexist, racist or generally a jerk, your speaks will absolutely reflect that. You don't need to tread on eggshells, but don't be a misogynist, racist person.

I've been involved in competitive forensics for nearly nine years now. I did national circuit LD in high school and then parli with a tournament or two of policy for the University of Oregon from 2012-2015. I've coached high school policy for nearly five years. 

I've been exposed to and deployed pretty much every type of strategy, so my preference is that you go with the types of arguments that you are most comfortable with/think are most strategic rather than trying to cater to me. That said, I am predisposed on certain issues and will try my best to lay those out for you.

UPDATE October '16: My threshold for explanation on any argument has gone up significantly after the rounds that I have judged this past year. I am far more inclined to reward a team that understands their authors and can distill them into concise theses than one that simply relies on overly pomo-generated tag lines. My biggest frustration with most critical debates I have judged is that many teams assume that I will draw certain connections for you or that I will perfectly understand every nuance of every tag line and how it applies to your strategy without any further explanation. One of the most telling signs of a skilled debater in any forum is the ability to synthesize and explain complex positions in any field of study to someone who has never encountered that argument before. Doing this well in your debates will boost your speaker points and your competitive success. 

Critical Debate: I'm a big fan of the K, whether that be on Aff or Neg. Topic specific links tend to be more effective than more general approaches. I've read a fair amount of K lit, but the burden is on you to make sure that you clearly explain whichever theorist you're using. Simply restating the contents of a card isn't the same thing as understanding what the evidence says and actually explaining it. To give you a model of the critical arguments I deployed throughout my debate career, I ran Marx most often, and also occasionally dabbled in culture jamming, security, Deleuze and Orientalism. Read whichever argument you want, and explain it well, we'll be golden. 

On the flipside, I'm very receptive to framework and T as a response to critical Affs. If you are side-stepping the topic entirely, you should have a well-thought out defense of why there can be no topical version of the Aff that discusses your issues in the context of the topic. 

Straight-Up Debate: I honestly probably prefer evaluating a high level straight up debate to a critical debate. That's not to say that I feel more comfortable evaluating one or the other, I just tend to think that nuanced policy debates are more educational and more interesting to judge. Most of the time I find that the internal link stories on disads are quite contrived and neglected. The more realistic your internal link scenario, the more success you'll have with your disad. Regarding counterplans I think most of these theoretical issues are up to you in the debate, I tend to think PICs and functional competition are legit but am also receptive to theory arguments to the contrary. 

Misc: You won't be too fast for me, as long as you're clear. That said, I appreciate variation in speaking pace (slowing down on tags/authors, emphasizing certain arguments). That doesn't mean slow down, it just means break out of the monotone drone that quite often becomes the norm. I don't care if you stand/sit/tag-team/etc. I tend to be pretty expressive in round, because I feel that you should know what I think of your arguments during the debate versus only knowing what I think during the RFD when you can no longer make strategic changes. 

Most importantly, debate to your strengths. I'll be happy adjudicating any debate in which both teams are deploying their best strategies and making smart arguments. 

Hello. 

Competitive background: 3 yrs HS Parli, qualified for Parli TOC before. 1 yr college Parli, 29th at NPTE.

Preferences: I will be as objective as possible in round, and prefer that you debate in the style that most suits you. I like a good K debate or util debate. I am open to voting on framework/theory arguments; just warrant them/debate them well. 

If there is no weighing on any time frame/probability/magnitude layer, I will default to strength of link. But you all should weigh to begin with. 

Delivery and speaks: I'm fine with most speed. I'm not the best with flowing, so please signpost/be clear about where arguments are. I will say clear when necessary. I will give high speaks for good strategy, innovative arguments, and well-placed puns. If the puns are obviously forced though, I may lower your speaks.

Ask me about anything else you want before the round!

Jake Glendenning Judge Philosophy

Hey. I’m Jake. I debated four and a half years of NPDA/NPTE style debate. 2.5 at Irvine Valley College and 2 at UC Berkeley. As a general principle, you’re best off debating in the way you’re most accustomed or will have the most fun. I was a part of this activity because it was fun and I enjoyed it, and encourage others to do the same. I will insert myself into your round as little as possible.

Quick Hits

• I almost always defended the resolution as a debater, though not necessarily fiat. This means that I am not intimately familiar with arguments justifying the rejection of the resolution, so if that is a strategy you’re going for, you should probably err on the side of caution and explain your arguments in depth.
• As a debater I debated about half critical and half policy. I’m a fan of a good, nuanced politics disadvantage, as well as a well-researched, well-warranted K. I find post-modernism, post-structuralism, and existential type positions to be the most philosophically interesting when run well. I’m relatively familiar with Baudrillard, Foucault, Nietzsche, Deleuze (and his work with Guattari to a lesser extent), Hardt+Negri, and Butler. I find more sociologically-based K literature (race, gender, colonialism, ability) persuasive, but not as much fun to explore on a philosophical level. I think Agamben’s philosophy is generally bad, but I understand its strategic utility in debate. I feel similarly about a lot of marxist authors, though I also enjoy some, so take that for what you will.
• I default to my flow. I adhere to it whenever possible, and don’t intuitively know how to evaluate arguments that ask me to do otherwise, so please be very clear if you are going to go this direction with the debate.
• My degree is in Political Science and I did most of my research in Comparative Politics and International Economics, for whatever that’s worth. I’m also a bit of a current events hack.
• On speed, if you don’t know the other team’s comfortability with speed, ask. I liked debating fast, but that doesn’t mean everyone does and I don’t much care for the use of speed to beat less experienced teams. 
  -I value creativity quite a bit. If I haven’t seen it before and it makes me think a lot, it’s likely to get higher speaker points than the same consult counterplan/cap shell I’ve run and seen 100 times.

Disads

-Disads are great. I like nuanced, well researched disads. Politics, relations, whatever. Have specific links to the plan and all that. 
-When you kick them, please extend actual arguments, and not just “the defense”

Case debate

-It’s great!
-For my flow’s sake, please let me know if you have a separate sheet of case defense/case turns. I usually referred to this as a “dump” as a debater.

Counterplans

-Counterplans are also awesome. 
-I have no real disposition for or against condo (and think I may be the only person Kevin Calderwood has coached with that in their philosophy), but found that I won more going unconditional as a debater. I probably had a bit more fun going condo though, so you do you. Just win the arguments. 
-I really don’t have any dispositions against “cheater” counterplans, but found them very easy to beat as a debater. Feel free to run delay, veto cheto, conditions, consult, whatever, but theoretically justify it, and be prepared to not get very high speaker points if it's not creative/interesting.

T

• I default to competing interpretations, but am fine evaluating theoretical questions through different frameworks if the arguments are made.
• RVIs are an uphill battle in front of me. This is probably the issue where I have the hardest time staying objective. You’re going to have to really sell it if you want me to vote on an RVI.

Other Theory

• I’ve always enjoyed that the rules of debate are debateable. I think if you can demonstrate how ground loss took place, it’s going to be easier to win.
• I have seen beautiful, nuanced, specific uses of spec arguments and shamefully bad, vague, and slapdash ones. The former will get you higher speaks.
• On disclosure theory, I ran this argument quite a bit, and am fine voting on it. My interpretation was usually “If the affirmative chooses not to defend the resolution using fiat, they should notify the negative with no less than 10 minutes left in prep-time if the negative asked them to before prep” and I never ran into any of the contrived hypotheticals that opponents of disclosure theory bring up every time the issue recirculates on facebook or net-bens.

The K

• I very much enjoy the K debate. I have at least a shallow understanding of most K lit I’ve heard of. I find warrants very persuasive, especially in the K debate, and find that they can often help resolve difficult questions in K debates that devolve to claim v claim issues.
• I don’t think many teams actually explain how their alt solves their K a lot of the time. It’s more often than not just a bunch of perm preempts, and maybe a claim without a warrant. I’d appreciate it if you really articulated how your alt solves.
• I don’t think a K needs an alt in a “methods debate” or when the aff is a K, depending on what kind of specific framework the aff roles with.
• I think if there is an alt in a “methods debate” it makes intuitive sense that the aff maybe shouldn’t have a perm, so I’m generally receptive to that argument as long as it's well articulated.
  -On K affs, I value being creative within the confines of the resolution very much. A topical, non-fiat K aff would be preferable to rejection/deference of the resolution. I also find it really cool when a team can come up with creative definitions of words in the resolution to make an performance or identity based positions topical.

Note - Below is my H.S. philosophy. I go into much more detail about my opinions specific to college NPDA here: https://www.net-benefits.net/t/jake-glendenning-judging-philosophy/12965

Experience Debating/Judging:

I am a recent graduate from UC Berkeley. I competed in NPDA/NPTE style parliamentary debate for about 4 years and have done NFA: LD for two of those. I’ve coached high school parli extensively, but have also coached individuals competing in PuFo, VCX, VLD. I’ve also judged all these events at several tournaments. It’s worth noting that the type of debate I compete in now is more similar in a many ways to Team Policy than Parli on the high school level.

As a general overview, I have different opinions on different types of arguments based on the activity. For example, since the 1AR in LD is only 4 minutes, I’m generally a bit more lenient on theory against counterplans/criticisms or condo bad, in regard to my default threashold for abuse. Also, I view debate as a game to be won. I try to intervene as little as possible, but having judged and competed in countless rounds at this point I acknowledge that a certain degree of judge intervention is probably inevitable. I was a relatively gamey debater for a large portion of my career. I was known to often run multiple conditional strategies and strategic procedural arguments, but think the best debates are the least complicated and most clear. For this reason, higher speaker points usually go to debaters who are confident enough in their strategy and abilities to deploy as few tricks as possible.

Speaker Points

I can generally be a bit of a speaks fairy, especially when teams read creative positions in front of me. These can be a particularly interesting K or a politics scenario with a nuanced link story. I enjoy originality. I tend to give slightly higher speaks in LD and CX than in parli. My average is about 28.5 for the former two and 27.5-28 for the latter.

Speed

I can probably flow you at whatever speed you're going, and if I can't I'll let you know during the speech by yelling "slow" if you are too fast and "clear" if you are being unclear. I think it's a great general rule to always ask your opponents how they feel about speed if you plan on going fast (or even brisk, as people have very different interpretations on what "fast" is).  If you go fast to exclude your opponent, I will tank you speaks. You should be confident enough in your ability to debate that you don't need to rely on out-gaming your opponent. Debates where only 1 team and the judge understand what is happening are never fun for anyone and can be detrimental to the activity. 

General thoughts on arguments

DAs - Yep. Run them. I love a good, nuanced DA with a lot of warrants. Impact Calc is dope. It’s easier to win when you do it.

CPs - Hell yeah. any and all types so long as you can justify them on a theoretical level. In general I err neg on CP theory on Agent CPs and Consult CPs. I err aff on process and floating pics. Make sure you slow down when reading your text. I also wouldn’t mind a copy.

Kritiks - I’m a big fan of critiques. Run them. Get fancy with them. Ks with very specific links will win me over more than Ks that sound identical every round. I’m receptive to arguments that the aff gets to leverage its case under many K frameworks.

K Affs - I enjoy a good K aff, but enjoy topical K affs much more than untopical K affs. I don’t think defending the implementation by a government actor is necessary to be topical. Feel free to affirm the res and defend your reps. I will vote and have voted on untopical/reject-the-res type affirmatives, but don’t generally care for them very much.

Topicality/Theory - Run it. Run it strategically. I was once told by a good friend of mine that crafting a good interp is an art form and I find that statement more true every day. I will reward good interps with high speaker points. Also, the way to win theory is to do good weighing analysis on the standard level.

Parli-specific stuff

-I don't like it when partners prep between speeches. This seems to be a huge problem in H.S. parli and I will drop speaks if you're strategizing with your partner before your own speech. 

Given the nature of this activity, I think there is intrinsic value in public speaking ability and persuasion and will use speaker points to reflect how good of a public speaker you are. I will still try my best to not inject my previously-attained knowledge into the round, which means I will adhere to the flow very closely when making my decision. 

LD-Specific stuff

I haven’t judged LD in a little while and haven’t coached it in even longer, so I likely won’t be very deep in the lit on positions being run, especially the more nuanced frameworks. Speaking of frameworks, I’m much more familiar and receptive to util, but if you have particularly interesting deont arguments, or are just more confident in the deont debate, feel free to run your positions, just slow down a bit on your tags and spend more time than you think you need to in the rebuttals.

Policy-Specific Stuff

If you're going to be paperless you should have 3 computers and a usb drive that is easy to use and navigate for the other team. I don't count jumping files as prep-time, but please don't take forever with it. Regarding the substance of the debate, I really don't like it when half your speech is reading a scripted overview. I like debaters who think in-round. Speaker points will reflect this. Theory interps, CP texts, and Alt texts should be read slowly and have as few planks as possible.

Feel free to ask me specifics before the round.

tldr; I'm open to pretty much whatever, and would much rather you debate how you want than have you try to adapt to my preferences! A lot of my paradigm is pretty technical/jargon-heavy, so please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Background

I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 7 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years before exclusively coaching for the last few years, leading the team to 6 national championships as a student-run program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but I’ve had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team; I've become a huge fan of theory in particular in the last few years. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. I’m generally open to just about any argument, as long as there’s good clash.

General issues

• In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR.

• The LOR’s a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I don’t need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I've grown pretty used to flowing the LOR on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer to go line-by-line I’d rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.

• I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if it’s read well.

• Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice.

• I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it’s always better to call the POO just to be safe.

• I’m open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way. To clarify, please give me a clear explanation of how I determine whether to vote aff/neg at the end of the round, and in what ways your alternative paradigm differs from or augments traditional flow-centric models.

• I evaluate shadow-extensions as new arguments. What this means for me is that any arguments that a team wants to win on/leverage in either the PMR or LOR must be extended in the MG/MO to be considered. I'll grant offense to and vote on positions that are blanket extended ("extend the impacts, the advantage is conceded", etc.), but if you want to cross-apply or otherwise leverage a specific argument against other arguments in the round, I do need an explicit extension of that argument.

Framework

• I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. I understand the framework debate as a question of the best pedagogical model for debate; ie: what type of debate generates the best education/portable skills/proximal benefits, and how can I use my ballot to incentivize this ideal model of debate?

• This means that I'm probably more favorable for frame-out strategies than most other judges, because I think of different frameworks as establishing competing rulesets for how I evaluate the round, each of which establishes a distinct layer in the debate that filters offense in its own unique way. For example, framework that tells me I should evaluate post-fiat implications of policy actions vs a framework that tells me I should evaluate the best epistemic model seem to establish two very different worlds/layers in the round; one in which I evaluate the aff and neg advocacies as policy actions and engage in policy simulation, and one in which I evaluate these advocacies as either explicit or implicit defenses of specific ways of producing knowledge. I don't think the aff plan being able to solve extinction as a post-fiat implication of the plan is something that can be leveraged under an epistemology framework that tells me post-fiat policy discussions are useless and uneducational, unless the aff rearticulates why the epistemic approach of the aff's plan (the type of knowledge production the plan implicitly endorses) is able to incentivize methods of problem-solving that would on their own resolve extinction.

• As much as I'm down to vote on frameouts and sequencing claims, please do the work implicating out how a specific sequencing/framing claim affects my evaluation of the round and which offense it does or does not filter out. I’m not very likely to vote on a dropped sequencing claim or independent voter argument if there isn’t interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round; ie, why does this sequencing claim take out the other specific layers that have been initiated in the round.

• I'm very open to voting on presumption, although very rarely will I grant terminal defense from just case arguments alone (no links, impact defense, etc.). I'm much more likely to evaluate presumption claims for arguments that definitionally deny the potential to garner offense (skep triggers, for example). I default to presumption flowing negative unless a counter-advocacy is gone for in the block, in which case I'll err aff. But please just make the arguments either way, I would much rather the debaters decide this for me.

Theory/Procedurals

• I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. I’m perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text.

• I don't think of theory as a check against abuse in the traditional sense. I'm open to arguments that I should only vote on proven/articulated abuse, or that theory should only be used to check actively unfair/uneducational practices. However, I default to evaluating theory as a question of the best model of debate for maximizing fairness and education, which I evaluate through an offense/defense model the same way I would compare a plan and counterplan/SQO. Absent arguments otherwise, I evaluate interpretations as a model of debate defended in all hypothetical rounds, rather than as a way to callout a rule violation within one specific debate.

• I will vote on paragraph theory (theory arguments read as an independent voting issue without an explicit interpretation), but need these arguments to be well developed with a clear impact, link story (why does the other team trigger this procedural impact), and justification for why dropping the team solves this impact. Absent a clear drop the debater implication on paragraph theory, I'll generally err towards it being drop the argument.

• I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I don’t think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation (unless in-round argumentation tells me they do), although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one.

• I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I don’t know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline I’ll usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless.

• I don't mind voting on RVIs, so long as they're warranted and have an actual impact that is weighed against/compared with the other theory impacts in the round. Similar to my position on IVIs: I'm fine with voting for them, but I don't think the tag "voting issue" actually accomplishes anything in terms of impact sequencing or comparison; tell me why this procedural impact uplayers other procedural arguments like the initial theory being read, and why dropping the team is key to resolve the impact of the RVI.

Advantage/DA

• Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the right direction. Basically: I'm unlikely to vote on linear advantages/disadvantages even if you're winning a link, unless it's literally the only offense left in the round or it's explicitly weighed against other offense in the round, so do the work to explain to me why your worldview (whether it's an advocacy or the SQO) is able to resolve or at least sidestep the impact you're going for in a way that creates a significant comparative differential between the aff and neg worldviews.

• I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume there’s at least some risk of offense, so don’t rely on just reading defensive arguments.

• Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and I’m generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, specific and substantial case debates are great as well.

• I default to fiat being durable.

CP

• Please give me specific texts.

• Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory.

• I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.

• I default to functional or net benefits frameworks for evaluating competition. I generally won’t evaluate competition via textuality absent arguments in the round telling me why I should.

K

• I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, especially postmodern theory (particularly Foucault/Deleuze&Guatarri/Derrida). Some debates that I have particularly familiarity with: queer theory, orientalism, anthro/deep eco/ooo, buddhism/daoism, kritikal approaches to spatiality and temporality, structural vs micropolitical analysis, semiotics. That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I'm open to voting on anything, and am very willing to do the work to understand your position if you provide explanation in-round.

• I’m perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework-t. On that note, I’m also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation. I find myself voting for skews eval implications of fairness a lot in particular, so long as you do good sequencing work.

• Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. I’m also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact.

• I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round.

• I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow.

• Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and they’ve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. I’ll usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible, to justify your specific performance/engagement on the line-by-line of the round, and to explain to me your position's specific relationship to the ballot.

Other random thoughts:

• I pretty strongly disagree with most paradigmatic approaches that frame the judge's role as one of preserving particular norms/outlining best practices for how debate ought to occur, and I don't think it's up to the judge to paternalistically interfere in how a round ought to be evaluated. This is in part because I don't trust judges to be the arbiters of which arguments are or are not pedagogically valuable, given the extensive structural biases in this activity; and the tendency of coaches and judges to abuse their positions of power in order to deny student agency. I also think that debaters ought to be able to decide the purpose of this activity for themselves-while I think debate is important as a place to develop revolutionary praxis/build critical thinking skills/research public policy, I also think it's important to leave space for debaters to approach debate as a game and an escape from structural harms they experience outside of the activity. Flow-centric models seem to allow for debaters to resolve this on their own, by outlining for me what the function of debate ought to be on the flow, and how that should shape how I assign my ballot (more thoughts on this at the top of the "Framework" section in my paradigm).

• What the above implicates out to is: I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the "worse argument" if it’s won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that there’s a certain degree of intervention that’s inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments (so long as the argument has at least an analytic justification and has been explained in terms of how it implicates my evaluation of the round), arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of.

June 4th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

I'm mostly new to NFA-LD LD so feel free to ask me questions. I competed for a year as a freshman (moon energy topic), mainly on the Northern California circuit, although I wasn't particularly competitive. I don't have a ton of familiarity with the current topic, besides the last week or so of research. Most of the paradigm below applies, but here's some specific thoughts that could apply to NFA-LD.

• I don't think I know the format well enough to know which paradigmatic questions to outline here explicitly. As a general rule of thumb, please just be explicit about how you want me to evaluate the round, and give me reasons to prefer that mechanism (ie whether I should read cards or only evaluate extensions as made in-round, what the implication of a stock issues framework should be, whether/how much to flow cross-ex, etc.). I have very few preferences myself, so long as the round burdens are made explicit for me.

• All of the above being said, I'll probably err towards reading speech docs (Zoom is difficult, and this keeps my flow a lot cleaner), I will evaluate CX analysis although I may not flow it, and I'll only hold the line on stock issues framing if explicitly requested. If you want to know how I default on any other issues, please just ask! Also, no particular issues with speed, although I may tank speaks if you spread out an opponent unnecessarily.
  
  
• I don't have as much experience flowing with cards; I have been practicing, and don't think this should be much of an issue, but maybe something to be aware of. Clearer signposting between cards might not be a bad call if you want to play it safe.
  
  
• I'm a very big fan of procedural and kritikal debate in NPDA, and don't see that changing for NFALD, so feel free to run whatever in front of me. Fine with evaluating non-topical affs, but also very comfortable voting on T, especially with a good fairness collapse.

Most important items if you have limited reading time:

PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory/topicality, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you found on the wiki and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks

IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.

ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.

Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).

I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.

PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.

***

Background

I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (new this year!). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli in those years). I did definitively come up in the time when "This House would not go gently into that good night" was a totally normal, one-in-every-four-rounds kind of resolution. Do with that what you will.

Approach to judging

-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.

-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/insufficiently unique Ks.

-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.

-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.

Speaker point ranges

Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.

Argument preferences

Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.

Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.

Counterplans: Pretty down for whatever here. If you want to have a solid plan/CP debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.

Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain my sense of "real-world" fairness/education). I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).

Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice when not tightly linked to the resolution or a specific in-round act by the opposing team. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked and/or disclosed within the first 2-3 minutes of prep. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files. Write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Truly I will give you a ton of credit for a cautious and thorough line-by-line even if you don't know all that much about K structural elements. Ks that weaponize identities of students in the round and ask me to use the ballot to endorse some personal narrative or element of your identity, in my in-round and judging experience, have been 15% liberatory and 85% deeply upsetting for everyone in the round. Please don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."

"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round. I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus, comparative weighing, or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.

Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Especially in partner events, this is a good way to telegraph that you and your partner are strategically and narratively aligned. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.

Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech--you will need to fully repeat it. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.

Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order (and NPDL - Points of Clarification) in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.

Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off precipitously in my flowing functionality above the 275 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).

Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think sharing docs increases the likelihood of debaters trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/theory interp, you are expected to provide it as expeditiously as possible (e.g. in partner formats, your partner should write it down and pass it while you continue talking).

Experience: 13 years in multiple formats, first for Torrey Pines HS, then for Cal Poly SLO. I have a master's degree in urban planning from USC, and I currently work as a transportation planner for a small city near Los Angeles.

I can't handle top speed, but moderate speed should be okay. If it's too fast, I'll let you know.

I approach debate as an educator - if your arguments are based on extensive familiarity with the topic and context, and if you use that knowledge to engage substantively with your opponents' arguments, I will likely vote for you. I prefer arguments which are grounded in literature (not necessarily academic) to those which are not. I also appreciate specific warranting - appeals to authority are next to useless without an articulated warrant.

My speaker points will reward deep knowledge of the topic - cross-examination is your time to shine.

Be respectful of your judges and fellow competitors. This includes respecting everyone's time: make sure all of your evidence is easily accessible if called, quickly open lines of communication to your partner during prep time, and make sure your technology is in working order prior to the start of the round.

*SPEED AND CLARITY

To ensure that your arguments are flowed, please notice when I shout clear or slow. Also, it's been a while since I've debated, so I'm probably not great for spreading.

*KRITIQUES

I'm usually down for Ks. I realise, however, that I tend to be a little biased against most biopower, cap, and sometimes race Ks. If I don't like a K, the problem is usually with the alt. This said, please try to refrain from endorsing a very generic, one-size fits all alt or try to put more ink on explaining it.

*RESPECT

Debators who are rude and impatient to their partners or opponents risk a markdown for speaker points. Yet worse — when you are rude, you invite risks that I may subconsciously pay more attention to arguments you've dropped and underestimate your stronger ones. This could be unfair for you, so please be strategic — not just with arguments, but behaviour too. I suppose that, as is with any form of conversation, being amiable is usually a good idea if you wish others to agree with you.

I debated four years in high school and four additional years in college (NPDA). I have spent the last five years coaching debate and judging nearly every other weekend.

Policy/LD - I have significant experience judging both events and am comfortable with all speeds, strategies and arguments.

Parli - teams should debate the resolution unless there are significant problems with it. I believe parli should primarily be a limited prep event, I do not often vote for canned cases that teams just try to apply to every resolution. I am comfortable with policy, value & fact debates and believe that as long as they provide group and stay topical, the aff gets to set the parameters for the round. Speed is not a problem as long as you are communicating. K's are welcome on the Neg and I treat them as any other argument. But every K (no matter how much you like it) does not fit in every round.

I did two years of circuit LD at Miramonte High School and graduated in 2015. I graduated from UC Berkeley in 2019 after doing four years of NPDA parliamentary debate.

I have no desire to impose my own views upon the debate round. In deciding the round, I will strive to be as objective as possible. Some people have noted that objectivity can be difficult, but this has never seemed like a reason that judges shouldn't strive to be objective. I, overwhelmingly, prefer that you debate in the style that you are most comfortable with and believe that you are best at. I would prefer a good K or util debate to a bad theory or framework debate anyday. That's the short version--here are some specifics if you're interested.

May 28th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

I'm new to NFA-LD LD so feel free to ask me questions. Most of the paradigm below applies, but here's some specific thoughts that could apply to NFA-LD.

1. Cards v. Spin: I tend to err that spin and analysis trump evidence quality in the abstract. Intuitively, a card is only as good as its extension. However, I will listen to framing arguments that indicate judges should prioritize debate's value as a research activity and prefer cards to spin.

GGI 2019 Parli-Specific Update:

While I will generally vote for any strategy, I would like to discuss my thoughts on some common debates. These thoughts constitute views about argument interaction that should not make a difference in most debates.

• K affs versus T: Assuming the best arguments are made, I err affirmative 60-40 in these debates (The best arguments are rarely made.) However, I tend to believe that impact turns constitute a suboptimal route to beating topicality. I differ from some judges because I believe that neg impact framing on T (procedural fairness first, debate as a question of process, not product) tends to beat aff impact framing. However, I err aff on the legitimacy of K affs because I'm skeptical of the neg's link to that framing. Does T uniquely ensure procedural fairness? Thus, to win my ballot, teams reading K affs must take care to respond to the neg's specific impact framing. They cannot merely read parallel arguments.
• Conditionality: I lean strongly that the negative gets 1 conditional advocacy. 2 is up for debate and three is pushing it. Objections to conditionality should be framed around the type of negative advocacies and the amount of aff flex. For example, perhaps 2 conditional advantage counterplans is permissible, but not 2 conditional PICs.

Past Paradigm:

Also:

• Absent weighing on any particular layer, I default to weighing based on strength of link.
• I probably won't cover everything so feel free to ask me questions.
• Taken from Ben Koh because this makes sense: "If I sit and you are the winner (that is, the other 2 judges voted for you), and would like to ask me extensive questions, I will ask that you let the other RFDs be given and then let the opponent leave before asking me more questions. I'm fine answering questions, but just to be fair the other people in the room should be allowed to leave."

Delivery and speaks:

• Fine with speed.
• I'm not the greatest at flowing, so try to be clear about where an argument was made.
• High speaks for good strategic choices and innovative arguments. I will say clear as much as necessary and I won't penalize speaks for clarity.

Frameworks:

• I default to being epistemically conservative, but will accept arguments for epistemic modesty if they are advanced and won.
• I am willing to support any framework given that it is won on the flow.
• I'm willing to vote for permissibility or presumption triggers. However, there must be some implicit or explicit defense of a truth-testing paradigm. The argument must also be clear the first time that it is read. If the argument is advanced for the first time in the 1AR and I think that it is new, I will allow new 2NR responses.
• Many framework debates are difficult to adjudicate because debaters fail to weigh between different metastandards on the framework debate. For example, if util meets actor-specificity better, but Kantianism is derived from a superior metaethic, is the actor-specificity argument or the metaethic more important?

Theory and T:

• I default to no RVI, drop the argument on most theory and drop the debater on T, competing interpretations, and fairness and education not being voters. Most of these defaults rarely matter because debaters make arguments.
• I don't think that competing interps means anything besides a risk of offense model for the adjudication of theory. That means, for example, that debaters need to justify why their opponent must have an explicit counter-interpretation in the first speech.
• I, paradigmatically, won't vote on 2AR theory.
• I'm willing to vote on metatheory. I probably err slightly in favor of the metatheory bad arguments such as infinite regress.
• I'm willing to vote on disclosure theory.
• Fine with frivolous theory.

Utilz:

• I default to believing in durable fiat.
• Debaters should work on pointing out missing internal links in most extinction scenarios.
• I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.
• I probably err aff on issues of counter-plan competition.
• Err towards the view that uniqueness controls the direction of the link. However, I'm willing to accept arguments about why the link is more important.
• I will evaluate 1ar add-ons and 2nr counter-plans against these add-ons. This is irrelevant in most debates.

K's:

• There are many different kinds of kritikal argumentation so feel free to ask questions in round.
• I'm unsure whether I should default to role of the ballot arguments coming before ethical frameworks. I personally believe that ethical arguments engage important assumptions made by many ROB arguments. However, community consensus is that ROB's come first so I will usually stick with that assumption if no argument is made either way.
• I default to fairness impacts coming before theory, but I'm willing to evaluate arguments to the contrary.
• I don't have strong objections to non-topical positions. However, I believe debaters should probably engage in practices like disclosure that improve the theoretical legitimacy of their practices.
• Willing to vote on Kritikal RVI's/impact turns to theory.
• I'm willing to listen to arguments that there shouldn't be perms in method debates. However, I find these arguments not very persuasive.

Note for HS Parli:

Everything above applies. Except for the stuff about prep time. The only parli specific issue is that I will listen to theory arguments that it is permissible to split the block. Feel free to ask me any questions

1) I like watching debates that would inspire an average student who doesn't do debate to join the activity, or an average parent/guardian judge to urge their student to join.

2) Everybody in the round should be able to watch back a recording of the round and be able to understand what was going on. In other words, don't intentionally run arguments that your opponents won't understand.

3) While developing the skills to win the game on the circuit is certainly laudable--because of debate, I now listen to everything on x2 speed--I don't enjoy watching most circuit debates. I prefer debaters to hover around 200-250 words per minute. Choose quality arguments instead of gish galloping around the flow, and collapse on your one or two best pieces of offense. Weigh those key arguments against your opponent's, taking them at their highest ground.

3) Don't make claims that your evidence doesn't support. Powertagging is bad scholarship. If I call for a piece of evidence and see that it is powertagged, I will intervene.

4) I am more likely to intervene in a theory-level debate than a case-level debate. If you tell me that your opponents' practices are making the activity worse, I will consider their practices in the context of what I know about the activity. I am open to my mind being changed on these issues; my knowledge of the activity is limited. However, I am biased against evaluating what I see as frivolous theory arguments or tricks.

5) Tell me where I should be flowing at all times. If you don't tell me, I may mess up.

6) I don't find rudeness to be a persuasive rhetorical tool. You can be an incredibly effective debater and advocate while focusing on your opponent's arguments, not their personal deficiencies.

7) It's helpful to acknowledge where your opponents may be winning. Give me a permission structure to believe some of their arguments but still vote for you. "Even if..." "The tiebreaker is..."

Hello y'all!

It's everyone's favorite time, to read the philosophy of the judge so they can bs their way to winning rounds.

Background:

My background is pretty baller. I did speech for 4 years of high school and was ranked in the state. I did debate for 2 years, mid lay level LD and parli. After I graduated, I started coaching at Chaminade College Prep. To my dismay, they were mostly a policy school. I cried for weeks about this.

I've been the assist head coach there for 2 and half years and now the head coach for the past year. Surprisingly, no one has died. I've now judged rounds of all debate events in California, at almost all levels, except Varsity Policy, because I'm not too masochistic.

Here are some general things, then you can look at event specific things below:

I try my best to not put my beliefs onto the flow. I don't mind any critical arguments, just realize most of you run them wrong/weak links. Don't do that. Be clear and articulate, explain to me how it impacts the round. Don't just say "Dumb judge, I win because of (fancy jargon word)" Explain why you win. If you're going to cross apply, explain how it cross applies. "Cross apply this to all of my contentions because in reality, I have no answers, but want to seem like I didn't drop everything on the flow"

Don't run K's with no clear link. If I feel you've run this K against every aff you've hit, not matter the topic, I won't be happy. Make the link very clear. This comes off as lazy to me.

Speed: I'm alright with speed. Usually by the rebuttal level, I'm fine. I'd say in policy try to go 70% your fastest. LD you can go 80% your fastest. I have yet to have an issue with speed in PF and parli, so don't worry. You'll want to go slower with me, mostly because I tend not to give any indication if I can't understand what you're saying because I'm trying so hard to understand what you're saying.

Also, when spreading, there is this thing called enunciating. Do that. I like that.

And in spreading, I know that tends to turn into yelling, try not to do that. As a speech a coach, I feel horrible for your vocal cords that your abusing and misusing. Also, no one likes to be yelled at for an hour.

There's no reason to be rude. I will tank your speaks if you're a jerk. Be passionate by all means, but making your opponent cry, or just being a "meanie face" will not make me like you. I will still give you the win in the round, if you won the round, but you can say bye bye speaker award, because your speaks are destroyed. Moral of this story: Win, but let your arguments win, being a jerk doesn't gain you ground on your arguments and it hurts your speaks for me. Being a meanie poo (I'm avoiding curse words, for if some reason my school I work at finds this) isn't educational and won't help you in the real world.

I generally enjoy rounds where the topic and cases are engaged. I'm more of a straight policy/LD person. However, trust me when I say, I'm totally fine with any arguments you want to run, just please make it follow a clear train of logic.

I'm cool with flex prep, if everyone agrees. In the prepared debate events, especially LD and policy, if your opponent is misrepresenting evidence, and you call that out, I love that.

LD:

Yo, LD, I like that event.Since it's LD, I'm a big fan of the values debate. Otherwise just go into policy.

Policy:

If I'm judging a policy round, I'm already crying inside. Don't make those tears turn into a full out sob. Meaning, clearly explain everything, go slow on your tag lines. I won't time "flash" time towards prep, but don't go super slow.

Parli:

I love parli. As a judge, I realize that you've only had 20 minutes of prep. For this reason, unless you cite where you are getting your information, I'll probably assume you're lying.

I'm definitely fine with any critical arguments you want to run. However, I'm not a huge fan of parli in which the topic is ignored entirely. If it's a poorly written topic, call that out, but don't refuse to debate it because you think it's poorly written. If we're getting a resolution on if we need to send aid to the Sahel region, I don't want the aff to come in an talk about how we need to stop oppression in America or an entirely different case for a resolution (unless there is a very clear link to the resolution) Again, if you feel the topic is horribly skewed, explain that in round, but I don't like when the aff comes in with a new topic, It just comes off as lazy and not willing to engage the debate and topic.

Public Forum:

I've never had any issues with speed or anything in Public Forum. Basically, if you're in Public Forum, do you boo. PF you understand me and I love you for that public forum.

Also, because I'm fat, I'm receptive to receiving donuts, cheesecake and fettuccine Alfredo. It won't give you the win, but I'll give me something to cry into during the policy rounds.

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

From the newest Superman/Batman trailer: "He has the power to wipe out the entire human race. If we believe there's even a 1% chance that he is our enemy, we have to take it as an absolute certainty."

Huh, I didn't know that Batman was a Policy debater.

My experience:

Coaching Public Forum primarily for four years. Extensive experience with Parli. Limited experience with Policy and LD.

What I value in the debate round, in order:

1) Topicality. The team that can get me to vote on case will most often win my ballot.

2) Clash. The team that most directly addresses and refutes their opponents arguments will win my ballot.

3) Links. The team that can provide critical analysis of their evidence and cogently explain why it supports their case will win my ballot.

4) Flow. The team that can refute their opponents and effectively defend their case will win my ballot.

What about impacts?

Unless the resolution literally deals with NATO-Russian relations, I am entirely unconcerned with nuclear war. Some far-flung impact calculus is so intellectually lazy that it's insulting. Batman is a bad debater, and he should feel bad. Go Superman.

What about theory?

It does have a place in debate. However, I prefer that it be used sparingly.

K - In four years of judging, I have only voted on a Kritik a handful of times. I have no philosophical objection to them, but ultimately this is a difficult route to obtaining my ballot. If you run a K, particularly an Aff K, they absolutely must be Topical. For example, the last K I voted on was a Cap K, and the resolution dealt with the economy.

T - If Neg decides to run Topicality, it must be so simple and obvious that even a parent judge could understand. In short, if you have decided to run a T before another debater has had the chance to open their mouth, you might as well concede the round now. That is abject dishonesty, and I will relish taking off and nuking your speaker points from orbit.

Other judging preferences:

I value the strength of reasoning and the clarity of argumentation in debate. If it hasn't been made abundantly clear at this point, I don't want to have a lengthy discussion about the nature of Debate unless that is what the resolution pertains to. I have discussions about the nature of Debate in the bar with the other coaches after the tournament is over.

Unfortunately over the course of the years, I have encountered teams which deliberately falsify important evidence in order to gain an unfair strategic advantage. I reserve the right to use the Internet to fact-check a round while it is in progress.

I am fine with speed, so long as the Debater is actually enunciating their words. Please do not use speed as a weapon in the round.

Please feel free to employ witty humor, biting sarcasm, and above all creativity in your round.

I have done Parli at the high school level as well as in college. I have also been a high school coach for all styles of Debate. I am familiar with spreading, Ks, topicality, etc...

K - needs an alternative for me to consider it, other than that I am game for all.

DAs - Don't just skip over the internal links, often winning this position comes down to how you have done on the internals for me.

Critical affs fine

Spreading is fine, but.... As a public speaking event I think there are points to be won for being a charismatic speaker.

Have fun, be nice, and good luck.

tl;dr yeah, you can go fast

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: jrmartin707@gmail.com

--

Debated in college for UC Berkeley, have coached high school and college teams at local and TOC levels, etc. Doing a bit of occasional coaching and judging now but I'm not plugged into the circuit hardcore; you should assume I'm familiar with everything argumentatively/stylistically and very little on the topic. Generally, same stuff everyone says: debate like you want to debate, explain things and impact them, tell me why you winning or losing an argument does or does not influence my decision, and have fun. Otherwise, here’s some things you probably want to know:

- My own argumentative evolution has been from a pretty exclusively K debater early on to almost all policy work by the end, though I've coached all kinds. For what it’s worth, if you need an easy way to rank me, I lean more and more towards enjoying straight-up policy debates the more I judge. It's tough to disentangle "what are you a good judge for" and "what are you gonna have more fun watching" sometimes, even though they're definitely different, so I'm just gonna be honest and say that if you have no good reason to pick the K or the DA or which of your affs you're gonna read, might as well read the policy one. My favorite debates to judge are: huge in-depth case throwdowns, techy aff-specific counterplan debates, K on K clashes that are grounded in true disputes in the literature, impact turn debates (on the case or against a DA/K), and well-executed topicality debates.

- I do fundamentally believe that framework is true and debate would be better if people read plans, not that that means I exclusively vote negative in those debates. Predictability and debatability sound like pretty important things to me, and I think most aff framework counter-interps do not develop a feasible role for the negative and what neg prep should look like in their version of debate, but that doesn't mean any given neg team executes properly. I think like most everyone I’d rather here some clever unique strategy, but I dislike the dichotomy that framework isn’t a “substantive” argument and that the negative “didn’t engage the aff” by reading it. It's a good argument. The best aff answers lay out really clear alternatives for what debate should look like and impact turn all the skills that policy-focused debate generates.

- I’m generally unpersuaded by arguments along the lines of “the permutation/framework/etc. is violence/stealing our advocacy/etc.”, arguments that the negative doesn’t have to disprove the affirmative, purely nihilistic alternatives, and K speeches that consist entirely of buzzwords where you expect me to fill in what I already know about your concepts. I’m not afraid to give decisions which consist mostly of “I have no idea what you were talking about most of the time” if you just repeated the words “rhizome” or “foundational antagonism” at me, even if I know what you were trying to mean. Additionally, I'm super not down with arguments that are about things outside of the debate, like "show us your prefs" style stuff. I think the other team needs like a ten second defense of "you can only critique stuff we actually said" and I'm checked out.

- I have relatively few strong predispositions about common theory arguments; conditionality is probably fine but not necessarily, etc. I'll be extremely flow-centric here: I have absolutely voted for really bad theory args that got dropped, and also refused to vote for dropped ones when they were never a full argument with an impact in the first place.

- Evidence comparison, and calling out your opponent’s terrible, terrible evidence for what it is, is both extremely important and probably the best way to rack up your speaker points, alongside detailed impact calculus. The best ways to hurt your speaker points are to be a jerk to your partner, to get angry for no reason in cross-ex, and to spend your whole speech behind your laptop not paying any attention to the judge's reactions. Try to be a kind person who knows their stuff and the rest will follow.

- Because so many debates start with the question, "Can we do open CX?", the answer is always the same: you can, technically, there's no rule against it. But I would really recommend you don't - it's always better to get practice handling your CXs alone, going to your partner only as a last resort. It's important that they have the time to prep their next speech (that's three full minutes of free prep time!) and it's also much better for both of your speaker points if you each look organized and have mastery of your material.

11/10/19

Haven't gotten around to building my new paradigm yet as my old judge philosophy got lost in Al Gore's internet.

For now, a few things:

--Truth over tech.

--I am a debate coach. I am also a professional educator. I care about education, not just the game of debate.

--I flow. I have been in grad school recently and not judging much so I may be a bit rusty.

--Signpost the flow religiously.

--Framework is just another argument. You don't just auto win the round because they dropped framework arguments.

--I do not hear well. Be loud and clear as much as you can.

--Feel free to ask my any questions before the round other than, "Do you have any preferences?" Specific questions are better!

Laila McClay
Director of Debate, Sonoma Academy (2015-2019)
Director of Speech & Debate, St. Vincent de Paul High School (2005-2015)


THIS IS YOUR DEBATE. IT IS NOT ABOUT ME. DO WHAT YOU DO BEST.

I value clarity above all else. I think signposting is really important. Slow down for tag lines (I am not looking at your speech doc).

My big picture philosophy is that I want to minimize judge intervention as much as possible. I DO NOT want to be part of your debate. In a close debate my RFD will often include the language "the least intervening way I could vote was..."

HOWEVER, I have found recently that I do have a preference for arguments that do something. And, when weighing arguments that do nothing (high theory goo) against deeply held identity arguments (race, gender, class, etc) I have a pretty high threshold for how the high theory goo team interacts with the identity/performance team; don’t use your high theory to say to someone in an oppressed group that their personally perceived oppression is a fiction. Ultimately, I think that debate is more than a game. I think debate is an activity that has incredible potential to transform the way teenagers think and interact with the world. Arguments that seek to or have the effect of pushing students out of the activity are bad for debate and that is where an ethos moment on that point MIGHT be able to sway me from my predisposition to only evaluate the flow. None of this is to say I don’t also like/understand/read high theory goo, just that I think there is a responsibility on the part of teams who read these arguments to see how what they are saying probably comes from a point of privilege and has a specific interaction with the lived experience of the other debaters in the room.

More specifics:

Kritiks – ONLY READ K’s THAT YOU UNDERSTAND. For the AFF, you need to engage with the K. I think the Perm debate is probably the most important part of the K debate. The Neg shouldn't group all the perms. They Aff should make multiple perms. I like smart debaters who do their own work and know what they are talking about.

K Aff's/Performace - I am fine with all of this. Be smart and show me you know what you are talking about. I tend to be a little more comfortable when the AFF has some sort of stable advocacy statement, but that is just a default and not a requirement.

I think morally repugnant arguments should be answered by the other team with in-round discourse/language shapes reality arguments.

Each speech is a speech act, not a written exchange of arguments. Debaters need to pay more attention to what is said rather than just relying on what is in the speech doc.

Parli Philosophy:

I debated for the University of the Pacific. NPTE attendance: 4. #2 in the nation two years in a row.

I've been out of debate for almost 3 years now so I'm not as great as flowing as I used to be. Be clear.

I love theory but apparently people are forgetting to put voters on them so don't make that mistake please and thank you.

I need impact calc in the rebuttals: Why should I prioritize your arguments? Probability, magnitude, timeframe
Humor is great, be funny. Jokes are good. Just not offensive ones, that's not okay at all.

Do what you want have fun I'm here to type the things you say.

He/him/his

My email is jrogers31395@gmail.com if you have questions, or if I'm judging Policy/LD/PF

On general argumentation:

I have a fairly nihilistic approach to impact calculus, but assume that death is bad.

Analyzed evidence > evidence > reasoning > claims.

On delivery:

Talk as fast as needed. "Slow" means slow down; "clear" means enunciate more.

If you exclude others, they can argue that you should lose for it.

I reserve the right to drop you if you're an asshole.

On Theory:

I default to reasonability, and would much rather judge either substantive policy or critical debate -- don't choose not to run theory if you actually feel like the other team is being abusive. I understand the strategic utility/necessity of theory, and have run/voted for a few garbagey theory shells before.

The aff should probably be topical, but if you don't want to be, just justify why that should be allowed.

On Kritiks:

I enjoy good Kritik vs policy or K vs K debate -- I personally have the greatest degree of familiarity with Marxist anti-capitalist stuff, and I've got a decent working knowledge of most of the popular kritikal lit bases I've seen recently.

If you can't clearly connect the theory/structure you critique to material harm and present an alternative that can solve it, I don't know why I should vote for you.

For carded debate:

Please slow and emphasize the author, date, and tag - it makes extensions much cleaner if I actually know what cards you're talking about

I only call for cards if the other team says you're lying/powertagging, or if one card becomes the fulcrum for most/all terminal offense in the round.

Background: The name's Carmen Terlaje, kind of did debate in highschool, i.e. Lincoln Douglas debate on Guam if that counts and currently one of the assistant coaches at Campolindo High School coaching parli debate. Just finished competing for four years on the college circuit of parliamentary debate, as a debater from Saint Mary's College of California (aka. if you've ever had the pleasure of reading Matthew Swanson's philosophy that can explain my experience #poetryisaight). 

Debate is a game I am very fond of, my best words of advice is "do you boo", i.e. run the arguments you feel comfortable and win the round the best way you see fit and have fun, empahsis on F U N!!! i.e. please refrain from saying sexist, racist, or just mean things, this can be very problematic.  

The short-er version: Will listen to any arguments. Will vote on any arguments. Just win the argument!  

The short version: I am most familiar with Critical arguments, so do not be afraid of running a "K" if you want to. With that being said, I will listen to your Politics Disad if that's what you want to run, just explain, explain, explain! No matter how much I may know, I only understand as much as you tell me, so please explain. I will vote on the flow, so impact calculus is critical. I also do understand theory so if you run it just run it well.  

Speaker Points: Speak your truth with confidence. *all Beyonce and pop culture references welcome*  

Go run the world of debate 

Hello! I am Luis and I debated 4 years in high school for Lowell (2010-2014) and graduated from Berkeley in 2018. Given I've been out of the game for a bit please slow down (especially on the tags) and be extra clear. Also keep in mind I'm not an expert on the topic as you all debating are so don't assume I know all the acronyms/common affs for the year.

Nontraditional: I strongly believe that the affirmative must defend they hypothetical implementation of a topical plan by the United States federal government. It will be difficult to convince me otherwise and a mildly competent extension of framework will be sufficient for me to vote against a non-traditional affirmative.
Translation: Strike me

Topicality: I don’t have any strong feelings here. Specificity of a case-list and exactly what their interpretation allows are appreciated.

Theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team except in the case of condo, unless I am told otherwise. That’s just a default though and can be easily reversed.

Critiques are either really good or really bad. The better they link, the better and the higher your odds of success. This also means you're going to have to explain more. I read big Ks in high school and pretty familiar with them but if you're reading something less common you might have to do a bit more work.

Disadvantages are good. Disad/Case debates are my favorite types of debates to watch. Impact calc impact calc impact calc.

Counter plan debates are fun. Even though cheater counter plans (earmarks, recommendation, xo, etc.) were my bread and butter in high school I really do not enjoy these debates although I understand their strategic benefit. That said, if you find an aff-specific solvency advocate for any of these I will be very impressed and think you’re pretty shielded from theory if you say it’s grounded in the literature base.

Case is essential. I do believe in zero risk even within an offense defense paradigm. If the 1ac bioterror impact card is Ochs and the neg reads 3 cards that there is no motive and the 2ac says “extend Ochs, bioterror causes extinction”, they do not have an advantage. If the 1nc reads some cards on misallocation/cronyism/etc dooming federal projects and the 2ac extends that their tech is feasible there is zero risk of solvency when this is impacted properly. While impact defense is good, internal link/solvency presses are even better.

Cross-X is underrated. It is binding and it’s a speech. I like aggressive cross-xers and I doubt I’ll think you’re mean unless you cuss them out or something. The only caveat to this rule is if you are conclusively winning/debating novices who should not be in varsity you should be as nice as possible.

I don’t call for many cards so if their link ev is terrible you need to say that

I’ll yell clear three times, then I stop flowing you and do my own work.

How to get better speaker points in front of me:
-I like to reward hard working debaters and case specific neg strats/hyper-specific link turns showcase this to me a lot more than XO/Ptx
-Be clear
-Be smart
-Compare evidence
-A little snarkiness never hurt (and is encouraged) but don’t be mean
-Exploit their contradictions! If they read neolib and a trade da concede the trade impact and you only need half as many neolib answers!

If you can tell whose wiki I stole +speaks.

I'm a former debater who currently attends Cal. In high school, I quartered at Parli TOC and won state in Parli in Oregon. 

What to expect if you get me as a judge:

I'm okay with a reasonable amount of delivery speed, but not too much.

I appreciate well thought out policy arguments and when people directly address each others' arguments and responses.

I am not the best judge for K rounds, especially K rounds with a lot of delivery speed.

I will work to minimize my personal biases meaning I will aim to fairly evaluate arguments even if I personally disagree with them.

TL;DR: I strongly prefer advantage/disadvantage/counterplan debates. I like theory, just run it well. I don't have a lot of experience with K debate and I don't enjoy it. I default to net bens whenever possible and will vote for most arguments if they're not offensive.

Experience: high school parli, NPDA at SRJC and UNR, NFA-LD at SRJC

General:

I vote on the flow and default to net benefits. I'll call clear and slow but if you don't listen and adapt, that's your issue. Please number and tag your arguments and generally provide structure to your speech and the debate. Temember proper structure of advantages/disadvantages (uniqueness/harms, links, internal links, impacts) as well as procedurals (interpretation, violation, standards, voters).

Preferences: 

I really like advantage/disadvantage/counterplan debate! I prefer probability and timeframe over magnitude, but run whatever you can justify. 

I'm down to listen to any theory debate you want to have so long as it's coherent and justifiable.

On the K: I don't have much direct experience with K debate so don't go your top spead and speak like we're both deep in the lit! I'll vote for whatever I feel wins the round, but I don't enjoy the K because most rounds where I've picked one up in high school, it's been because the losing team was so confused, not because the argument was run well. If you insist on it in front of me, 1) listen to me when I call clear or slow and don't assume your opponent or I know your lit, 2) provide detailed links! 3) provide alt solvency that isn't total bs!! (because it almost always is) 4) have a reasonable framework, tell me what your opponent must do under that framework to win the ballot, and don't drop your framework if it's at all contested. If you're refuting the position then keep the above in mind too.

DEFEND THE RES ON AFF. If you don't defend the res as aff, you need to make it REALLY clear to me how your opponents have equal ground under your framework. If you have a truly legitimate problem with the resolution, then consult with your opponents in prep and choose a new one or something (? consult with the tournament. I'm not responsible for you taking that advice).

If your in-round conduct is offensive, expect your speaker points to reflect that. If you're conduct is horrendous enough I'll drop you, but I haven't had that happen before. If your opponents are offensive, make that a major voting issue. 

In general, I encourage you to make the round entertaining and have fun.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or a specific round, please ask me questions anytime. If you can't find me, facebook me.