Experience: 

Policy Coach @ Ralston High School

3 years policy debate @ Millard West High School (2007-2010)

State Champion in Policy Debate (2010)

Nebraska North District Champion in Policy Debate (2010)

 

General: Debate the arguments that you enjoy and debate them well. Speed & tag-team cross-ex are fine.

 

Argument Preferences:

Affirmative: Engage with the topic. This doesn't necessarily mean you need to be "topical."

Disads: Run good internal links and be able to explain them.

Kritiks: Don't link to your own discourse links, I'm willing to vote you down on perf-con. Author experience with Heidegger, Foucault, Baudrillard, Camus. Links of omission are rarely good. 

T/FW: High threshold for developing procedural arguments. I really like them, and happy to vote on them, but both teams need to put in the time to address the nuances of the argument. Won't vote on undeveloped Role-of-the-ballot arguments.

 

I debated policy at Omaha Westside from 2009-2012. This is my 5th year coaching at Millard North.

Policy Paradigm

My national circuit experience is largely with critical debate. I'm more familiar with the identity side of things than postmodern, but I've gotten to a point where I feel comfortable understanding the majority of explanations of high theory arguments, even if a detail is lost here or there.

I think debates should emphasize debating and clash. Therefore, I am not a good judge for clash avoidant strategies and mental gymnastic competitions that proliferate underdeveloped arguments.

I prefer a combination of evidence and analysis over evidence dumps. Application of arguments, direct responses and comparative analysis should start before the final speech in front of me.

RoBs are often arbitrary and self-serving. I like them when they function as a point of clash that is essentially impact comparison between competing political approaches, ideologies, methods, etc. I don't like them when people think they win because the other team "dropped" the RoB because they didn't have a competing text despite the other team being ahead on the substance of the debate (links, impacts, solvency, whatever). If that's the case I'll probably vote for the team winning the substance.

I do not vote on cheap shots. Arguments are at least a claim and a warrant.


Disads, CPs, Ks, T – Default to offense/defense within reason. Complete defense is possible but highly unlikely. Turns case arguments get away with too much because silly internal links and magic alternatives aren’t challenged.

I’ve been less active this year so I’m not familiar with the truth(ier) side of topic disads and affs. Spin supported by evidence will go far. This will be the most disorienting on T because case lists will just be random case names to me, so emphasizing the quality of cases and debates for x and y reason will be especially important.


Framework – 

Part A – General Thoughts

I have a slight aff side bias in the relatively few framework debates I’ve judged, but I think that has more to do with the average framework debater being conceptually behind the average k aff debater in framework debates than anything else. 

That being said, I think the neg block on framework is the most commonly mediocre block in debate. They’re overly scripted, non-responsive, full of blippy jargony arguments that aren’t contextualized to the aff, and the 2NCs and 2NRs are almost identical to the speeches given in other debates against wildly different critical affs. It’s about as bad as when less experienced teams are learning to run 1 off Ks and read essays worth of blocks while doing no contextualized analysis. 

I understand that framework is run to mitigate the neg prep pressure against the ballooning number of critical affs, but I think having somewhat specific case defense and adapting the block and 2NR direction according to the critical aff being faced is necessary. There's a lot of easily available quality evidence that is being underutilized.

I like critical affs, but framework can be necessary depending on team size, experience level and coaching expertise. The presence of framework also pressures critical affs to remain honest so they actually defend something worth debating. I think it’s a good argument when run well.

Part B – When I'm Judging

I think there are two main ways for the neg to collapse down when running framework. There’s the “policy-oriented debates produce skills necessary to anti-oppression politics, their form of debate does the opposite” 2NRs and the “debate is a game, limits explosion tanks predictability and denies core negative ground, competitive equity outweighs” 2NRs.

I think the former is more persuasive against affs that are heavily against state engagement, which makes a viable t version of the aff unlikely. Anti-state engagement affs also have access to sweeping impact turns that I think require mitigation outside of t version of the aff and ssd because they undermine competitive equity framing, which makes case defense and policy skills turns case arguments useful in the 2NR. 

I think the latter is better vs. more soft-left affs that aren’t particularly anti-state but instead advocate a consciousness shift or some jargony jazz as a prerequisite to effective state action. It’s too easy for those affs to win they don’t suspend state engagement and only make engagement better through reckoning with x messed up thing, which opens up more persuasive t version of the aff claims and reasons why ssd leaves enough space in the neg’s model of debate to heavily mitigate aff offense.

For me, figuring out in cross-x of the 1AC how the aff relates to the state is vital, as many 1ACs can be read either way.

Neg blocks should not drop the 2AC overview that lists disads and uses case to turn framework. This is equivalent to dropping the block’s disad turns case overview. Debaters can win without answering it but why would they put themselves in that position?

I think the neg would benefit from explaining the t version of the aff similar to a counterplan, explaining how it solves individual parts of the aff or overlaps with the area of scholarship and then using offense elsewhere on framework to outweigh the specific “solvency deficits.” 

LD Paradigm

I have little experience with national circuit LD. I’ve mostly judged locally. My national circuit experience in policy is mostly on the critical side, but I am more than comfortable with a good disad, cp case debate. 

I can recognize some LD jargon but I don’t know what they actually mean. I don’t know what skep-triggers are or the permissibility vs presumption debate, and so on. I’m also not familiar with a lot of the moral theory. That being said, I can flow, follow and evaluate coherent arguments. This means there will be a higher threshold to effective explanation because I won’t be able to fill in the blanks or conceptually complete arguments for debaters because I don’t know what the best version of the arguments they’re making are.

I default to offense/defense within reason.

I’ve noticed I have a slight neg side bias when judging LD. I think this is mostly due to 1ARs having trouble and/or 2ARs collapsing to new arguments or unjustifiably new spins on previous arguments. 1ARs seem inefficient on case, especially when dealing with low quality arguments.

Generally speaking, remember that overadapting is not a good idea. You do you and I'll try my best to keep up.

Speed - Yes. Slow down when reading a flurry of analytics and don’t sacrifice clarity.

Theory – I'm accustomed to theory being read to discourage shadiness that would prevent effective debate, not as a mental gymnastics competition to avoid clash and substance.

1AR and 2NR restarts sound as vacuous as paragraph theory. 

If evaluating a theory debate I’ll first look to whether fairness or education was determined as more important (or determine who won that debate is there was disagreement) then isolate each team’s links to it. Not all forms of education and fairness are created equal. Weigh critical vs policy education, topic specific education, cost-benefit analysis, structural in round fairness vs fairness in respect to oppression, etc. Some people would categorize those as just links to education or fairness. Regardless, invest time in them. Comparative analysis is everything. 

Critical – Cool. Lack of an effective explanation of the method is the most common mistake.

**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.

Background: 

- I'm currently in law school, I've judged zero rounds on this year's topic, and have done no research on this year's topic.

- NDT/CEDA debater for 5 years at the University of Wyoming (go pokes!).

- National Circuit debater for 3 years in High School.

 

I spent my first three years at Wyoming as a 2A/1N, and my last two years as a 2N/1A. I was a flexible debater. I prefer good, strategic arguments, which can come in any form.

 

Affirmatives: 

I prefer you have a relationship to the topic. I prefer plan texts or advocacy statements. If neither is present, I'd like an explanation of what the affirmative solves and how it does so.

Case debating is very important to me, on both sides.

 

Topicality: 

I love it. I like strong definition comparison and visions for the topic. I prefer competing interpretations, but can be persuaded by reasonability. You need to win an impact to topicality (education or fairness) for me to vote on it.

 

Theory: 

I like theory, I don't like theory blocks that are zipped through without specific clash. 

- Conditionality: If you can defend why you've read 7 different positions that contradict one another, then go for it. If you can't, then you shouldn't. If you read a counterplan that's several planks long, with each plank as conditional, then you need to be able to defend that, theoretically. 

 

Counterplans: 

I love counterplans and think they're a great tool. I like strategic counterplans. Affirmatives should challenge the theoretical legitimacy of different counterplans, and negatives should be prepared to debate out the theory. I prefer that your counterplan doesn't link to your disad. I prefer solvency overviews and a clear explanation of how the plan differs from the plan. I think counterplans are under-utilized and can be one of a debater's greatest assets.

 

Disads: 

I love disads. I prefer that all basics of the disad be present in the 1NC, and not sandbagged until the block (by this, I mean I generally dislike the one-card DA). Impact calc is very important, and I really value turns-case arguments. 

 

Kritiks: 

I think of Kritiks as a counterplan+disad formula, meaning that all of the same components must be present. 

I prefer specific link analysis, even if there aren't specific link cards available.

I'm intelligent, but not intelligent enough to comprehend all the details/theory that goes into high-theory criticisms within the first constructive speech. This means that you should make sure that you're explaining your arguments to me, rather than reiterating initial claims and hoping that I piece them together for yo. 

 

 

Other: 

Zero tolerance for clipping.

I think debate is educational and folks ought to be respectful of each other.

 

LD

I am a proponent of debaters doing what they do best and I am pretty open to hearing anything you want to run, policy debate will do that to you.

Value & Criterion: I find this debate tends to be muddled. The way this debate works for me is impact calculus: who's impact matters more and why. A good way to think about this debate for me as a judge is to tell me why you win under either teams arguments which is aided by having offense against your opponent. I am a policy judge, I think in terms of impacts more than anything else so be sure you explain to my what your impacts are and why they outweigh your opponents (timeframe, magnitude, probability).

I do have some cautions about those running "policy debate arguments" in LD.

Kritiks: I come from a slightly more policymaker background though I ran and competed against K's plenty of times. That background gives me a certain threshold of explanation of a kritik, the alt, the link, that I am comfortable voting on and I have found no matter the debaters ability, there structurally isn't enough time in LD to reach that explanation threshold. I have voted for Ks in LD, but have found myself still adjusting my threshold appropriately for LD. I say this as a caution for those who wish to run K's. Like I said, I've voted on K's in LD, but my threshold is higher than perhaps normal.

Theory: Theory can be good and effective when argued with standards and impacts to the debate round/space. Debaters who read a bunch of theory arguments at the bottom of their case, rattled off one after another, without independent justification for each one, likely will find I won't evaluate those arguments: 1) because of what I said before this and 2) I try to avoid flowing from the speech doc so I may miss one of the theory blips you give so you won't win because of it--even if I consult the speech doc, if need to know you said it and where in order for me to get it to my flow.

Please please please ask me questions if you have them. I put these three aspects of my paradigm here because I know these are The debate space is your space and I want to give you as much information about me as a judge as possible to set you best up for success so do not hesitate to ask. If one team asks a question and the other isn't present, I will make sure each team is aware of what was asked and what my answer is.

PF

As I come from policy I don't have any really strong opinions on what PF should look like.

My one opinion on PF is that the SECOND REBUTTAL needs to address BOTH SIDES of the debate (that means you should attack and defend in this speech), if you do not do this, any arguments you don't address will be considered conceded. It helps to even out the advantage given to the second team by speaking last. I generally prefer the summary to be line-by-line compared to a whole round picture, you won't be punished (speaker points, assumed conceded args).

Mostly for me, don't be idiots in the round (or in general) and we should have a good, fun round.

Also, I do like to make jokes (and by jokes I mean really stupid, unfunny jokes that I find funny) feel free to laugh, or don't laugh, at them, or me, but just a heads up. It surprises some people.

Please ask me any questions you have! I'm always glad to talk about anything debate related or not!

POLICY

Updated 8/6/2015 (Most a copy and paste from original)
Background: Debated for four years at Millard West High School in Omaha, Nebraska and graduated in 2013. I don’t debate in college but am an assistant at Millard West. I go to school at UNL (if you wanted to know).
Spark Notes Version: Debate how you want to. That’s the most important thing. Debate is an educational game. Make sure you facilitate CLASH in the round. Please engage in your opponents arguments. Seriously. The biggest thing is do what you want to in the debate round. It isn't about me.
Speed: I am fine with. I will yell clear if I want you to be clearer.
Flashing Evidence: I will stop prep time when the flash drive is ejected from the computer of the team saving the files to it
Shadow Prepping: DO NOT SHADOW PREP. For clarity—shadow prep is defined as once prep time ends and one of the debaters in the round is still prepping. I will deduct prep time from the appropriate team. It is very annoying to see this trend. Once I see it happen less I will loosen up on this policy but I shouldn’t even have to mention it. Alas, I do.

Specific arguments:
Theory: This is always a difficult one to read the judges based on what they put on the wiki, and as such, theory is rarely run and it is even more rarely gone for. There is also a very simple reason for this: No one invests the time needed on theory to go for it. I love theory debates when they happen, but it kills me when they are done poorly. This is how I would evaluate a good theory debate: A shell can be used the first time it comes up by both sides, that’s fine. Just don’t zip through them. But when it comes time to going for the argument, you need to sit down and answer the shell of your opponent part by part. Just extending your arguments doesn’t work, answer back in full AND extend your arguments. Think of it like a Topicality debate, just extending your standards and voters won’t win you Topicality, the same applies here—you must answer. Do this and you will be in a better position to win theory in front of me. If you aren’t prepared to win a theory debate, don’t go for it—that’s a good rule of thumb for any debate actually.
Topicality: Speaking of Topicality, what would it take for me to vote on T? I loved topicality when I debated. It is such a great argument that has so many different aspects of it; it can be easy to trip up teams. That’s just a little so you know. Just like Theory, you need to answer every aspect of Topicality in order to win topicality, or if you are the affirmative, not lose on topicality. Never just extend the shells that are spewed off in the 1NC and the 2AC, do some in-depth analysis on the all levels. Interpretation is usually a big one to make sure to cover, then of course standards which prove the voters. Bottom-line: Clash on the topicality flow and utilize all of the flow to prove why you win.
Disadvantages: There is a theme in all of this, Clash and engagement. That is important on the disad as well. Also, I love disads. So much fun! Back to what is important to me. Well, all of it. Answer arguments is important, clearly. This should go without saying, but make sure your disads are Unique. This is something that is under-utilized in disad debate—specifics. Such as specific uniqueness evidence to people or pieces of legislation, or economic analysts, etc.
Politics: I love the politics disad and always enjoy seeing it ran. One thing—I hate the rational policy maker argument affs make against the politics disad—don’t do that. I will not vote on it.
Counterplans: I figure at this point I will be just reiterating myself if I talk about clash again, so I won’t. However, when negative you better show how you are competitive. Be warned, textual competition is shaky ground for me, functional competition is almost always a better way to go. That being said, if you love textually competitive counterplans I will listen to them, just be warned if challenged you better have clear and rock solid reasons as to why textually competitive counterplans are good.
Kritiks: I enjoy kritiks but you should know a few things about them to win them with me. As the negative, you need to win alternative solvency. If you don’t do this, you probably will lose. Negative, just because you give long overviews doesn’t mean you answered their arguments directly. You need to apply those arguments you made in the overview to the flow specifically.
Framework: Framework is a great way to tell me how to evaluate the round, whether it be policy-maker, or critical, or whatever you want. Be warned, I do not find the framework of “exclude my opponents because they debate wrong” persuasive at all. Just figured I would let you know that ahead of time…
Round Behavior: R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Kicking Positions: I will not kick positions for you. If you argue it in the 2NR or 2AR, I will evaluate it.

Dylan Sutton's judging paradigm (click to open in Google Docs)

(updated Oct 2022)

Dylan Sutton (he/him/his)

dylan.sutton@gmail.com go ahead and include me on email chains please, but I try not to read evidence to make decisions unless it is unavoidable.

Background:

Debated national circuit policy for Fremont (NE) 2000-2004

Debated at UMKC for a hot second in 2004-2005

Assistant policy coach various schools in NE from 2005-2019

Head Coach & English teacher, Millard North (Omaha, NE) 2021-present

General judging philosophy (all events):

I’m an educator first. This means I view debate rounds as extensions of the classroom and believe the primary value of debate is education. That perspective causes me to value the truth of your argument over your argumentative technique and also informs a number of my argument preferences. It also means if you do things in debate that create a hostile environment I will intervene against you. This primarily means no violent actions or hate speech, but it is not strictly limited to those things. Basically, behave as you would in school. Violations of this sort will be brought to the tabroom’s attention as well.

More generally, kindness/positivity is encouraged and will help your speaker points. Nothing will cause me to have a stronger bias against you than if I perceive that you are being needlessly negative/rude/mean/etc. There’s enough negativity in the world.

I try to be objective in the sense that I try not to let my preferences influence my decisions. This is why I try not to read cards after debates, as I believe part of being objective is evaluating the words spoken in the debate rather than literature that is vaguely referenced. If you want credit for a warrant, state the warrant out loud rather than repeating an author’s last name or a tagline (a claim). That said, I am not perfectly objective. My social location influences how I understand the world, including debate rounds. The preferences for certain arguments over others that I will express in other places in this paradigm also evidence a lack of total objectivity.

I generally prefer depth of analysis over breadth. What that means is I would prefer you spend your time debating a small number of things very well, rather than a larger number of things at a lower quality. Specific practices that line up with this preference: Know the warrants for the evidence you read and be able to explain them. Read your opponents cards, read the underlined portion of them even and use those lines to make arguments. Make arguments about the quality of their sources. Debate the case.

I’m fine with speed reading (I have a background in national circuit policy). That said, debate is a communicative activity. This means 1. I flow what you say out loud. For example, if you say “the Smith evidence proves this” you get credit for those 5 words, which don’t contain the warrant for the Smith evidence. If I need to read cards to pick a winner I will, but I will actively resist doing so until it is absolutely necessary. 2. I can’t vote for arguments I can’t hear/understand. I don’t think it’s my job to say things like “clear” to tell you you are giving an unintelligible speech, so watch for nonverbals and err on the side of caution. This is especially true for analytical arguments (arguments that aren’t direct quotes from research/evidence). If you’re reading theory or an overview or that sort of thing, slow down a bit.

Cross-x is both important and binding. I don’t flow it but I listen and often do take notes, and it does influence my decision.

I think disclosure is good because it fosters higher quality, more educational debates. I’m aware disclosure isn’t the norm in every region or activity, but my general preference is for disclosure when reasonable. That said, I’m not interested in listening to debates about the minutiae of how teams ought to disclose. If they don’t disclose at all, read the theory and have a debate about disclosure in general. If they disclose something, it’s probably good enough. I would encourage full source/round reports, but the distinction isn’t significant enough for me to want to listen to a whole round about that.

The more you can do to write my ballot for me, the more likely you are to win. While I’m here as an educator, I’m also not trying to work harder than is necessary. Do things like compare warrants for competing claims, weigh impacts, create layers of ways you win (“even if” statements), and when appropriate engage in ‘meta weighing’ or ‘framework’ debates about which kinds of arguments I should prefer as a judge/critic. In the absence of these framing devices I generally default to a cost benefit analysis, usually pretty utilitarian. I’m not particularly beholden to that though. Defense wins champions. I believe offense is necessary but defense can result in zero risk of an argument, so it is also a good idea. Good defense beats mediocre offense.

Online debate - The biggest concern here is audio/technology. I will try to be as lenient and understanding as possible, but also understand that the tournament is on a schedule and ultimately if I can’t hear you I can’t vote for you. I will follow tournament instructions on this issue, but my patience for tech issues is going to be fairly low given that we’ve been at this remote stuff for two years now and most tournaments have ample opportunities for you to test equipment before the rounds begin.

I’ll have my camera on, I would ask that you do as well because I believe your nonverbal communication is part of debate and is important. That said, I understand there may be equity related reasons you’d prefer not to have your camera on so it is not something I require. You don’t have to explain yourself if that is your situation.

Speaker points - On a 30 points scale, I tend to give a 26 if your speech contained numerous egregious speaking errors. Anything below that is reserved for things like hate speech. You get more points as you speak better moving up to 30. I very rarely give a 30. Since it is the top of the scale, I interpret that to me there couldn’t be a better speech. So if I can think of ways the speech could have been better, it’s not a 30. If the tournament has a different scale I will comply with tournament instructions.

Lincoln Douglas:

Everything from the policy section of my paradigm also applies to LD. The things in this section are things that are unique to LD.

My big thing about LD is that the round/speech time is significantly shorter than policy so it can’t just be a one person policy event, in particular with regard to theory. I would also suggest that this means that speed probably isn’t as desirable in LD, again particularly in regard to theory. I think these are factors that make the 1AR harder, not easier. I’m new enough to judging LD though that I’m still developing my belief system about the best pedagogical practices here, so nothing is set in stone. Except tricks. Those will always be bad.

Topicality/Theory - 4

I’m not your guy for this debate in LD. I’ve only really gotten into judging LD since 2019, but in my experience there is FAR too much theory debate happening in LD and much of the debate that is happening is very shallow. I think the AR in LD is very hard and am willing to make appropriate accommodations, and the neg gets some reasonable amount of flexibility, but I would strongly prefer to hear debates about the topic and not about theory.

That being said, if you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments. This is what you would do when going for any other position, but for some reason in theory students seem to believe they can successfully go for theory in like 30 seconds. To “go for” any position in your last rebuttal should probably take at least 2 minutes, theory included.

I strongly prefer examples of in round abuse to potential for abuse arguments. I default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded to adopt a reasonability framework.

RVIs are way less popular in policy so if you want me to vote there I need more work than most. I find the arguments that are specific to the format of LD to be most persuasive on this question.

"Tricks" - Worse than 4

To my understanding, these are arguments that attempt to avoid clash and are primarily anti-intellectual. As such, I hate them and am very unlikely to be persuaded that they are a reason to vote for you. I’m fine with y’all having fun, but not at the expense of the value of the activity.

LARP- 1

I approach this as I would a policy round. I was primarily a K debater in my time in policy but we did a ton of DA/CP/Case debate as well.

K/Phil - 1

Again, policy paradigm. I have experience with most areas of critical scholarship with the exception of psychoanalysis. I don’t have a problem with psych, I'm just not as well versed in the literature. In K v LARP or framework debates, I generally dislike framing arguments that are just “this type of impact shouldn't be allowed” ie “no Ks” etc. On the other side, I strongly encourage K teams to have a defense of your prefered impact framing and your solvency method/mechanism (ie, I’m fine with you singing a song to create change, but you need to explicitly defend that as a method that is successful and not just do it to do it).

Policy :

In my general info section I talk about how I try not to read cards to evaluate debates because I feel like that is me judging more than the words spoken in the debate. That means that my absolute favorite thing for you to do is to directly quote from your evidence. You explaining specific warrants from your evidence or re-reading parts of your opponents evidence to make a counter-argument are perhaps the best way in general to increase your chances of success in front of me.

CP/DA/Case 1

If this type of debate is your thing, go for it. I read a politics DA almost every round and have coached teams on these strategies many times.

I strongly prefer specificity over breadth. This means things like:

• As I said in the general advice section, debate the case. The more specific to the aff, the better.

• DA links should be specific to the action/advocacy of the affirmative

• CP text and solvency should be very closely related. The CP solvency evidence should say the text of the CP solves.

• Permutations are more persuasive and harder to answer when you explain the combination, how it works/what it looks like rather than just saying “do both”.

T v traditional aff - 3

I’m an English major, so I find debates about words interesting. The best version of T debates are robust considerations of what the word/phrase means in the topic lit, what would be best for debate as an educational endeavor, and how individual rounds shape community norms.

Things I would encourage:

• I strongly prefer examples of in round abuse to potential for abuse arguments.

• I default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded to adopt a reasonability framework.

• Case lists. What is topical under your definition?

• No RVIs. I can be persuaded otherwise but in general not my preference.

That being said, I would expect you to develop T or any theory with the same level of rigor you would a DA or CP if you want me to vote on them. Nobody extends a DA for 30 seconds and seriously expects a win, but it happens all the time on theory. If you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments.

Theory 4

Please slow down when reading/going for theory. It’s all analytics, there’s no breaks. So unless you want to risk me missing arguments/warrants, slow down.

I’m going to say this again because it applies more to theory arguments than it does T: I would expect you to develop any theory with the same level of rigor you would a DA or CP if you want me to vote on them. Nobody extends a DA for 30 seconds and seriously expects a win, but it happens all the time on theory. If you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments.

I don’t have particularly strong opinions about specific theory arguments, but in general I would prefer that theory debates be a defense against practice that materially harmed/altered the debate for one team and not just a way to win. IE if the neg reads 5 contradictory timeframe CPs, sure. If it’s one conditional CP, not so much.

K (general) - 1

I ran Ks, I coached Ks, I’m fine with the K in general. As a debater ran pretty generic K positions - cap bad, etc. When I was the assistant coach at Millard South our teams ran some more performative things. I’ve read at least some of many fields of critical scholarship and feel very comfortable judging debates about those issues. My biggest weakness is psychoanalytical theories; I just haven’t read much of that field so I’m less familiar with jargon and the relationships between scholars and ideas. I would encourage you to simplify psychoanalytic ideas as much as possible, or perhaps over explain them.

My biggest advice for the K is make it as specific as possible. The more specific the link is to the affirmative (whether that be the action of the plan, the words they said, the philosophies they advocate) the better. Same with the Alt. The more specific the description of what the action of the alt is and how it resolves the impacts, the more persuasive. The less specific the link & alt, the more leeway the aff gets on the permutation. On that note, have a defense of your methodology - however you are trying to create change, read some evidence or make some arguments about its effectiveness.

One important note for K debaters - I’m fine with multiple worlds/condo in general, but if one of your other off case positions links to your K, you are going to have a hard time overcoming arguments about how your advocacy as a team links just as much as your opponents, that if you get to kick things that link so do they, that it justifies the perm, etc.

K affs - 1

Conceptually fine. I ran critical affs as a debater and most of the team’s I’ve coached have done so at least once. I strongly encourage K aff teams to have a defense of your prefered impact framing and your solvency method/mechanism (ie, I’m fine with you singing a song to create change, but you need to explicitly defend that as a method that is successful and not just do it to do it).

Framework v K - 4

I generally dislike framing arguments that are just “this type of impact shouldn't be allowed” ie “no Ks” etc. If you’ve read my old paradigm, it called these kinds of frameworks “violent”, amongst other things. That should give you a sense of my opinion. Just because the ground you came prepared to debate (like a politics DA) doesn’t link to this aff doesn’t mean the aff is conceptually bad, it just means you have to have been prepared for different ground. This isn’t different than traditional affirmatives that don’t link to your generic positions.

While I am sympathetic to the reality that you can’t prep a specific strat to every possible K aff, and that sympathy causes me to be more understanding of FW in rounds where the K is obscure or opaque, in general I think the arguments about how you couldn’t predict a relatively known K (for instance cap bad) and don’t have any ground are silly. Especially when part of a framework that attempts to entirely exclude a particular genre of argument, like the K, I think that’s pretty bad pedagogically. Better version of that would be less exclusive (ie, still allowing all types of arguments to be read) and used against less generic/stock K positions.

Public Forum:

This isn’t an event I judge very often, so I’m not very familiar with community standard practices and norms. I would strongly encourage you to read the “general judging philosophy (all events)” section to get a sense of how I think about judging.

More specifically, I try to approach PF as I would a traditional policy debate round. So if you also look at the “CP/DA/Case” section of the policy part of my paradigm that might also give you some insight.

One thing I’m annoyed by - no more one word tags (or tags that don’t summarize the card). The whole purpose of a tagline is to summarize the card so that I can flow the summary and then listen to the warranting in the card. Using a tag like “therefore” is meaningless, you might as well just read the citation and then the body of the card. The system I’m asking you to use is WAY EASIER than trying to flow every single word you read in the entire speech, which is the only way the one word tag makes sense. Even in a world with speech docs, I’d have to copy the body of the card into my flow for the flow to make sense. You may lose speaks for this since it makes your speech harder to flow, seemingly by design.

In general in PF, here’s my advice:

• Even though I’m policy, don’t try to do policy in PF. Just do your thing. I’d rather see you be a really awesome PF debater than try to do something you’re not familiar with just to accommodate me. Doing a bad version of something I love is not going to endear you to me.

• More specificity is better. I’d rather you be very detailed and nuanced in winning one impact than be shallow in winning 4 impacts. Same thing applies to your attacks on your opponent's cases. The more specifically your attack applies to what the other side is defending, the more likely I am to vote for you.

• That specificity also extends to evidence. I hate the practice of summarizing/indirect quoting of evidence. I hate it because it makes it much less likely that there is debate about specific lines/quotes/warrants from evidence, which is basically my favorite part of debate. So direct quote your evidence, and read your opponent’s evidence to find things you can use against them.

• Impact analysis/weighing is vital. There aren’t very many rounds where you just win 100% of the contention level, so impact weighing becomes an essential way for the judge to resolve two competing contentions that are both mitigated. If you don’t weigh your impact compared to your opponent’s, you probably won’t win.

OLD PARADIGM

dylan.sutton@gmail.com is my email but I don't need your speech docs. If I need to read evidence I'll call for it after the round. I try very hard not to call for evidence though, so you should do your best to extend specific warrants on the flow.

He/Him

Background:

My job is teaching. As such, I approach debate from the perspective of an educator. This isn't itself super relevant but it does inform how I approach debate. So I'm going to default to an educational paradigm absent any other given to me by the debaters in round - this means things like truth over tech, quality over quantity, and most importantly be respectful of one another and the spaces in which we compete.

I'm from Nebraska and have coached in some capacity since 2005.

I am primarily a policy trained debater and judge, but I have been coaching and judging LD and PF over the last couple years as well. Because of my background, most of the assumptions you would make about a "policy judge" likely apply to me, for better or worse.

In general:

I won't tolerate violence or discrimination in round. You will lose my ballot immediately and I will talk to your coach and the tab room.

Speak from where you are comfortable. Tag team CX is fine. Please time yourselves (I will too but more is better). I will allow for a reasonable period of time to exchange speech docs, but don't abuse that privilege or we'll run prep time.

I try to be very flow centric and not impose my beliefs about particular arguments or styles onto the round, but that being said I am human so I am susceptible to bias just like anyone else. What that means for you is I will take every effort to resolve the round using only the words spoken by the debaters on the line-by-line. If I find that not to be possible, that is where I'll start to resolve issues based on my preferences.

My overwhelming preference is for specificity. Specific warrants are better than generic claims, specific links are better than generic ones, etc.

It is my belief that a well executed "defensive" argument can still win you a round.

Don't contradict yourself.

I'm not a fan of theory/"tricks".

Otherwise, I'm down for whatever you can defend. As long as you can make well warranted arguments for a given subject or method, I'll vote for it if you win the line-by-line. I've coached students who read very complicated K arguments, others who were very traditional in their style, others who sang songs, painted, re-enacted famous protests, read poetry, narratives, anything and everything so long as you can make a good argument. That said, I am still an educator so messing around just for the sake of messing around is not a path to my ballot.

Everything below the line is my old paradigm, which I wrote when I was only judging policy. It still has good insight into what I believe about debate, but it is mostly relevant to policy arguments.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

the least i'd hope you'll read:

This is written assuming policy debate. If I'm judging you in another event, I apologize. I'm just getting back to judging after taking about 5 years off, so I may be a bit out of date on topic knowledge and specific literature. I try to keep a very open mind about how I should evaluate rounds, and as such am willing to listen to most any role for myself as a judge or my ballot you wish to defend. That being said, I'd very much rather not judge anymore framework debates, I would much rather you engage the content of that which you would seek to frame out of the round. I've done the DA/CP/T thing extensively in the past and have no problem with it, but am at this point more grounded in critical literature and will be more entertained by a more creative round. Regardless of your argument, you shouldn't be worried that I will categorically refuse to listen. Pretty much only violence and hate speech are out of bounds. Don't be rude. Tag team cx is fine. Speak from where you are comfortable. Time yourselves if possible. Be reasonable about speech docs. Feel free to ask questions.

everything i care to say:

I debated in both high school and college, predominantly in the midwest. Specifically I debated for Fremont High in Nebraska (graduated '04) and the University of Missouri at Kansas City. I've since judged and coached for Fremont, Lincoln East, and Millard South, and Westside. So all told I've been active in the regional circuit since about 2001 until I stepped away to finish my degree. I worked at the Nebraska Debate Institute in the summers since of 2006 until recently.

Everything is pretty much a "make smart arguments" situation. I have no aversion to any particular type of argument so long as it is sufficiently explained and justified. That said - "the sun's not yellow, it's chicken". That is to say, I've become relatively bored by "traditional" policy debate. I am infinitely more interested in the critical, particularly the creative. Don't get me wrong, I've read/wrote lotsa DAs and some CPs in my time and voted on them quite often. I've just come to see that whole world as at best tiresome and at worst absurd to the degree of appearing to be self-mocking parody. Word to the wise - don't read this as me trying to code in something like "I'll automatically vote on Ks". If you read something that's either nonsensical or strategically a blunder, those things probably overcome the fact that I might find what you said intellectually stimulating. It would, however, be safe to read this as me saying "I'm down with anything" and actually meaning anything.

I conceptualize the round in terms of what actually comes out of your mouths, especially in the rebuttals. That means if you say "The Smith '05 evidence answers this", those 6 words are pretty much all you get credit for. What I'm trying to say is, you're better off saying the argument/warrant from the evidence as a part of the extension rather than expecting me to read your evidence after the round. I make a conscious effort not to read evidence after rounds. That's not an absolute, but it's the way I lean in evaluation. That said, I also believe that form and content are to some degree inseparable. so if you believe the form your arguments take (whether that be poetic or lyrical or whatever) is important, or theirs is bad, make that an issue.This belief is probably also at the heart of my disdain for multiple contradictory arguments. I want to make this fairly clear because I am apparently exceptional in this way: I will drop you because your cp/da/whatever link to the k you read, even after you've collapsed the round to one flow. Obviously like anything that assumes the argument is made and won in the round, but i am very easily persuaded that at very least the aff gets the perm, severance, and to kill the solvency for the alt. A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but a foolish inconsistency likely loses you my ballot.

Something else you'll probably wanna know is that I don't minimize the importance of so-callled 'defensive' arguments like a lot of people do. Often you'll hear people talk about giving "risk" to an argument despite the presence of a very smart, unrefuted 'defensive' argument against it. Just know that the risk i will give arguments that have good defensive arguments left standing against them is not very high, not high enough for the position to matter much at all.

The specific issues I tend to mention are topicality and theory. In terms of interest level, I enjoy a good topicality debate. I have been told that according to my voting record, I tend to not vote on topicality. I am one of those guys that requires an impact topicality (crazy I know). That is to say, voters require some work - or at least

more than simply being asserted. Perhaps keep in mind that my teams like to "impact turn" T when you're deciding how much time to devote to your voters.

Also, theory. A good general rule is to ask yourself "Am I just playing a game with this argument"? If your answer is largely "yes", you should probably reconsider. I know I don't often vote on theory. I have nothing conceptually against voting on theory, but it is rarely executed in a way I find persuasive enough to vote on. If you're wanting me to vote solely on theory you need to devote the depth to it that you would anything else you want me to vote solely upon. Noone extends a

disadvantage for 45 seconds and expects a vote on it, but it happens on theory all the time. I'll need specific analysis of the round that is happening and how it has been effected by the theory issue, refutations to their arguments, and comparisons between your theoretical impacts and theirs.

things i don't like: contradictory conditional arguments, states counterplans, policy only frameworks, and mint.

Any other questions you may have you can ask me in person. I'm really laid back about judging rounds. I'd like it if you'd talk to me, because otherwise things get sort of boring.

Preface: I am a transgender woman and use she/her/hers pronouns. I can understand slipping up on accident, but if you intentionally misgender me in the round, or use the wrong name, you will receive 0 speaker points and you will automatically lose the round. If anything you are running has triggering content, specifically sexual violence or transphobic violence, you HAVE TO provide a trigger warning at the beginning of the speech, otherwise I will not vote for you and you'll receive 0 speaker points. Outside of these two things, there shouldn't be any issues between us.

Background: I debated at Millard West High School in Omaha, Nebraska for 2 years. I currently help out at Millard West and judge at local and regional tournaments. During my time debating, I ran everything from politics and CPs to performance affirmatives. I will generally vote on anything so long as the argument has a clear link and impact story, or can solve best. I also appreciate when debaters provide a wholistic explanation contextualized to either the affirmative or neg positions.

In general, just run what you want to run. After all this activity is about you after all.

Now to specific case positions and styles:

Disads: I personally am a fan of straight up disadvantages, so long as there is a specific link and clear impact story.

Politics: While I am generally not the most up to date with all the politics scenarios, I try to have an idea what is going on. However, I also believe that it can be an effective argument if there is a clear link story.

Counterplans: In most instances my philosophy on CPs are pretty straightforward, if you can prove that the counterplan solves better than the plan, or the perm functions, then I will most likely grant you the counterplan. However when it comes to PICs, I am fairly well versed in PIC theory and will generally lean aff if there is a sufficient explanation.

Topicality/Theory: unlike PIC theory, I do have a very high threshold for topicality and most theory arguments. It usually just turns into a timesuck that no one goes for, and therefore leads to uninteresting debates. However, to get my vote you will have to do 3 things: 1. provide a legitimate interpretation 2. give me a clear violation and how the plan doesn't meet the interpretation and 3. give an explanation of the harms of allowing the plan. Some topicality debates can be very good, and if you do the above I will be much more likely to vote on it.

Kritiks: I generally evaluate these in a very policy style way. If there is a clear link of how it links to the plan, and an alternative that can actually solve for the net benefit and/or the plan itself, then I will most likely grant you the position. For permutations, it's the same as on counterplans. When a role of the ballot is added, it gets more complex, but if you prove why your role of the ballot is best for the debate round, and why you solve for it best, I will grant you it. This goes for aff and neg.

Performance/non-topical affs: While I don't have much of an issue with these, I will still evaluate them in a very policymaker way. You will most likely need to provide a role of the ballot and answer it the same way as kritiks, however. You can run discourse positions too, just explain why it's better for the round and for me.

 

Misc:

-With flashing, I'm going to start where I will stop prep when the flash drive leaves the computer. Also do not steal prep after this is done.

-speed: I don't mind if debaters speed as long as they read the tag and cites clearly.

-I also sometimes call for evidence after round but it's not super common.