Jack Howe Memorial Tournament
2016 — Long Beach, CA/US
JV Novice Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
she/they, lay-uh, not lee-uh
A) I've competed and coached high school and college policy debate since 2008.
B) I've taught new novice students and instructed K-12 teachers about Parli, PuFo, LD, and Policy
C) I am an educator and curriculum developer, so that is how I view my role as a judge and approach feedback in debate. I type my RFDs, please ask your coaches (if you have an experienced coach) to explain strategic concepts I referenced. Otherwise you can email me.
D) I am very aware of the differences in strategy and structure when comparing Policy Debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate.
d)) which means I can tell when evidence from one format of debate [ex: policy -> ld] is merely read in a different format of debate for strategic choices rather than educational engagement.
heads up: i can tell when you are (sp)reading policy cards at me, vs communicating persuasive and functionally strategic arguments. please read and write your speeches, don't just read blocks of evidence without doing the persuasive work of storytelling impacts.How I Evaluate & Structure Arguments:
Parts of an Argument:
Claim - your argument
Warrant - analytical reasoning or evidence
Impact - why the judge should care, why it's important
Probability - how likely is it the impact will happen
Magnitude - how large is the harm/who will be negatively affected
Timeframe - when this impact will occur
Reversibility - can the harms be undone[Online Debates]
prewritten analytics should be included in the doc. we are online. transparency, clarity, and communication is integral in debate. if you are unclear and i miss an argument, then i missed your argument because you were unclearpre-pandemic paradigm particularities
for policy and/or ld:
1) AFFs should present solutions, pass a Plan, or try to solve something
2) K AFFs that do not present a plan text must: 1. Be resolutional - 1ac should generally mention or talk about the topic even if you're not defending it, 2. Prove the 1AC/AFF is a prereq to policy, why does the AFF come before policy, why does policy fail without the aff? 3. Provide sufficient defense to TVAs - if NEG proves the AFF (or solvency for AFF's harms) can happen with a plan text, I am very persuaded by TVAs. K teams must have a strong defense to this.
3) Link to the squo/"Truth Claims" as an impact is not enough. These are generic and I am less persuaded by generic truth claims arguments without sufficient impacts
4) Critique of the resolution > Critique of the squo
5) NEG K alts do not have to solve the entirety of the AFF, but must prove a disadvantage or explain why a rejection of the AFF is better than the alt, or the squo solves.
6) Debate is a [policy or LD] game, if it is a survival strategy I need more warrants and impacts other than "the aff/alt is a survival strategy" with no explanation of how you are winning in-round impacts
7) Framing is FUNctional, the team that gives me the best guide on how/why I should vote for X typically wins the round. What's the ROB, ROJ, the purpose of this round, impact calc, how should I evaluate the debate?
8) Edu is important. Persuasive communication is part of edu. when the debate is messy or close I tend to evaluate the round in terms of 1. who did the better debating, 2. who best explained arguments and impacts and made me more clearly understand the debate, 3. who understood their evidence/case the most.
9) Dropped arguments are not always necessarily true - I will vote on dropped arguments if it was impacted out and explained why it's a voter, but not if the only warrant is "they conceded _____it so it's a voter"
10) I flow arguments, not authors. It will be helpful to clarify which authors are important by summarizing/impacting their arguments instead of name dropping them without context or explanation.
Please include me in email chains , I prefer email chains if available if you use email the prep stops when your done prepping, If you are flashing prep stops when the flash drive leaves the computer.
I am a college policy debater taking a year off this year. I run majority kritical and performance based arguments. But i am comfortable judging anything. I am a very flow oriented judge and I like a variety of arguments please dont be sexist or racist.
Novice and jv
if you don’t finish your speech you forfeit the debate
Backround: 6 years policy debate. Debated four years in highschool two years coaching. I'm okay with tag team, spreading, and i determine when prep time stops based on the debaters consensus.
Affs: I can deal with traditional affermatives pretty well seeing as it was the foundation for my debating just remember to extend well and impact everything clearly. As far as k affs are concerned I'll vote on them but am more skewed toward traditional policy options.
Theory: I'll vote on theory if its dropped or the other team doesnt sufficiently answers it. As far as kicking just remember to answer all there offense before you drop it or I'll interpret the debate the way the other team framed it.
Cp/Da: I'm good with CP's/Da's and will vote on them if the neg proves there impacts are comparably worse then the aff and vise versa. At then end of the day there should always be an explanation as to why the CP's better or why the affs better.
Ks: Experienced with Ks and will vote on them if work is put into the link and impact story. There should also be work put into explaining how I should wiegh the impacts of the k versus those of the aff.
- I consider anlytics almost as much as cards in my decision.
- speaker points wise I think I'm fair and always average out what I think is best
-I enjoy rounds where there is a lot of back and forth between oppents concerning Impacts
- Lastly remember to always be respectful of everyone in the room.
Gabrielino High School 2011-2015
Speech times are set, one team wins
I will ask for what you are reading (if it is electronic), and I will follow at random intervals. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
However, will (attempt to) not reevaluate this evidence post-round, I don't want to do that work for you.
Don't be afraid to use analytics to take out bad arguments. Just because you need a warrant for everything, doesn't mean you always need a card for it.
Explanatory overviews are much appreciated, especially for nuanced strategies and positions.
If I'm confused, I will look confused. Take advantage of this.
I don't believe in debating for anyone. If you can justify it, you can run it. I believe if someone makes a truly despicable argument, you should clap back and make them regret it.
DO IMPACT CALC OR I WILL GOT FOR THE LOWEST HANGING FRUIT. I AM ACTUALLY AN IDIOT SO PLEASE MAKE MY LIFE EASY
*CHRIST ALMIGHTY SLOW DOWN ON ANALYTICS/THEORY*
I am VERY bad at catching blippy arguments. if you spend less than a sentence on the arg, i probably won't catch it. beat me over the head with it tyvm.
honestly i didn't actually believe i was really tabula rasa until i recently voted for a tragically underanswered spreading bad arg do you understand what that does to a man i don't play NO GAMES MANG
Topic Familiarity: I probably won't research the topic and most likely won't judge it enough to know the meta. I would avoid using acronyms that have previously not been defined
Delivery: Not really used to speed anymore tbh. Using audible cues such as increasing the volume of your voice and slowing down instinctively puts my pen to paper. Do so for things you want me to flow.
Cheap shots: If it has a voter, they are voters. It's up to the other team to say why they don't count. but again, don't count on me to catch blippy args
CP threshold: Honestly I don't have much experience with deeper CP theory. but as long as you keep your theory organized, i will likely be able to follow
tag team cx is fine
having your partner speak for you is ok, but if it occurs enough times say bye bye to your speaks
prep ends when the flashdrive leaves the computer / the email is sent
time each other's prep, i will not keep track
Frame the framework by indicating what interpretation of debate you desire and why that is net beneficial for debate. I think of fw like a cp - give me your interp of debate, how you solve it, and hit me with those nice and clear net benz to your vision of debate.
you can frame the impacts of your fw. i love filtering since it makes my decision easier
I dig it. I’m as dense as a brick, so regardless of the K I’m gonna need a good overview explaining your jam.
Everyone has a spicy alt like "giving back the land" or "revolutionary suicide" What i need to know is HOW YOU PERFORM YOUR ALT. Are you literally giving land back? what is revolutionary suicide supposed to mean? this stuff should be explained.
Even if you're not performing your alt (which is ok i guess i mean how else are we gonna spread the gospel of death good), why is your method good/better than the other team's method?
btw, if your alt is literally just "reject the aff" and that will spillover to 100% capitalism solvency with no further explanation, i may involuntarily gag
THOUGHTS ON SPECIFIC TYPES OF Ks
Nietzsche: I was the 1n that spent his time finding links for my partner that can literally (literally.) only go for Nietzsche. At the last leg of our careers wanted to run death good, but ever could :(
Race: probs the one I’m most comfortable with, ran a myth of the model minority/antiblackness aff senior year.
French philosopher soup of the day: i hope you write good overviews and explain your buzzwords. if not, the other team could prob say "lol whatre you even saying" as an effective response. i do not like being pressured to vote for something that is incoherent.
etc (queer, ableism, things i can't think of): no real experience, but i have no reason to dislike these args at all so go for it
THEORY THEORY THEORY
For the love of all that is holy, slow down on this crap... I have a very hard time following theory debates that are just blasting at full speed. If you do this and ask why my decision is incomplete, this will be why.
note for ld: i've never voted for an rvi and god willing i never will. unless it gets egregiously dropped
For organizational purposes I would follow much easier if you put your theory in this fashion:
Interpretation -> violation -> standards -> voters
This will also let me know if you’re serious or if you’re going for some dirty communist cheap shot - I see so many theory debates where y'all are just blasting lines at each other, doing no form of impact calc to your theory. It's pure nonsense and a headache to adjudicate where one side had 5 lines of DAs to the interp and the other had 6 lines and it's just throwing crap at the wall (aka ME >:|) and seeing what sticks.
Some violations aren’t big enough to warrant a loss; rather, a concession. I will totally buy your strategy setup where you say “ok, we’ll kick T if they drop their no link arguments”, but hey everything's gotta be a friggen voter doesn't it, huh.
As you may be able to tell, I am a big fan of theory that DOES NOT operate in a vacuum. T-subs and a spending DA hits different.
In-round abuse stories are very convincing. Potential abuse is fairly weak for me tbh, but if it's there i'll evaluate it the best i can
judge kicking: the more autonomy you give me over our RFD the more unhappy you'll be with my decision :P. "the status quo is always an option" makes me uncomfortable b/c you're making me do it. commit to something.
Speaks = organization + ethos + clarity
I don't know how judges are able to make the tenth's distinction, so this will be a ballpark estimate. Speed does not play a role in speaks; audibility and fluidity is first and foremost, followed by the funnies. HAVE SOME PERSONALITY, THAT HELPS YOUR SPEAKS LOTS.
I am impartial to all spreading styles except for the "booming and committing verbal genocide" style and the "spread at 0.05dB for the card text so no one can possibly tell I'm clipping xD" style, please respect the local volume.
I should be able to coherently hear the texts of your cards btw.
30: i don't know what you did to get this but it's gonna be a helluva story innit
29: hey you should get a speaker award in this tourney
28: not likely to get a speaker award but i like the cut a ya jib
27: delivery is incoherent at key moments or made life hell playing flow hopscotch
26: it is possible that words were spoken but i can neither confirm nor deny
25: i don't know what you did to get this but it's gonna be a helluva story innit
I did LD for 1 year in my high school career. I am typically a policy judge that has a background of league and circuit debate.
With that said, I lean towards the traditional style of LD debate.
I will flow and listen to arguments and cards. I typically will vote on any argument as long as it's sound. If you're going for a more circuit/policy type of argument, there needs to be a good reason for it.
As for speed, I am moderate. Once my pen stops flowing, your argument is not on the flow.
Debate History: 3 years in High School for LAMDL and 1 year at Fresno State.
I am open to basically any arugment as long as it makes sense and you can convince me to vote for you.
T: I don't really care much for T because most teams use it as a time-skew or a throwaway arugment, but if you wanna go for T by all means do, as long as you can convince me that you're winning on it then I have no problem voting for it.
DA: I love DAs! Don't forget impact calculus though! MAJOR KEY!
CPS: I love a good CP, but all you need to remember is to have a net benefit another MAJOR KEY!
K: With Ks I am always open to listening to one, you just gotta make sure you know your stuff and can articulate well enough for me to understand and not be confused on it. Also don't forget to explain what the ALT does and why to vote on it.
Crtical AFFs: I love these a lot! Very unique arguement and something I am always open to listen to, but be ready to defend your stuff because I won't just for you if that's your aff.
Theory: I have to say that theory arguments are my least favorite. They usually serve as a time suck and take away from other meaningful debates you can be having on case or other positions. But I will vote on theory in extreme situations; for example team drops it or is not answered properly.
As stated above my name is Maria Jose, you can also call me MJ. I am originally from Bogota, Colombia and moved to the U.S at the beginning of high school. I debated for St. Vincent De Paul and have been judging at high school debate tournaments over the last couple of years. I am currently the assistant coach for Lowell High School.
Please include me on the email chain email@example.com
(Avoid flashing, it takes too much time)
I am open to any arguments but please do not be offensive or disrespectful. I am familiar with both policy and K styles, however, I am not very familiar with high theory or obscure K’s.
I expect you to be well versed on whatever arguments you choose to run. It is your role to write the ballot for me. You should tell me how to evaluate the debate. I think framing is really important in any debate.
1. Do not heavily rely on your evidence. Reading cards is important but there is way more to a debate than that. Whenever you extend a card, remind me why it is important for the purpose of the debate.
2. I love good overviews and analytics.
3. Discourse is important.
4. I will not vote on T, unless you substantially explain to me why it is a voting issue. Similarly, if you run a CP you must convince me that it is competitive and has a net benefit.
5. Line by line debate is a must along with good sign posting.
6. K aff’s: I like them. You do not have to read a plan text, however, I do prefer if the AFF is related in some way to the resolution.
7.K’s: You must be well versed on the lit.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me!
My name is William Melton. I have judged policy debate for three years on the local and National Circuit. I am a Professional Engineer and an adjunct professor at several community colleges. I understand most arguments and prefer traditional policy debate. Please read the exceptions because I rarely vote for certain types of arguments.
I prefer debaters who are authentic in their arguments, are polite to each other, and have good form. I make my decisions based on the quality of the arguments. This means that I prefer that you prove to me why you should win the debate round. If you spread unintelligibly, I can not vote for unintelligible arguments.
Traditional AFF: I prefer this form of debating. Please extend your arguments effectively through the debate round and it will be a good round.
K aff: I do not prefer this type of debate, I do not find many of these arguments persuasive or well developed. If you use this type of argument you must persuade me and impact your argument. Be clear why you want me to vote for you. Just uttering the words “role of the ballot” is not sufficient---why should the role of the ballot be what you have suggested it to be? Affs should also argue why the aff is sufficiently debatable (negs should argue to the contrary), not merely why the aff is important to discuss.
T---T is a question of should the aff be topical. If you aren't reading cards on T, then you're doing it wrong. I will vote on it if you do a good job on it, do not expect me to vote on T, if it's clear that you are using topicality to waste time, you lose on T. If you run T, make sure you also have a topical version of the affirmative.
Theory: Convince me. I will vote to reject an argument over a team. If this argument is not made, I'll defer to the other team's interpretation on what I should do with the suspect arg (ie, reject the team).
CP/DA's: I like counter plans and clear disad debates and will be persuaded by convincing arguments. Just make sure that it is competitive with the Affirmative and that you do prove to me why I should vote on it. This also applies to the affirmative team, persuade me as to why your affirmative is better.
K: I will vote on K if it is clearly explained. I prefer to be convinced by the team running the K. Any kritik you read must be persuasive, not just power tagging. I encourage underviews for the cards and overviews in the block to straighten out the debate. Any argument on a kritik that is not explained will not be preferred over a well explained argument, as policy is not tagline debate. Make sure that you do impact calculus so that I can know whether to prefer the impacts of the aff or the K first. Explain the framework and why your K's impacts come before the Affs. Also, make sure that the Alternative and Links are explained throughout the debate round, this makes the round flow smoother. I do not vote for vague alternatives, arguments should be flushed out and explained. I believe in a debate that is based on an intellectual level, not one of the "you're bad"/"Truth isn't real" debates. This does not mean that I won't vote for high level arguments, but I prefer more the well explained thoughtful intellectual discussions.
Make sure to include me on the email chain: Wmelton@portofsandiego.org. Any arguments you make need to be on the email chain, including analytics. Otherwise, those arguments will not be considered.
I am a parent judge and this is my third year around a policy team. I can handle some speed, but please don't sacrifice clarity. During rounds I will flow, including off-case arguments. My grasp of debate jargon varies, so don't rely on it too heavily.
I don't have any strong opinions about the types of arguments you might run and am not well versed in the literature, so be sure to explain your arguments clearly. However, I do want novice debaters to understand their own arguments and to know the content well. Be sure to signpost and give me a clear roadmap.
Speaker points are awarded on a combination of fluency, clarity, volume, correct word usage and pronunciation. I also score on the ability to speak articulately and logically in cross-ex and rebuttals. Please don't use racist/homophobic/sexist/ableist vocabulary or arguments. Also, please feel free to be assertive, but not rude or disrespectful to your opponents.
I will do my best to disclose my decision when tournaments allow it, but will not provide extensive RFD's in person. I will try to provide specific and helpful comments on my ballots. I am up to date with current events, though not with critical theories. I will vote on a kritik, but only if it is well-articulated and has sound evidence and reasoning.
Debated two years in LAMDL.
Currently debating at Cal State Fullerton.
I allow tag team.
They're fine. I will usually vote for them if 1.) Perm(s) are effectively answered, 2.) CP is thoughtfully worded (no lazy CP's), 3.) Above all has a net benefit of some kind. Chances are I will not vote for a CP that states 'let other agent do it because they're better.' Having a CP with a DA as net benefit is very convincing. Long story short CP without a net benefit will be brushed off by me by the end of the debate round.
They are always compelling as long as the analysis for how the affirmative creates the problems is thoroughly communicated. I will vote solely for a DA if the negative team brings forth a thorough impact analysis as well as a coherent story for how voting for the aff gets us to said impacts.
K debates are fun. If a neg chooses to run one it's important to find specific evidence for why an aff links to a K. i really appreciate neg teams that use cards in the 1AC as links. Essentially, if you provide one piece of evidence in their own 1AC that links to your K, you win the link debate. Generic links are also fine. Just make sure you explain how it plays out against the aff. However, the alt must also be thoroughly explained. If by the end of the debate round 1.) I don't hear a role of ballot, or 2.) don't understand why my ballot is going to improve our world I'm going to have a hard time voting for a K.
Always extend interpretation, violation, standards, and all that jazz. If one gets lost as the debate progresses, I'm not voting for T. More importantly, the negative must talk about how the standards play in the debate round, and why the aff is bad for the debate community. Solely, saying 'judge they're cheating!' doesn't cut it. This isn't pre k and I don't like snitches. Essentially T must have impacts (standards). No impacts no win.
Essentially the same as T. They are fine as long as you impact your argument, and explain how the affirmative/negative's abuses are bad for the debate community.
The negative win can win a debate round if they manage to provide enough offense on the aff. Solvency deficits are fine, but case turns will put the affirmative in a bad position, and incline me to vote for the neg.
These are pretty simple. If the affirmative chooses to run a K aff they must 1.) explain why their topic is important to discuss in the debate community and 2.) Explain why my ballot matters in improving the affirmative's impacts. In other words, if the aff discusses about racial oppression, they better not say my vote solves for all that, and makes the world all sunny sunshine. There must be a very detailed discussion as to why my vote matters to all the aff's impacts. If I don't find a reason for why my vote helps improve the problems the affirmative brings up, i will not vote for it.
I don't mind spreading. However, emphasize on tags and authors. If you know you're reading a piece of evidence that's crucial for the debate round, emphasize on it.
Be nice. Be respectful. Follow the golden rule and we'll all leave the debate round happy, holding hands, singing kumbaya.
For further questions feel free to contact me at
andger15@Hotmail.com (yes I still use hotmail, because i'm hipster like that)
With that said good luck fellow youth of America!
Policy Debater at CSU Fullerton 2 years (2009-11)
High Debate Coach for 3 years (2010-2013)
Debate Judge for 10 years (2010-present)
High School Math and Physics Teacher ( 2018- present)
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Short version: I want to see and hear what you are good at doing. You pick your style and convince me that you know what they are talking about.
Brief recap of what general debater think of me;
A lot of people have pegged me as a certain kind of judge—crazy, in other words. While I may be crazy in the head, I don’t think that I judge rounds in a particularly different way than other judges. I, like other judges, VOTE for which team did the better DEBATING. How I come to this conclusion is much the same as other critics: I allow myself to be PERSUADED by the rhetorical force of one or another team’s ARGUMENT. You need to win an argument and a reason why that argument means that I should vote for you. Feel free to choose whatever type of argument you prefer. Virtually everything in the round is up for debate in front of me. But I will also be hesitant to vote on arguments that fly in the face of reality.
Some fine details;
(1) Kritik: Don’t assume that I have read and/or understood your author. If the argument isn’t in the text of the card, then you need to make sure that it is comprehensible in your analysis or explanation of the card. Also, remember that the evidence is not the argument by itself.
(2)How I flow: I believe in the debate. That is, I flow it, and I believe it occurs. However, I don’t even try to line everything up in the debate—I just flow from the top down on each sheet of paper (Excel spreadsheet). Know your argument and give detail on it, your analysis, spin, and articulation are all important and I follow that as much.
(3)Policy debate is like chess. Debate at a reasonable pace for yourself so that you don’t forget or drop arguments. Clash with the other team, debate is not in a vacuum. Debate with a lack of clash make it harder to judge because I feel like have to intervention and connect the dot myself. Lastly, like in chess, you can’t win with all your pieces. You will have to lose some pieces, know what you are losing and wining in a sophisticated way.
(4) Value and meaning isn’t implied. You need to frame “Framework” how I view arguments and what I value. Tell me how you want me to see the round and why that is important over the way your opponent views.
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ):
Question: Can I read an aff without a plan?
Answer: Sure but do you really want to have a framework debate over policy implementation?
Question: I hear you’re a K guy and like K, I normally run DisAd and CP so do I need to pull out my K?
Answer. PLEASE DON’T. The worst thing you can do is run an argument that doesn’t fit your style and strengths. If you are a straight up, line by line, politic disad kind of debate then go for it. I don’t vote for the K anymore than I do the DisAd. A good argument with articulation and explanation will do you more than running something that you can’t explain.
Question: Is it true that you never vote on Theory or Topically?
Answer: I did the math, I have vote for theory or topically maybe 2.5% of the time since I started judging, that is like 4 out of 170 rounds. While it’s a hard sell because I lend toward looking at real in round abuse.
I am a parent judge and appreciate the following:
1. Clear communication and presentation
2. Good organization of ideas
4. Good sportsmanship (in the debate realm - please do not belittle your opponent or curse)
5. Overall slower pace - please do not spread. I will not vote for you if I cannot follow your flow and do not understand your train of thought. Do not lose me during the round. Do not throw around jargon that I likely will not understand.
Thank you! I will try my best to be a fair and informative judge.
I am a parent judge. I've been judging policy debate for 6 years so I understand the rules and I strive to select the winner based on the arguments presented in the debate.
I am comfortable with speed so long as you are clear. However, I'm not an ex-debater, so if you get too far away from traditional debate I may not understand how to handle your arguments. To be clear, if you try a K you need to ensure there is clear linkage so I have a basis for determining the winner.