jorman.antigua@gmail.com

school affiliation: acorn community high school (Brooklyn NY), NYUDL (new york urban debate league), stuyversant high school (New york, NY)
years debating: 4 years of high school, starting college debate

in a debate round i have done everything from cp and politics to performance

my first highschool topic was aid to south Africa, last one was reduce military (if that matters)

I will vote on whatever arguments win, this means I may vote on anything, it could come down to Counterplan-Disad, Procedurals, Kritiks, Affs with no plan text, to even performance. tell me what your argument is and what the ballot signifies (if it has a meaning)...i.e. policy maker etc...(...)

speaker points: be persuasive and make it interesting thin line between funny and ass hole at times may it be in cross-x or your speech you decide *background music* ...analysis/argumentation (don't lie about reading a hole card if u didn't,don't just read cards and tag~line extend ~_~ ) i will call for evidence if needed and i will hit you wit the world famous "cum on son" lol

specifics...

impact your arguments (duhh)

Topicality: i like a good t debate, their fun and at times educational, make sure you impact it, and give a correct abuse story...

counter plans: have a good net benefit prove how they solve the case

dis ads: you can run them i vote for anything and am familiar with most scenarios

k: i was a k db8er for the better half of my db8 career so i'm pretty familiar with most k~lit u will read unless its like some deep
nietzsche, zizek, lacan type ish but i get it...and if you explain it give a good story and show alternative solvency i will vote for it...it is also fine if you kick the alt and go for it as a case turn just debate it out...

preformance: i did this too...explain what the round comes down to...i.e. role of the judge/ballot/db8ers...and if their is a form of spill over what this is and means in real world and debate world... block framework lol...and show me why your/this performance is key...may it be a movement or just you expressing your self...i like methodology db8s so if it comes down to the aff and neg being both performance teams be clear on the framework for the round and how your methodology is better and how the other may recreate these forms of oppression you may be speaking about...may it be the deletion of identity or whiteness etc...same things apply if your running a counter~advocacy against a performance team...(*whispers* solvency)...k vs performance rounds same as methodology prove the link and as for the alt prove the solvency... framework vs performance rounds i had a lot of these, boring but fun to see the way they play out depending on interp, vio, impacts and stuff...

framework: any kind is fine...same justification as Topicality...depending on how your spinning framework within a round... *yells* education =)

theory: sure

short & sweet

#swag...have fun...do you...debate =)

LD Paradigm

Ill keep this short:

This is my 13th year involved in LD. I qualled to the TOC, and have coached for the last 8 years as a private coach, assistant at a big program, head of LD at a program, and now run FlexDebate.

I believe that debate is a game and you should play it however you want. Im fine with really any argument so long as it is obviously not racist/sexist/homophobic etc. I have usually found that it is better for debaters to read what they are most comfortable with in front of me.

Slow down on tags and standards texts plz.

EDIT: Tricks debate is super boring and non innovating these days, so I am usually less impressed by those debates and will sometimes point lower as a result.

If you have anymore questions feel free to email me at sam@flexdebate.com

PF Paradigm:

Got involved more seriously in PF these last few years-- currently coach Princeton along with a few other teams and am the Director of PF at NSD. I am a flow judge. Make sure to extend offense in the summary. The second rebuttal does not necessarily have to frontline, but obviously often times it is strategic to do so. I also do not think that the first summary necessarily has to make defense, but again, might be strategic in some instances to do so. Finally, please make sure to weigh in later speeches, otherwise it makes it tough for me. Overall, have fun and learn something while you are at it!

Updated Feb 2019

I debated LD for Walt Whitman High School for four years on the local and national circuits and qualified to TOC my junior and senior years. I’m now a senior on the Harvard team.

My goal is to write RFDs based entirely on comparison made by the debaters in the round, so the easiest way to get my ballot is to give me direct comparisons and weighing. I'll say clear/slow as many times as necessary. Plan to slow down for any short analytics, interpretations, or arguments that must be flowed verbatim so they're clear to everyone the first time around.

Feel free to ask me before the round if you have specific questions.

Misc:

- Because the Harvard tournament has a difficult 4-2 break, I will push in-round speaks in a direction that indicates whether I think you should make the break based on the quality of that round.

- If the content of your position is something graphic or reasonably foreseeable as potentially distressing, please be a good person and check whether all the other people in the room are okay hearing it.

- Be polite to people with different debate backgrounds than your own. Dominance and snark are great; you should be able to tell the difference between these and bullying. If you're uncomfortable with how your opponent is treating you, please say something about it. If you're asked by an opponent to be more respectful and don't make any effort, I'll be very unhappy.

- I have a very low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments -- for instance, if substance is conceded, pointing that out is sufficient for me to vote on it.

- Evaluating theory is most straightforward to me under competing interps. I'm happy to use anything else you justify, but you should be clear about what you want me to do with it.

- I will be sad if you use CX for a series of clarification questions, and annoyed if you use it for prep. I'm entertained by clever tricks I haven't seen before.

- Debate is a game—you should make arguments you enjoy and feel good about. If that's not working out, think about reaching out to someone to check in.

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

1. I rarely read evidence after debates.
2. Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
3. Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
4. Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

1. I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
2. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
3. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

Harvard '18; Harrison '14

I debated for Harrison on the national circuit. I used to coach and judge pretty frequently, but have become pretty inactive since 2016.

I have a high threshold for clarity, and I will drop you if I have to keep calling clear--I will not let you just re-explain things in later speeches. Be careful with new literature and debate strategies--I am happy and interested to hear them, but I am likely unfamiliar with them and will be hearing them for the first time when you read them. That means you need to be slower, not just what you think is clear.

I care much less about the types of arguments you run and much more about the way you run them--be clear, crystallize well, and clash with your opponent. I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact, so long as it is not morally repugnant. That being said, I will be much happier with and give higher speaks to debaters who debate the topic and/or show creative, independent thinking. Perceptual dominance, making an attempt at being persuasive, and being kind and respectful will also be good for your speaks.

Ask me about any other specifics before the round.

**Policy Philosophy**

Small update 12/7/2016

I officially hate T debates on this year's topic, specifically the QPQ/Not QPQ debate. Go for T at your own risk.

The rest Updated 10/28/2015

About me: I’ve been coaching policy since 2008. I was at Omaha-Westside 2008-2012, and Millard North 2012-Present.

The short version: I’ll evaluate the debate the way the debaters tell me to. I don’t think debate should be any one thing. The beauty of policy is that it’s constantly changing to suit the will of the debaters. I care significantly more about the educational outcomes of debate than pure gamesmanship. If you’re debating in a style that you’re passionate about (policy-making included), I’m a good judge for you so long as you can justify what you’re doing. Some of my teams run straight-up policy arguments, others don’t read plans.

The argument biases below aren’t set in stone. I try my best to evaluate the debate according to the arguments made in the round, not my predispositions.

Speed: I can flow whatever speed you toss at me as long as you’re clear. That being said, I’d prefer if you slowed down about 15% so that I have a little more time to process what you’re saying. Frankly, I enjoy debates more that are a little slower—but debates are about the debaters, so don’t pay too much attention to that.

If I can’t understand what you’re saying I’ll tell you to be clear once or twice. After that you're on your own.

Topicality: I'm probably not  the best judge for T if the aff is about a core controversy of the topic. 

I've generally voted neg on topicality in debates where the negative has provided a clear, limiting interpretation of the topic. The aff was in good shape when they gave warrants behind breadth over depth and/or talked about the quality of the ground the differing limits provide (limits should be about the quantity and quality of cases). I default to reasonability if neither side says a word about it, but I defer to the flow and usually end up deciding based on competing interpretations.

Theory: It’s your burden to prove rejecting the argument doesn’t solve your objections. You'll have a tough time convincing me to vote on dropped cheap shots. Limited conditionality, topical CPs, and functional PICs are probably good. Counterplans that include the possibility of doing the entire plan are probably bad.

Kritiks: Do your thing. I’m pretty well informed on most arguments, but you can’t be sure I know your personal favorite. Specificity makes for better debating.

DAs/CPs: Sure, go for it. I’m getting less thrilled by politics debates as time goes on, but I’ll evaluate it fairly. Case-specific PIC/DA combos are probably my favorite strategies.

Framework: Mike Baxter-Kauf says it best: "There are really 2 different arguments that people lump under the tag “framework.” One is a question of how we should think in response to a given question: these are defenses of pragmatism, realism, empiricism, etc. These are legitimate questions which are a focus of any intelligent response to a criticism. The other is “they ran an argument with big words so we should get to not answer it and still win.” I hate this argument ,like whoa, do I hate this argument. Don’t get me wrong, I vote for it, but I hate doing it and the the threshold for rejecting it is pretty low. You are way better off answering the thesis of the argument and defending your approach to whatever the question is (YOUR epistemology, YOUR ontology, etc.)"

No Plan/Alternative Styles: I'm friendly to this when it's not used as a method of avoiding clash. If you’re passionate about what you’re doing, I want to watch you debate. If you try to be shifty and 'no link' out of positions that clearly link to your advocacy, don't be surprised when I give the other team more credibility on their framework arguments. It will also probably hurt your speaker points. That being said, I am increasingly wary of how intellectually limiting traditional interpretations of the resolution are. If you're germane to the topic and present a debatable advocacy, I'm interested in what you have to say.

Other stuff:

When I read evidence after the round, it's generally to get more context for the arguments made in the debate. I won’t give you credit for warrants that weren’t explained in-round.

I definitely value 'spin' over evidence.

I won’t judge-kick a counterplan and evaluate the status quo unless you explicitly make that an argument in the round.

Clipping cards is a serious offense. Get caught and you’ll lose the round with zero speaks.

I debated for four years on the national circuit in LD and then coached Lake Highland and several independent debaters from 2013-2017. I now judge sporadically.

Feel free to call me Terrence. If you have any questions, contact me at tlonam@gmail.com.

I think I'm in line with most general judge preferences, except that I won't vote on disclosure theory or evaluate disclosure as offense back to a counter-interp (i.e. having disclosed something won't be offense for your counter-interp). Also, I think I have a reasonably high threshold for extensions.

My default interpretation of the resolution is that it is a truth statement, and so any way that the aff or neg chooses to prove that truth or falsity is fair game. If you want me to evaluate the resolution a different way, that's fine too, this is just my default. I think I'm pretty center of the road argument-wise (i.e. if you want to read a pre-fiat performance aff, that sounds good, and if you want to go hard on tricks or phil, that's fine too). I think that debaters do their best when they do what they want to. Don't read a complicated philosophical AC in front of me if that's not what you want to do, I would much rather see you do a great job on util or the K if that's your thing.

Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)

Email for email chains:

melindocs@gmail.com

If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.

-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.


I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.

In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.

That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.

Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.

l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.

I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.

One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.

I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.

I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.

Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.

Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.

I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.

Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.

Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.

You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.

Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.

Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.

Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.

Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.

Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.

Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.

Hey, I'm Chris, and I debated for Newark Science for four years in LD and Policy. To start, I'd like to say that although I was known as a particular kind of debater, I encourage you to do what you can do the best, whether that be Kant, theory, performance, etc.

As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.

I've come to realize I am probably one of the worst flowers in the activity. This doesn't mean I won't hold you to answering arguments but it does mean that I am far less likely to get a 5 point response than the next person. Take that as you will.

I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"

On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."

I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.

These are just some of my thoughts. If I'm judging you at camp, do whatever, don't worry about the ballot. As I judge more I'll probably add to this paradigm. If you have any specific questions email me at cfquiroz@gmail.com

UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant

Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.

Updated 1/10 for Churchill Classic: I will boost speaks by .3 if you draw me a picture (you must present this at the start of the round). Control F to view noteworthy updates to my paradigm.

Disclaimer: I don't care where you sit, if you sit, whether you wear a jacket, whether you're going to use flex prep- just do it.

IMPORTANT UPDATE 1/11: If you are confident that you have won my ballot in your final speech then just stop there. Do not talk just to fill up the allotted time. I will reward you for your concise and strategic approach with higher speaks.

SPECIAL CHALLENGE-GUARANTEE 30 POINTS: If you win and end your final speech within half of your given time (IE 1:30 minutes for the 2ar and 3 minutes for the 2nr) I will give you an instant 30 speaks.

TL;DR: I'm not a great theory/t judge and have very specific expectations for these arguments (see below), I think DAs should be as reasonable/realistic as possible, but that extinction is usually a no-risk freebie that you should take advantage of (so do both), I really love ks- cap, discourse, ableism, decol, etc, but I'm not going to know your pomo stuff like the back of my hand so please take it easy on me (basically anything that is v philosophical and uses words that I won't know unless I just read the book) so I'll need explanation aside from the repetition of buzzwords (you can ask me before round about my knowledge of your specific authors so you'll know what degree to explain things). Speed should be fine. Ask for triggers before the round starts. Don't be #TheWorst.

Foreword: I feel like knowing who I am as a person is very important to understand how I judge and why I do some of the things that I do, so we're gonna have a little crash course. A v important thing to know about me is that I have aspergers. Debate wise, that means I take ableism really seriously and will always love to hear a good ableism discussion. In terms of how that affects other things, it means that sometimes eye contact is really uncomfortable for me, so I may not look at you during an RFD or during speeches. Sometimes the acoustics of a room will really bother me, which may affect how well I will understand you if you are quick or very loud. It also means that it takes me a little while longer to give you a very articulate RFD. With very close rounds, I often make a list of 'round facts', things which have definitively been lost or conceded, and then connect the dots to determine how these facts interact and what that means for the round- you will probably hear me scribbling furiously when this happens.

ALSO please read my paradigm carefully, I have some probably unpopular opinions about some arguments people make and I really do not want to have to explain that the reason you lost is because you went for something I have already articulated I do not understand or find acceptable.

when i say ask for triggers/give a content warning i am being super serious

UPDATE: Topic specific stuff: authoritarian something

-PLS GIVE ME AN AFF ABOUT THE US BEING AUTHORITARIAN AND SHUTTING DOWN THE MILITARY

-maybe don't use yemen as the neg probably

-I love seeing interesting takes on a resolution, so if you've got some wacky, not strictly topical (or completely nonT) aff, hit me with it.

-ur nebel t will make me hate my life but explain it and I'll give it to you

General Paradigm: Speed- Fine with it. I will repeatedly yell clear if I can’t understand you. I may ask you to flash me what you're reading just to be on the safe side/assume I want in on email chains. It’s msteve884@gmail.com. ***If I don't flow it, I'm not going to supplement your argument through the speech doc- be clear, I don't do work for y'all.

Update: Theory is slowly growing on me, but I’m very particular about shells (thanks @jason yang) Your theory checklist in front of me:

1. 1. Specific interps- I don’t mean, restate the resolution and the month and the tournament in your generic plans bad interp; I want theory that engages specific abuse and articulates the abuse story well.

2. 2. No one needs more than three standards. Honestly two is what makes the most sense to me, since they all get repetitive and cease to be unique or meaningful, but hey.

3. 3. If you’re devoting time to theory, I want well warranted standards and voters. Why does your standard matter? How have they violated it and how much? What is the effect on the ballot from that violation? Spell it out!

4. 4. If theory is a quick off, condense it- don’t read a whole slew of standards and voters- especially since everyone has education/fairness impacts memorized- I don’t need a card for fairness or education or to articulate why limits matter. And I don’t need 6 things to flow and have you waste speech time on.

5. 5. Again, cards in shells= overrated, don’t read to me telling me you’re missing out on spending time with your wife and kids.

6. 6. If your tricks are so well hidden that I don’t catch them, that’s just unlucky for you.

Biggest takeaway is that I hate generic interps because they produce boring rounds, I want good interaction between standards, and I need to be able to flow what you’re saying- that means rapid fire blips aren’t cool. I default reasonability, convince me otherwise if you want.

Topicality- I am very susceptible to arguments of why ks come before t. I think t can be really interesting (like, what IS a medical procedure?? we just don't know!!), but y'alls obsession with grammar is painful, so I'll be less eager to hear "this colon has x implication". Most of the time, t will not be the place where I sign my ballot.

Ks- yes pls. I understand stuff like cap and ableism, not so much DnG and whatever you kids are doing these days (if you're going to read Heidegger or other authors whose work I would have to have read several times pre-round in order to understand, you're going to need to do more work explaining that to me than you would "x is ableist and ableism is bad")
As a sidenote, I don’t really think discourse k’s need much of an alt aside from reject.
UPDATE: I love K’s but I also get really burnt out with them; if you read a role of the ballot in front of me, you better be prepared to explain what it means in the debate community or world at large, and how you can perform it- if it doesn’t come up in round, I’ll likely ask after I’ve made my decision because IT’S IMPORTANT. Y’all can’t hide behind Giroux forever and pat yourselves on the back for being intellectuals and revolutionaries. This ESPECIALLY goes for pre-fiat conversations about the debate community; I don’t want to hear that things need to get better, I want to know how you’re setting forth to MAKE them better.

UPDATE: policy args- I think CPs are hella fun and I really like rounds which include them. I think DAs are usually pretty bad unless you're going to articulate them through an oppression lens rather than some outrageous extinction scenario. *I’ve been won over to terminal impacts, but I’d still prefer that you include systemic ones as well rather than relying solely on extinction/low probability outcomes. @Willie Johnson convinced me that it’s always good to have extinction on the table as a fallback so go wild.

speaks- please don't call me judge, please don't shake my hand, don't call me by my first name

My speaks range:

<27: You said something that annoyed me, were rude, misrepresented an argument (without being called out), etc

27-27.5: I didn't find your performance very compelling, there was too little clash or weighing, etc

27.5-28.5: This was an average round. There's a lot of room to grow, but I believe you could have done really well with just a few changes to strat or performance.

28.5-29.5: Good decisions were made, I am generally pleased with this round: you were very funny, or strategic, or persuasive.

29.5-30: I will enthusiastically tell someone about this round. I think you should be in late outrounds and I will tell my kids to read your cases and give rebuttal redos of this round.

philosophy heavy rounds- Probably the only philosopher I ever got really acquainted with was Rawls, if your case is 4 minutes of deontology or ethics of care or something, I'm most likely not a great judge for you because where things don't make sense I will try to fill in gaps on my own and def misconstrue the argument.
PLEASE WEIGH BETWEEN LAYERS. ALSO JUST WEIGH IN GENERAL.

General stuff: Things I hate to listen to
UPDATE: *For personal reasons, I’m leery of pessimism arguments. Usually I only see this for queer pess, but I just don’t want to anymore. I especially don’t want to see any suicide alts- you will get zero speaks.

- Ableism is a huge nono for me. Even if you don’t think it’s a big deal, your opponent might, and I definitely will. So, calling something “dumb” “crazy” “lame” “stupid” etc will definitely hurt your speaks (less so if your opponent doesn’t say anything about it, moreso if they call you). A good standard: If you’re using a word which describes disability or impairment to ridicule something, don’t. Another tip: If something can be used as a synonym for the word ret*rded, don’t say it. (Instead of calling something stupid or whatever, say it ‘doesn’t make sense’ or ‘isn’t valid’ or is ‘ridiculous’, etc etc. Go to autistichoya.com for more alternatives if you want) (Also "stupid" absolutely is ableist, I don't care if you see in the dictionary that it means "in a stupor", in the same way that the f slur is also defined as burning sticks or cigarettes, the word "stupid" has multiple definitions and you are 99% definitely not using it to describe someone "in a stupor", so don't pull this)

-Same goes for racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, etc. NEVER dismiss any oppression because of util calc or any other factor (this is not to say “don’t run util”, this is to say “don’t make me relive the time someone told me gay people don’t matter because there are more str8s”). Stop co opting one form of oppression by saying ‘oh, racism isn’t really the problem!!! We gotta solve cap first lmao!!!’ I reserve the right to be offended by your discourse and/or proposal, and though it won’t probably be a voting issue unless your opponent makes it one (unless you just bite the bullet and go rape good!!!! Racism good!!!! Those, and things in that vein, are auto drops for me), my displeasure will show in speaks (even if I’m the only one who noticed/cared).

-Arguments that are like “I hate debate because it’s boring so instead of discussing this topic which might be super important to other people in this round, lets do x (like tell jokes all round)!” If you think debate is boring, don’t do it. If you want to tell jokes, do it out of round or be a friggin standup, I don’t care. This is distinct from critiquing the debate space for exclusion, those arguments have purpose aside from being a super edgy le troll lololol w0w!!! If you want to run stuff in front of me that says ‘this norm is bad let’s do y instead’, more power to you. If you want to goof off and make light of something that is important, save it for someone else. I will not vote you up for being bored and ridiculous.

*UPDATE: DISCLOSURE- for the love of lorde will yall prepped big schools who are prepped TF out stop reading disclosure against kids who literally don't know the wiki exists/don't have the access and experience w circuit norms you do?? I'm all for disclosure and I think it's a good norm but stop penalizing kids for not being able to be as engaged as you!**


I like positions that make me think, things that indict systems of power and privilege, things that make me interrogate my assumptions. I like rounds that have respectful interactions (IE you don’t tell your opponents that they “don’t understand English” or anything like that) while still being fast paced and fun. I’m a simple judge of simple means, if anything is unclear or seems unfair, talk to me before round and I’ll consider an exception (if you have a rEALLY good PAS aff, for instance, that is absolutely not ableist then argue with me to run it, I like seeing those advocacy skills put to good use)

Most important datum: As of Minneapple 2018 (for which I'm writing this paradigm), I haven't seen a debate round or thought about debate since TOC 2017. I was never particularly great at understanding or flowing fast debates, and I can only imagine I've gotten significantly worse in the last 18 months. Also, whatever new fads or jargon have emerged in that time, I'm completely unaware of them.

Background: I debated LD for two years in high school (2003-5) and coached for about 12 years after graduating, mainly for schools in the Midwest. I'm now an academic, with a background in analytic philosophy.

"Paradigm proper": My default view of debate (which I'm open to revising in round on the basis of argument) is as follows: (1) As the judge, I adopt a "neutral prior" for purposes of the round -- an assignment of probabilities to the various propositions that might play a role in the debate that assigns the resolution a 50% probability of being true and assigns probabilities to other contentious propositions that reflect a neutral/conservative (conservative = erring in the direction of 50/50) balance of reasonable opinion. (2) I update those beliefs based on the arguments and evidence presented in round. (3) If, after those updates, the resolution is more likely true than false, then I affirm. If it's more likely false than true, then I negate.

Presentation/delivery preferences: In principle, I have no problem with speed. But, like I said above, I've never been especially good at understanding or flowing it, and I'll try to be very strict about not voting on any argument that I didn't flow the first time around. If you're clear, but I'm just failing to flow you because you're fast and I'm old, I'll yell "slow." If you're sufficiently unclear, I'll yell "clear," but after I've yelled "clear" once, I don't promise that I'll yell it again any time you're unclear. It's on you to adjust, significantly and permanently, to become clear. If you're unclear enough that individual words are getting lost, I won't do very much interpolating for you.

Argumentation preferences: I'm open to anything, but (a) I'll only vote on an argument if I understand it, and I think I have a higher standard for what it means to "understand" an argument than a lot of judges -- specifically, I should be able to identify premises and conclusion in what you said (without interpolation) such that the premises reasonably and significantly support the conclusion; and (b) I'll weight arguments, to some extent, by the prior plausibility of the premises. (If an argument depends on an apparently implausible premise, then that premise ought to be supported by an argument of its own.)

In more nuts-and-bolts terms: (1) I tend to think that most "critical" arguments are just a mix of banalities and absurdities dressed up in obfuscating and poorly defined jargon, though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise in any particular instance. (2) I don't particularly like theory debates, and I have a pretty high threshold for abuse claims. (3) I'm very skeptical of very long, very specific causal link chains. (4) I'm somewhat skeptical of normative frameworks that don't care at all about consequences.

The best way to get my ballot is a deeply justified and prima facie plausible normative framework coupled with contention arguments that, where they rely on empirical claims, are justified by high-quality empirical evidence that you know backwards and forwards, and where they rely on predictive/causal claims, are robust in the sense that they don't depend on a lot of very specific and jointly improbable assumptions.

Updated 12/24/13 

Conflicts: Harvard-Westlake (CA), PV Peninsula (CA). 

General:

• I strongly prefer positional debating. Ideally, have a thesis, avoid defensive arguments and spikes in constructive speeches, connect arguments back to the thesis, and be reasonable.
• I don't prefer any particular criterion/burden structure, but I'd rather the neg be something other than “not the aff.”
• I am generally opposed to voting on defense.

Speed/Clarity:

• I likely have a higher threshold for clarity than most judges.
• I'll yell clear, slower, etc.
• I will not give you leeway on arguments I didn't flow just because you have lots of bids.
• I don't think I'm a worse flower than the average judge, but I do think the average judge overestimates his or her flowing ability.
• Seriously if you don't pause after author names or if you ignore me when I tell you to slow down/be clearer you are not getting above a 28.5 even if your speeches are otherwise perfect.

Theory:

Theory defaults:

• Competing interps
• Reject the argument

Topicality defaults:

• Competing interps
• Reject the debater
• Comes prior to other theory

Other:

• I dislike frivolous theory. There's obviously no brightline for this, but trying to bait a theory debate or run theory against a reasonable, stock aff will hurt your speaks.
• Fairness and education are reasons to at least drop the argument.
• Winning "fairness is a larger impact than education," just like winning "terrorism is worse than civil war," doesn't mean I will ignore one of the impacts. It depends on the strength of link.
• I don't think the neg has to answer aff spikes until they are applied. Same goes for theory arguments in the AC without a violation.

Framework:

• I strongly prefer frameworks that facilitate a discussion about the topic. This doesn't mean I prefer a "policy" style framework, it just means you should try to engage the topic literature how actual academics (philosophers, researchers) would.
• I dislike attempts to avoid framework debate (such as triggers and AEC/AFC).

Ks:

• Same treatment as any other argument.
• I am skeptical of pre-fiat positions, especially micro-politics, but saying things like "the judge can't vote on this because the judge has to vote on the topic, it's jurisdictional etc etc" is unpersuasive. You need to give a counter-advocacy or different way of evaluating the round.
• I am sympathetic to the idea that it's unreasonable to force someone to debate an issue on which they would normally agree with you.
• Please don't complicate your arguments/rhetoric on purpose.

Speaks:

I will not disclose speaks.

Higher speaks for debating positionally, being clear and pleasant to listen to, engaging arguments, being open/honest with your opponent, disclosing cases online, making the round an educational experience for younger debaters, etc. Lower speaks for being evasive, unclear, rude, crushing a novice, doing things that make me mad, etc.


Past speaks: 

Average: 27.8
Low: 26.8 
High: 29.3 


Tournaments included: Blake 

Miscellaneous:

• I will not vote on any argument that the debater defending it agrees justifies or does not condemn awful things like genocide, rape, racism, etc.
• I will be very annoyed if you use dirty tricks. Don’t make your cases unreadable. Don’t mislabel arguments on purpose. Don’t steal time.

I have 7 years of both debate and judging experience combined, ill go into deeper detail before an actual debate round (feeling lazy)

I consider myself to be an all around judge, in the sense that my sole purpose in the debate round is to evaluate it and vote on who made the most convincing argument. 

I did not do debate in high school or college.

I have coached speech and debate for 20 years. I focus on speech events, PF, and WSD. I rarely judge LD (some years I have gone the entire year without judging LD), so if I am your judge in LD, please go slowly. I will attempt to evaluate every argument you provide in the round, but your ability to clearly explain the argument dictates whether or not it will actually impact my decision/be the argument that I vote off of in the round. When it comes to theory or other progressive arguments (basically arguments that may not directly link to the resolution) please do not assume that I understand completely how these arguments function in the round. You will need to explain to me why and how you are winning and why these arguments are important. When it comes to explanation, do not take anything for granted. Additionally, if you are speaking too quickly, I will simply put my pen down and say "clear."

In terms of PF, although I am not a fan of labels for judges ("tech," "lay," "flay") I would probably best be described as traditional. I really like it when debaters discuss the resolution and issues related to the resolution, rather than getting "lost in the sauce." What I mean by "lost in the sauce" is that sometimes debaters take on very complex ideas/arguments in PF and the time limits for that event make it very difficult for debaters to fully explain these complex ideas.

Argument selection is a skill. Based on the time restrictions in PF debate, you should focus on the most important arguments in the summary and final focus speeches. I believe that PF rounds function like a funnel. You should only be discussing a few arguments at the end of the round. If you are discussing a lot of arguments, you are probably speaking really quickly, and you are also probably sacrificing thoroughness of explanation. Go slowly and explain completely, please.

In cross, please be nice. Don't talk over one another. I will dock your speaks if you are rude or condescending. Also, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross. I will dock your speaks if one of the speakers does not participate.

For Worlds, I prefer a very organized approach and I believe that teams should be working together and that the speeches should compliment one another. When each student gives a completely unique speech that doesn’t acknowledge previous arguments, I often get confused as to what is most important in the round. I believe that argument selection is very important and that teams should be strategizing to determine which arguments are most important. Please keep your POIs clear and concise.

If you have any questions, please let me know after I provide my RFD. I am here to help you learn.

Pronouns: he/him