Background:

I did LD for a small high school in SC and policy at Vanderbilt ('15). I had some reasonable success my senior year through clearing at various tournaments and winding up at the NDT. I was a 2A for the vast majority of my rounds.

I judge probably 1-2 tournaments a year and am not actively involved in the activity otherwise, so I have zero idea what new acronyms/trends/drama has emerged recently. This probably can help you for two reasons: 1. I have no prior on "rep", so repping out is a nonissue 2. I will not lose any sleep from voting on a particularly uncouth argument

Big Picture- 2018 Update:

The longer I'm out of debate the less I care about what arguments you make. Whatever position I may have had on the "ideal" round is based on pre-2015 data which may no longer hold true. I encourage you to read whatever argument you're most comfortable with. As long as you can justify what you say/do, I am theoretically okay with voting on it.

Full disclosure- I read exclusively plan-based policy arguments on the aff and was about 50/50 on policy vs. K on the neg, so I might have a slight bias towards "traditional" arguments, but I wouldn't say its dramatic enough for you to alter your strategy.

In general, the more you adhere to the belief that debate is a game and that arguments are just tools, the more likely you should pref me. If you instead feel that debate serves some other primary purpose, you'll probably have to do some work on framework explaining it.

I generally reward strategic risk taking with high speaks, even if you don't necessarily win.

Everything else (updated 2015):

Evidence

I am probably far more concerned about evidence quality than the average, I’d imagine. I took debate really seriously and value hard work over anything else. If you can demonstrate a good comprehension of your (or your opponents’) evidence and just all-around topic knowledge, it could really help you out. I won’t read every card after the round, but there’s definitely a threshold for how much spin you can get away with that isn’t grounded in what your cards actually say. Powertagging cards is way too common and is a pretty bad practice.

Also, please for the love of God stop reading terrible impact cards. You know the ones (Khalilzad 95, Diamond 95, Strait Times 2K, etc…). All of these are highly outdated and lacking in warrants. Especially in the era of free camp files and open-source, there really isn’t much of an excuse anymore.

Counterplans

Advantage CPs are severely underutilized. 99% of aff advantages are not intrinsic to the plan, so doing it through a non-topical way is a pretty easy way to go. Teams should also bring back uniqueness CPs and 2NC CPs.

Conditionality- I don’t understand why 2 conditional advocacies is the magic number to equalize the playing field. I think if you win condo good, then you probably get as many as you want. However, if they contradict, then I think they are probably bad. Reading a neolib K and privatization CP simultaneously is so much worse than 6 conditional advantage CPs. Showing how making an argument on one flow can be conceded to gain offense on another is a pretty easy way to show me that the neg is cheating.

Other CP Theory- I err neg on almost everything else, but barely. I won’t tank your speaks for reading delay, consult, etc. Debate’s a game, do what you want if you can defend it. Similarly, I think 2ARs need to be more willing to just go for theory as a reason to reject the CP. Both in the cases of the aforementioned CPs, but even with agent or process CPs as well. Even though I think those are probably good, 2Ns are oftentimes pretty terrible at the debating them, so take advantage of the almost inevitable under-coverage in the 2NR. I also have a soft spot for really old-school theory args like no neg fiat and topical CPs bad. I thought those were fairly fun to debate.

Judge-kicking for the most part seems far too interventionist for me. If 2AR goes for CP links to the DA or some external offense, then the neg is stuck with the CP.

Disads

Zero-risk is real. There’s a 1% risk of almost anything happening, so I can be persuaded the risk of the DA is so low I should just round down. The same goes for aff advantages

I did a lot of politics work and we went for it a lot, but I think the DA is outrageously over-relied on.

If you win a time-frame distinction, then I am extremely persuaded by DA turns case.

Kritiks

If you like “old-school” Ks like Nietzsche, security, biopower, etc. I’m probably great for you. These were pretty much the only types of Ks I went for when I debated. Although the link to the aff isn’t great, I understand them and think the aff definitely needs to defend everything they say, even on such an epistemological level.

If your first thought when your opponent breaks a new CTBT aff is “gee-whiz, we can finally read these nuclear policy links to our Bataille K!”, I am probably not a great judge for you. The fact that I’m not even sure what the nuclear policy link to Bataille actually is probably indicates my lack of knowledge/interest on the subject.

If you go for a K, pull out all the tricks out-tech the other team. If that means going for framework so I don’t weigh the aff, so be it.

Non-Traditional Debate

If your definition of a “critical aff” is one that defends a topical plan text with structural violence or other non-standard policy advantages, I’m a great judge for you. I love these debates.

Other than that, my main gripe with K affs is the fairness question. I think it's *probably* good for the neg to be able to read the Topic DA against an aff. What this means is that the aff may not need to have a "plan" per se and might not actually have to defend a US policy, but if the aff makes an argument in the topic area of marijuana legalization, for example, the negative should probably get a DA about why legalization is bad and a competitive alternative for why non-legalization options are better. If your aff wants to critique this question and can do a solid job on framework, I'm probably good for it.

I also think affs have a high burden to prove that they actually do something. I understand that the 1AC speech act might be a good thing, but why does that need to be tied to a ballot? Voting neg doesn’t mean that the 1AC disappears from everyone’s memory. I am more than willing to vote neg on presumption here if the aff doesn’t do an adequate job of proving that winning is key. If your answer to this is that “we need to win so our argument gets more exposure”, I'm probably not your guy.

If you want to win with a non-topical aff in front of me, it will 100% be because you out-debated the other team and are just better on the technical aspects of the flow. I am not persuaded by any pathos-based claims about your qualms with the debate community or your personal experiences. If your default 2AR includes a prewritten two-minute overview, I’m probably not the best judge for you. I am also thoroughly unpersuaded by claims that minorities can’t participate in traditional policy debate or that minorities can’t defend the state. If you do not understand why this argument in front of a brown judge who debated many rounds with a black partner is offensive, you probably shouldn’t pref me.


Misc. Things

Be nice—I understand debate can get heated and being aggressive in CX can be useful versus an uncooperative opponent, but there’s zero reason to scream, insult your opponent, or be rude in general.

Please stop using vacuous debate phrases like “cold-conceded” or “Pepsi challenge”. To paraphrase Nick Ryan, I might drop your speaks by a full point for the phrase “cold-conceded”, but I’ll add it back if you can explain the difference between cold, hot, and regular conceded.

I studied economics in college and worked in finance, so I think I have a decent understanding of economic arguments. I would kill for a good, technical econ impact debate.

My favorite argument of all time is “courts shield the link”.

My favorite judge was Hays Watson.


email me with questions: arbilgi@gmail.com

Officially dragged back into the activity by the pandemic. I'm doing some administrative work for the Sacramento Urban Debate League. Don't expect to find me on your pref sheet but feel free to contact me at sarabeth@sudl.org if you have research questions.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Officially retired. Feel free to contact me with research questions but I'm no longer actively involved in the activity. - May 2019

.

.

.

.

.

I debated policy for 5 years in college and qualified twice to the NDT for UNLV. I coached policy for College Prep (Oakland) for 3 years, and policy for Wake Forest for a year.

I also have several years of high school public forum experience and occasionally judge and coach those debates, but I am not actively coaching the 2018-2019 topics.

A little more about me: white, crip[pled], queer, femme, she/her or they/them pronouns.

Three Important Things

a. If you need to communicate an access issue to me before the debate, please send me an email before the round. This is a private way for you to give me information that you do not want to share with the entire room (for example, if nonverbal communication isn't accessible to you).

b. I have an auditory processing disorder. I can flow fast, technical debate but please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If I have to call clear repeatedly, I will just stop flowing. If music is a part of your arguments please turn the volume down a bit so that I can hear you (I understand that music/audio are important and vital to certain argumentation; you do not have to turn it off -- just adjust the volume in front of me).

c. I will listen to almost anything, with a couple of caveats; I am not interested in hearing arguments like racism good or rape good, etc, or in hearing arguments or jokes about suicide. Also if appropriating culture or literature that doesn't belong to you is the strat, please don't pref me.

Everything Else

Debate is a communicative activity. Pick an argument and defend it, and answer the other team's arguments. Be persuasive. Make claims, back them up with warrants, and please compare impacts. Make jokes. Speaker points will go up. Cards are good, contextual analysis using cards is better, comparative claims contextualized to the evidence in the round is best. I don't read much evidence so don't count on me to read the 16 cards you shadow extend in the rebuttal; it is your job to tell me why a few of them tip the debate in your direction.

As a competitor I read everything from elections to Baudrillard, but had the most competitive success with structural criticisms about ableism and disability. I valued fast, technical debate and I appreciate and understand those debates. I also did performance debate for a year and have read a lot of critical race theory, critical disability studies/crip studies, gender/queer theory, and colonialism literature. Yes I will vote on in-round rhetoric arguments, so do not use racist/cissexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic language. I will be very persuaded by a well-constructed argument about it from the other side.

I like all different styles of debate, so read arguments you are comfortable with and I will do my best to evaluate the debate in front of me. Speaker points are almost always between 28 and 29, adjusted for division; above or below indicates a unique round. Please remember that I am an imperfect being in the service of the imperfect god of debate, but I do promise to be attentive, work hard to understand your arguments, and try to give an RFD focused on education and how to improve for the future. One last thing: I give long RFDs, #sorrynotsorry.

clarity = speed of delivery. pleaseslow down on tags, texts, interpretations, advocacies, analytical arguments, authors, or any argument you want me to get in detail verbatim on my flow. please keep in mind that your speed will always be faster than my keyboarding skills/flowcabulary. i do not flow off the document and will not backflow arguments from the document

i am a great judge for technical, mechanical line-by-line debate

judge instruction is axiomatic. most judging philosophies say "judge instructions please" because debaters rarely do enough of it and judges are left to decide debates on their own devices which leads to inevitable intervention and at least one unhappy debater. please - judge instructions! yes, go for your arguments, say how they outweigh, sure, magnitude timeframe sure, but tell me what to do with them/everything else at the end of the debate

what you debate is up to you - i do not have a preference for how you stylistically debate or which arguments you choose to read. this is my 20th year in debate and i have been around long enough that i have probably heard, debated, coached, and/or judged almost any/every argument you could say or do within reason. all arguments are fair game within reason - do not be violent, racist, et cetera. i consider myself an incredibly flexible coach that believes debaters get the most out of the activity through a student-centered model of debate where the debater is in the argumentative captain's seat and my job as a debate coach is to coach debaters at what they want to do to the best of my ability

i obviously have preferences - every debate judge does - but i try to keep those out of the decision calculus for deciding who wins the debate. given that, the following might help you out while either filling out your pref sheet or in the pre-round prep:

i am an awesome to great to okay judge for almost all arguments that come from policy debate - disads, counterplans, plans, not plans, performance, kritiks, k affs, theory, topicality, the politics da, conditionality bad, et cetera

i am an okay-ish judge for kant/phil - did a lot of academic research in uni on kant, but often struggle with how ld does kant. if you are going to read a bunch of dense cards about the categorical imperative, you are a-okay. if you are spamming a bunch of paradoxes, i would probably take another judge

i'm getting increasingly better for "tricks". a couple years ago this would have said no tricks, but i find myself increasingly voting on arguments like "role of the ballot spec", random ivis, and such when explained/impacted properly. i will only evaluate the debate after the 2ar

my voting record is historically bad for the neg on "t-usfg/framework/must larp/instrumentally defend the topic" and would advise engaging the affirmative

the aff is 29-0 in front of me over the past 5 years when the nr goes for "t-nebel/whole resolution/cannot specify/no plans"

some judge intricacies:

i will not judge kick unless you explicitly make judge kick an option in your speech

team no risk - there is zero risk that i will win the gold medal in the 100m dash at the 2024 paris olympic games

debaters must speaketh the rehighlighting - you can only re-insert text that has already been read

speaker point floor typically 29.0

i do not have a "poker face" and am unabashedly human

Judy Butler: Hired Gun

Affiliations: Too numerous to list

Experience: High School: 29 years; College: 27 years

I will not attempt to characterize what the purpose or value of debate is in this missive; merely how I tend to evaluate the debates I get to judge. I think of myself as a teacher and the debaters as students and strive to treat them with the respect that relationship deserves. I thoroughly enjoy judging debates from almost any theoretical perspective. I also strive to support new ideas, sources of evidence, academic fields and literature entering debate that have traditionally been undervalued.

I like judging debates where the debaters directly address each other's arguments from the jump as opposed to waiting until rebuttals to compare arguments.

I like judging debates where the arguments/positions evolve in relation to one another as opposed to simply in vacuums - I will totally listen to debates about conditionality and don't have attitude about multiple advocacies.

I like judging debates when the debaters show respect for each other, including their partners - contempt for an argument or position is different than contempt for a person.

I like judging theory debates that have depth as opposed to breadth - five or seven words are really not arguments, nor are they flowable. I ten to shy away from voting on theory arguments that require that I "punish" debaters. I prefer theory arguments that are grounded in the effect on the debate process and the value of including or excluding certain argumentative perspectives and practices.

I like judging debaters that focus on comparison and argument evolution rather than repetition and tend to reward both content and style when apportioning speaker points. Specifically, winning your argument is different than answering theirs: saying why you are right AND why they are wrong is the minimum necessary to answer/extend an argument and put yourself in a position to win that argument in the last rebuttals. Ideally, this level of extension could begin in the 1NC and could continue throughout the debate by all the following speeches.

I promise to be riveted to your speeches, your cross-exes, and my flow. I flow what the evidence says, not just your label. I hope that softens the blow when I say that I don't want to be on the email chain - the debate I'm judging is the one I heard and flowed, not the one I read. If I need/want to see something I will ask - but I need you to be clear in the first place. If you want to understand and comprehend the quality extensions I am asking for in real time, clarity when you originally read your evidence is critical.

PS: Your prep time stops running when you have sent the speech - not before

Happy Debating!

-Experience- 
4 years debating at Damien HS (2011-2015)
currently taking a break from debating at Stanford University
-Content-
No particular argument preferences, do whatever you feel you're best at and have fun. You should know that I've had very little interaction with the current China topic either in judging or doing research on the topic.
K -These are the types of debates I enjoy judging the most. My senior year was comprised almost entirely with going for some sort of critique of anti-blackness but I should be familiar with most authors or portions of critical theory that you may read from. Although rounds in which the K is deployed are my favorite rounds to judge, I really would like to see more specificity in the development of a specific link story that interacts with multiple potentially problematic portions of the affirmative. Absent that, reaching the extent of your impact scenarios and remaining unsusceptible to permutations becomes difficult in my mind. I do not find affirmative framework interpretations that exclude all critical alternatives or perspectives as persuasive. 
"Non-traditional/performance" affs - Love them. Do as you wish. 
F/W - I think you can go for framework against K affs but there are some caveats I do have. While I think framework needs to be beyond simply theoretical pushes regarding fairness and predictability, I find very questionable the idea that the majority of K affs do not access some if not all the skills to be gained from the traditional way of interacting with this activity and feel most aff teams will most definitely not only be more prepared to clash in this sort of debate but also begin the process of setting up this debate much earlier. Additionally, it goes without saying that regardless of the extent of the framework debate and the level of its interaction with other pages, answering and engaging with what was actually said in the 1AC is very important and absent that, even how I should evaluate any of the substantive portions of framework can drastically change.
CPs - Sure. Exploit any generic link chains or advantages to the aff just be cautious of cheating too much with illegit process CPs (unless you can defend it, that's cool too.) Going for theory on the CP is fine with me but well developed impact calculus that I can actually catch outside of a 2 second blip is very much key. Condo is sometimes good.
DAs - Also fine, but I think you can go very far with smart analytics on the majority of bad disadvantages. On point evidence comparison and not dropping crucial things like DA turns or solves the case is important throughout the entire debate.
T - In-depth impact comparison beyond repetitively talking about the internal links is crucial to going for T in front of me. Competing interpretations is generally more persuasive to me than reasonability claims but that's less of a personal opinion and more of a lack of substantiation in the debate proper. Again, I have very limited experience with this year's res so I'll be very reliant on the spin in these debates rather than being informed by popular perception as to whether an aff is considered topical or not after working at an institute or extensively during the season.
Other thoughts/misc - No prep for flashing, just don't take forever. Please keep track of your own prep. 
Questions or Concerns?
email me at jcajan96@stanford.edu

Policy debater at University High School (Irvine): 2013-2016, coached by Lee Thach

Current freshman at Stanford Univiersity

I'm okay with speed, just make sure to signpost and slow down for tags. It doesn't matter how many arguments you get out, it just matters what makes it on to my flow. 

I started policy with the typical disads, traditional affs and cps, so I'm decently familiar with this literature base. I love good case debates, competitive CP's, and case-specific DA's. However, in my last two years of high school I started running K Affs and 1-Off K's (biopower, security/colonialism, settlerism, cooption), so I am more well versed in these areas.

I will listen to anything the aff says; as far as I'm concerned, there is no resolution until the 1nc reads T/FW. I have a somewhat high threshold for signing off on T or framework, especially when run against k affs, since in my experience the arguments have been more generic and procedural/exclusionary than method/reform based. I am open to a framework round that engages the substance of the aff (ie, having viable TVA's that aren't just "let the US do it!") and deals well with the aff's responses. 

That being said, run what you are most comfortable with, and just make sure it is clear and interacts with the other team's framing of the debate; I will listen to anything that is not racist/sexist/heteronormative/ableist, etc. Frame the round so that I don't need to interpret the debate - tell me what I should sign my ballot on. 

Linda M. Collier, The Barstow School
25+ years coaching—

Please ask questions before the round if these remarks don't answer your questions.

Paperless debate—love it. Stealing prep time—hate it. I won’t run prep while you are jumping your speeches, but that means everyone stops prepping while the files are being transferred. Email chains are great solution.

Two reasons you should slow down--1. I'm hearing impaired and wear two hearing aids. 2. I’m old fashioned and flow by hand. That means you need to slow down.

I’m also old fashioned in that I prefer a policy approach. I’ll listen to all of the arguments and evidence presented, but if you need to win on theory, T, or a critical argument rather than an evaluation of the case v. the cp, disad + case defense, or impact turns, or any cost/benefit approach; make sure you take my preferences into account when you are comparing your arguments with those of your opponents. The Trump administration is insane. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use politics arguments, but I have some pretty fixed ideas. I'll do my best to be objective, but...

Debaters should use less jargon and explain their arguments in relationship to the competing arguments. In fact, I suggest that when you answer arguments you read less new evidence and instead make more nuanced explanations of the distinctions and warrants in your original cards. That doesn’t mean NEVER read new cards, just that you should read the best evidence first rather than last.

Debate is about comparisons--the more you make on the way toward drawing sound conclusions, the better.

Enjoy yourselves and debate well--

cadecottrell@gmail.com

Updated February 2024

Yes I know my philosophy is unbearably long. I keep adding things without removing others, the same reason I was always top heavy when I debated. But I tried to keep it organized so hopefully you can find what you need, ask me questions if not.

For the few college tournaments I judge, understand that my philosophy is geared towards being of use to high school students since that is the vast, vast majority of my judging/coaching. Just use that as a filter when reading.

Seriously, I don't care what you read as long as you do it well. I really don't care if you argue that all K debaters should be banned from debate or argue that anyone who has ever read a plan is innately racist and should be kicked out of the community. If you win it, I'm happy to vote for it.

***Two Minutes Before A Debate Version***

I debated in high school for a school you've never heard of called Lone Peak, and in college for UNLV. I coached Green Valley High School, various Las Vegas schools, as well as helping out as a hired gun at various institutions. I have debated at the NDT, was nationally competitive in high school, and coached a fair share of teams to the TOC if those things matter for your pref sheet (they shouldn't). I genuinely don't have a big bias for either side of the ideological spectrum. I seem to judge a fairly even mix of K vs K, Clash of Civs, and policy debates. I can keep up with any speed as long as its clear, I will inform you if you are not, although don't tread that line because I may miss arguments before I speak up. If you remain unclear I just won't flow it.

Sometimes I look or act cranky. I love debate and I love judging, so don't take it too seriously.

My biases/presumptions (but can of course be persuaded otherwise):

- Tech over Truth, but Logic over Cards

- Quality and Quantity are both useful.

- Condo is generally good

- Generic responses to the K are worse than generic K's

- Politics and States are generally theoretically legitimate (and strategic)

- Smart, logical counterplans don't necessarily need solvency advocates, especially not in the 1NC

- #Team1%Risk

- 2NC's don't read new off case positions often enough

- I believe in aff flexibility (read: more inclusive interpretations of what's topical) more than almost anyone I know. That is demonstrated in almost every aff I've read or coached.

- I'll vote for "rocks are people" if you win it (warrant still needed). Terrible arguments are easily torn apart, but that's the other team's duty, not mine.

***

A Few Notes You Should Know:

Speaker Points: Firstly, I compare my speaker points to the mean after almost every tournament, so I try to stay in line with the community norm. I have had a dilemma with speaker points, and have recently changed my view. I think most judges view speaker points as a combination of style and substance, with one being more valuable than the other depending on the judge. I have found this frustrating as both a debater and coach trying to figure what caused a judge to give out the speaks they did. So I've decided to give out speaker points based solely on style rather than substance. I feel whichever team wins the substance of the debate will get my ballot so you are already rewarded, so I am going to give out speaker points based on the Ethos, Pathos, and Logos of a debater. Logos implies you are still extending good, smart arguments, but it just means that I won't tank speaks based off of technical drops (like floating pics, or a perm, etc) as some judges do, and I won't reward a team's speaker points for going for those arguments if I feel they are worse "speakers", the ballot is reward enough. Functionally all it means is that I probably give more low-point wins than some judges (about one a tournament), but at least you know why when looking at cume sheets after tournaments.

Debate is a rhetorical activity. This means if you want me to flow an argument, it must be intelligible, and warranted. I will not vote on an argument I do not have on my flow in a previous speech. I am a decent flow so don't be too scared but it means that if you are planning on going for your floating pic, a specific standard/trick on theory, a permutation that wasn't answered right in the block, etc. then you should make sure I have that argument written down and that you have explained it previously with sufficient nuance. I might feel bad that I didn't realize you were making a floating pic in the block, but only briefly, and you'll feel worse because ultimately it is my responsibility to judge based off of what is on my flow, so make those things clear. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

(*Update: This is no longer true in online debate tournaments, I look through docs because of potential clairty/tech issues*: I don't look at speech docs during debates except in rare instances. I read much less evidence after debates than most judges, often none at all. If you want me to read evidence, please say so, but also please tell me what I'm looking for. I prefer not to read evidence, so when I do after a round it means one of three things: 1. The debate is exceedingly close and has one or two issues upon which I am trying to determine the truth (rare). 2. You asked me to read the evidence because "its on fire" (somewhat common and potentially a fire hazard). 3. The debate was bad enough that I am trying to figure out what just happened.)

Prep time: I generally let teams handle their own prep, I do prefer if you don't stop prep until the email is sent. Doing so will make me much happier. If you are very blatantly stealing prep, I might call you out on it, or it might affect speaker points a little.

***

Neg: I am very much in favor of depth over breadth. Generally that doesn't affect how I feel about large 1NC's but it means I find myself thinking "I wish they had consolidated more in the block" quite often, and almost never the opposite. If you don't consolidate much, you might be upset with the leeway I give to 1AR/2AR explanations. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate. Pick your best arguments and go to battle.

DA's: I love in-depth disad debates. Teams that beat up on other teams with large topic disads usually have one of two things: A. A large number of pre-written blocks B. A better understanding of the topic than their opponents. If you have both, or the latter, I'll quite enjoy the debate. If you only have the former, then you can still get the ballot but not as much respect (or speaker points). Small disads very specific to the aff are awesome. Small disads that are small in order to be unpredictable are not. I am of the "1% risk" discipline assuming that means the disad is closely debated. I am not of that discipline if your disad is just silly and you are trying to win it is 1% true, know the difference.

CP's: I have a soft spot for tricky counterplans. That doesn't mean I think process/cheating counterplans are legitimate, that just means I'll leave my bias at the door more than most judges if you get into a theory debate. That said, theory is won or lost through explanation, not through having the largest blocks. Generally I think counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive, that doesn't mean you can't win of yours isn't, it just means if it is then you probably have some theoretical high ground. I also think if you have a specific solvency advocate for the counterplan (meaning a piece of evidence that advocates doing the counterplan, not just evidence that says the counterplan "is a thing" [I'm looking at you, Consult CP people]) you should utilize that both as a solvency argument and as a theoretical justification for the counterplan. I am neutral on the judge kick question. If you want me to judge kick, say so in the 2NR/2NC, and if you don't then say so in the 1AR/2AR, that's an argument to be had. However, if no one makes an argument either way, my default is if the 2NR is DA, CP, Case, then I think there is an implicit assumption in that strategy that the squo is an option. If the 2NR is only CP & DA, I think the implicit assumption is aff vs. CP. Advantage counterplans are vastly underutilized. Logical counterplans probably don't need solvency advocates.

T: I think the way reasonability is construed is sad and a disservice to the argument. I perceive competing interpretations as a question of whose interpretation sets the best standard for all future debate, and reasonability as a question of whether the aff harmed the negative's fairness/education in this specific round. Under that interpretation (Caveat: This assumes you are explaining reasonability in that fashion, usually people do not). I tend to lean towards reasonability since I think T should be a check against aff's that try to skirt around the topic, rather than as a catch-all. T is to help guarantee the neg has predictable ground. I've voted neg a few times when the aff has won their interp is technically accurate but the neg has won their interp is better for fairness/limits/ground, but that's mostly because I think that technical accuracy/framer's intent is an internal link, rather than an impact. Do the additional work.

Theory: This is a discussion of what debate should look like, which is one of the most simple questions to ask ourselves, yet people get very mixed up and confused on theory since we are trained to be robots. I LOVE theory debates where the debaters understand debate well enough to just make arguments and use clash, and HATE debates where the debaters read blocks as fast as possible and assume people can flow that in any meaningful fashion (very few can, I certainly can't. Remember, I don't have the speech doc open). I generally lean negative on theory questions like condo (to a certain extent) and CP theory args, but I think cp's should be textually, and more importantly, functionally competitive, see above.

Framework/T against Non-Traditional Aff's: I have read and gone for both the Procedural Fairness/T version of this argument and the State Action Good/Framework version of this argument many times. I am more than willing to vote for either, and I also am fine with teams that read both and then choose one for the 2NR. However, I personally am of the belief that fairness is not an impact in and of itself but is an internal link to other impacts. If you go for Fairness as your sole impact you may win, but adequate aff answers to it will be more persuasive in front of me. Fairness as the only impact assumes an individual debate is ultimately meaningless, which while winnable, is the equivalent of having a 2NR against a policy aff that is solely case defense, and again I'm by default #1%RiskClub. "Deliberation/dialogue/nuanced discussion/role switching is key to ____________" sorts of arguments are usually better in front of me. As far as defending US action, go for it. My personal belief is that the US government is redeemable and reformable but I am also more than open to voting on the idea that it is not, and these arguments are usually going straight into the teeth of the aff's offense so use with caution. TVA's are almost essential for a successful 2NR unless the aff is clearly anti-topical and you go for a nuanced switch side argument. TVA's are also most persuasive when explained as a plan text and what a 1AC looks like, not just a nebulous few word explanation like "government reform" or "A.I. to solve patriarchy". I like the idea of an interp with multiple net benefits and often prefer a 1NC split onto 3-4 sheets in order to separate specific T/FW arguments. If you do this, each should have a clear link (which is your interp), an internal link and impact. Lastly, I think neg teams often let affs get away with pre-requisite arguments way too much, usually affs can't coherently explain why reading their philosophy at the top of the 1AC and then ending with a plan of action doesn't fulfill the mandates of their pre-requisite.

K's: These are the best and worst debates. The bad ones tend to be insufferable and the good ones tend to be some of the most engaging and thought provoking. Sadly, most debaters convince themselves they fall into the latter when they are the former so please take a good, long look in the mirror before deciding which you fall under. I have a broad knowledge of K authors, but not an in depth one on many, so if you want to go for the K you better be doing that work for me, I won't vote for anything that I don't totally understand BEFORE reading evidence, because I think that is a key threshold any negative should meet (see above), so a complex critical argument can be to your advantage or disadvantage depending on how well you explain it. I also think the framing args for the K need to be impacted and utilized, that in my opinion is the easiest way to get my ballot (unless you turn case or win a floating pic). In other words, if you can run the K well, do it, if not, don't (at least not in the 2NR).

Edit: I think it usually helps to know what the judge knows about your critique, so this list below may help be a guide:

I feel very comfortable with, know the literature, and can give good feedback on: Nietzsche, Wilderson, Moten (& Harney), Security, Neoliberalism, Historical Materialism, Colonialism (both Decoloniality and Postcolonialism), Fem IR, Deleuze and Guattari (at least relative to most).

I have both debated and read these arguments, but still have gaps in my knowledge and may not know all the jargon: Hillman, Schmitt, Edelman, Zizek cap args, Agamben, Warren, Ableism, Kristeva, Heidegger, Orientalism, Virillio, Lacan, Anthro, Ligotti, Bataille, settler colonialism metaphysics arguments.

ELI5: Baudrillard, postmodern feminism arguments, Killjoy, Bifo, Zizek psychoanalysis, Object Oriented Ontology, Spanos, Buddhism, Taoism, your specific strain of "cybernetics", probably anything that isn't on these lists but ask first.

***

Aff:

Bad aff teams wait til the 2AR to decide what their best arguments are against a position. Good aff teams have the round vision to make strategic choices in the 1AR and exploit them in the 2AR. Great aff teams have the vision to create a comprehensive strategy going into the 2AC. That doesn't mean don't give yourself lots of options, it just means you should know what arguments are ideally in the 2AR beforehand and you should adapt your 2AC based off of the 1NC as a whole. Analytical arguments in a 2AC are vastly underused.

Non-Traditional Affirmatives: I'm fine with these. They don't excite me any more or less than a topical aff. I think the key to these aff's is always framing. Both because negatives often go for framework but also because it is often your best tool against their counter-advocacy/K. I often am more persuaded by Framework/T when the aff is antitopical, rather than in the direction of the resolution, but I've voted to the contrary of that frequently enough. This won't affect the decision but I'll enjoy the aff more if it is very specific (read: relevant/jermaine/essential) to the topic, or very personal to yourself, it annoys me when people read non-traditional aff's just to be shady. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

Answering K's: It is exceedingly rare that the neg can't win a link to their K. That doesn't mean you shouldn't question the link by any means, permutations are good ways to limit the strength of neg offense, but it means that impact turning the K/alternative is very often a better strategy than going for a link turn and permutation for 5 minutes in the 2AR. I think this is a large reason why aff's increasingly have moved further right or further left, because being stuck in the middle is often a recipe for disaster. That said, being able to have a specific link turn or impact turn to the K that is also a net benefit to the permutation while fending against the most offensive portions of negative link arguments are some of the best 2AR's.

Last Notes:

I prefer quality over quantity of arguments. If you only need a minute in the 2NR/2AR then just use a minute, cover up any outs, and finish. I believe in the mercy rule in that sense. I will vote against teams that clip and give the culprit 0 speaker points, however I believe in the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", so be certain before levying accusations and make sure to have a recording. (Explicitly tell me that you want to issue a clipping challenge, I've had debaters email me and I don't see it, or wait until after the debate. Don't do that.)

I'll give you +.1 speaker points if you can tell me what phrase appears the most in my philosophy. Because it shows you care, you want to adapt to your judge, and maybe because I'm a tad narcissistic.

Things I like:
- A+ Quality Evidence (If you have such a card, and you explain why its better than the 3+ cards the other team read, I accept that more willingly than other judges)

- Brave (strategic) 1AR/2AR decisions

- Politics disads that turn each advantage

- If you are behind, I'd much rather you cheat/lie/steal (maybe not steal, and cheat within reason) than give up. If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'.

- Neg blocks that only take 1-2 flows and just decimate teams.

- Controlling the "spin" of arguments (I'll give a lot of leeway)

- Red Bull/Monster/M&M's (Bringing me any of these will make me happy, me being happy generally correlates to higher speaker points)

Things I don't like:
- Not knowing how to send speech docs in a timely manner!

- Debaters that act like they are of superior intelligence compared to their partner/opponents

- Reading arguments with little value other than trying to blindside teams (timecube, most word pics, etc.) Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

- Being unclear

- Horses (Stop acting like they're so goddamn majestic, they're disgusting)

- Toasted Coconut

Last updated: 5/13/2016

Middle School TOC notes: I'm normally a policy judge, which means I'm not super familiar with LD norms. I'll vote on whatever you tell me to. Speed is fine, but be clear.

I debated for four years at the Liberal Arts and Science Academy in Austin, TX. I currently coach Polytechnic in Pasadena, CA.

Summary

I am fine with just about anything as long as I can both understand the argument and its implications. I will attempt to assess the debate as objectively as possible based on the flow (though I certainly have some biases, which I've listed below). Speed is fine, but give me time to switch between flows and have clear transitions. To steal from Scott Harris, I will work "as hard at judging as the debaters do preparing for the debates."

General Stuff

-Flash time isn't prep unless it's excessive

-Open CX is fine

-Please don't get super rude in CX

-Include me in email chains (isaacqcui@gmail.com), but I will not read cards until after the debate. I will try to avoid reading cards unless the evidence is contested or I have no other way to evaluate the debate.

-I trust both teams to keep track of prep and speech times, but am willing to time stuff if I am asked to

-Mark your cards yourself. This is super important to me because I think the highlighting/warrants in evidence matter a lot if I need to turn to the evidence.

-Be clear--I want to be able to understand the warrants in cards as well as the taglines. I will usually look at you funny if I have difficulty flowing, so be aware of that.

-Don't steal prep

-Aff teams should disclose the 1AC plan text+advantages and the neg should disclose past 2NRs before the round. You should also keep an actively updated wiki

Topicality

I evaluate T debates much like I'd assess a CP+DA strategy; interps are competing options to solve for various DAs. This also means whoever can control the impact calculus--something often forgotten in T debates--will probably win my ballot. Case lists matter a lot to me, but I'm also persuaded that most case lists are too absurd (i.e., that functional limits check); rather than attempting to find the most absurd cases possible, I think it's more worth it to talk about what types of literature bases or types of affs that their interp allows/why that's bad.

I think "reasonability" is largely a buzzword that isn't explained enough. Is reasonability a question of the aff or their interp? Is it about how I evaluate offense? Depending on who you ask, they'll probably give you different answers. As a result, whatever preference for reasonability vs. competing interpretations I have is largely meaningless.  

Framework (versus a K aff)

I debate framework on both sides often, so I'm fairly middle of the road when assessing these debates. T-versions of the aff are very useful, but I mostly think of them as reasons for why the negative's framework can access the literature or education that the 1AC provides. Theoretical framework arguments that solely rely on things like the limits DA and fairness impacts will probably lose to a good aff team. For the most part, I think framework is most strategic as a countermethodology which relies on things like dialogue, institutional engagement, etc., to address the impacts of the 1AC. Make sure framework interacts with the aff (and vice versa--aff teams should leverage case as a DA to framework whenever possible).

After judging a few of these debates, I've found that the internal link matters. Usually framework 2NCs/2NRs are too impact heavy but not enough on the internal link level; I've found myself voting aff against framework multiple times because I didn't think the 2NR explained enough why there was such a limits explosion that their impacts were true, even if I thought their impacts outweighed.

Framework (on the aff versus a K)

My default is to allow the aff to weigh their advantages and for the neg to get an alt. I can be persuaded of an alternative framework that, for example, stresses representations over policies, but it will require a lot of time commitment on the neg. I don't see myself, however, voting on "neg doesn't get the K" because it's too unpredictable or whatever.

Nontraditional Affs

I will evaluate things largely as I do with traditional affs. That being said, having clear explanations as to the advocacy, the role of the judge, and the role of the ballot will go far. I am fine with just about whatever you wish to do as long as you can justify it, though I don't think I will give a double win/double loss.

K

I'm fine with most Ks but please don't presume I know what you're talking about. If your A-strat is to read some esoteric post-modern French philosophy, be ready to explain the K in everyday layperson's language rather than in terms of "lines of flight" or "arboreality" or whatever.

I think the way the K usually wins in front of me, against a traditional policy aff, is to use the links to implicate the aff's solvency or to turn the aff's advantages. Though this may sound obvious, specificity matters a lot.

I think spin is especially important in K vs policy debates--should I view the alt as hippie nonsense or as a necessary reconceptualization of politics? Is the aff a method for green capitalism to control the superstructure of education, or is it a method of taking responsibility for and confronting the worst excesses of capitalism? For me, whoever can best control the answer to these questions will be able to frame much of the rest of the debate, which is especially important if the 2AR hopes to go for a permutation. (If the aff strat is simply impact turning, this matters less.)

Against K affs, make the alt interact with the aff. I tend to be skeptical of most root cause claims--that's not to say you shouldn't make them, but that you need to have more game against the aff than simply root cause. The most convincing strategy, in my opinion, is to explain why the alt's method is better able to solve the aff's impacts than the aff's method. When tackling the perm against a K aff, I need more than simply "this is a method debate, they don't get a perm."

CP

They're great. Please stress or slow down on parts of the CP text that are important since I want to have an idea of what it is in the 1NC. CPs that can result in the entirety of the aff are probably illegit, both on a theory level and a competition level. I think positional competition (http://site.theforensicsfiles.com/NJSD.2-1.Final.pdf) makes a lot of sense. Agent CPs that utilize an alternative actor than the USFG are also questionably legitimate. Multiplank CPs can also become questionable if each plank is conditional. I have other theory preferences below.

I will not kick the CP for you unless the 2NR explicitly tells me to. 

DA

Also fine with them. Affs should attack all parts of the DA. Impact calculus is vital. Turns case arguments are devastating, especially if you can make them earlier up the internal link chain.

Case

Please debate the case. The aff should constantly leverage it and the neg should hedge back against it. Even against nontraditional affs, weakening their solvency is super useful for the neg.

Theory

I will evaluate theory like any other argument--if you impact it out, I have no qualms about putting the ballot at stake on theory. I think multiple conditional worlds (especially 3 or more) probably aren't great for debate. I won't, however, vote on a one-liner in the middle of the 2NR saying that "severance perms are a voting issue"--I need clear warrants for rejecting the team. Please give pen time when reading theory and try to stray from simply reading blocks at each other. A good theory debate can be one of the most enjoyable debates to watch, and I will definitely reward you if you execute well.

Speaker Points

This is a rough scale of how I give speaks:

29.5 - deserve to be one of the top speakers, very few issues in speeches

29 - minor issues in speeches, probably is in the top 10-15 speakers

28.5 - should break, but some issues

28.3 - average, probably deserve to go 3-3

28 - some fairly sizeable issues

27.5 - dropped something really important

25 or lower - something problematic happened

Arguments I Don't Like

I will still try to evaluate these objectively, but I will probably drop your speaks for reading them:

-Obvious time skews--everything in the 1NC should be a viable 2NR option (includes things like 1 card "gateway issue" Ks or silly T violations)

-Ashtar, TimeCube/etc.

-Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc. good

Random Notes

These are some self-observed trends from my judging that I thought could be useful -- after all, there's always a difference between how a judge considers their own judge philosophy and how they actually judge.

-After the 2AR, I start deciding by rereading both the 2NR and 2AR, then by either following the framing arguments that the debaters put forth, or -- in the absence of that kind of work -- I look for easy arguments to decide. Once I've decided a couple of arguments, I find ways to apply that to other aspects of the debate.

-This means that I often decide close debates on one small but key issue -- for example, in one round I judged, the negative goes for a CP and elections DA, spending maybe 30 seconds on solvency extending a single argument. The 2AR similarly blows off the solvency argument, claiming that 1AC evidence answered it. This was one of the first arguments that I assessed since it seemed fairly straight-forward to read the evidence as per both teams' direction. I ended up deciding the debate on, essentially, this one argument -- that the aff doesn't solve -- even though it was a small aspect of both of the final speeches because it was a simple argument to decide with widespread implications for the rest of the debate.

-I often feel qualms about voting on very techy arguments, but I usually end up deciding on the tech. An example: the 2NC and 2NR, going for T, make an argument that the aff doesn't meet their own interp based on a reading of the 2AC interp ev that isn't part of the aff's explanation of their interp; this is not directly answered in the 1AR or 2AR. The aff is ahead on every standard and they thoroughly explain their own interp and why they meet it. What they don't do, however, is push back on the neg's characterization of the 2AC interp ev. I end up voting neg because I don't think the aff meets their interp; even if they meet their own explanation of the interp, I felt that that explanation was less accurate to the ev, given the neg's analysis, and that the more "correct" explanation of what the 2AC ev described would exclude the 1AC.

-The closer the rounds are, the more I read cards. Ideally, I like to vote on the flow, because I feel like the more time I spend reading evidence or thinking about the decision, the more likely I am to intervene. But if I can’t determine a round purely on the tech, I’m more likely to try to find the “truth” of the debate by reading all of the evidence. If you’re a team that routinely gets by by out-teching people rather than reading good evidence, you should highlight concessions and tell me how to evaluate things to avoid having me investigate into evidence itself.

 -Extending every part of an argument matters. For example, even if the link to the politics DA is dropped in the 1AR, a 2NR that doesn't extend the link has not made a complete argument. That being said, I'd be sympathetic to the 2NR saying "don't make me reinvent the wheel, the 1AR has conceded the link, [insert 10 second explanation of the link]." But I do think it's important that you actually formally extend the argument in some capacity.

If you have any questions, feel free to send me an email at isaacqcui@gmail.com

Updated for NSDA ‘19:

This year I have judged fewer rounds than I have in years past. I’m not nearly as familiar with positions and the lit base. The biggest thing for me is overviews, both positional and global to explain your arguments and how I should be evaluating the round. Write my rfd for me.

I debated for four years in high school and have been a coach for three. In general, being clear about what you’re arguing (like giving overviews) makes me more comfortable voting for you. Assume that I am not familiar with the argument/literature of your 1AC, K, etc.

You can add me to the email chain (Parker.Davis23@gmail.com). I’m not going to sit and read through it during your speeches, meaning you still should make sure we’re on the same page and that I can understand you. If debate was just everyone sending speech docs back and forth we could all stay home and save a lot of time and money.

I find that my worst decisions come in two types of rounds: The first is when I’m not told what to evaluate and how to do it. In those instances, I may just have to pick what I see as the biggest disparities and start there, which may not be good if you and I see the round differently. The second is when I am in a round between two very good teams that are engaging at a high level (and generally pretty fast) on positions I am not super familiar with. In these types of rounds I still need clear and precise extensions in the 1AR and clear voters in the 2NR/2AR. The more time you devote to overviews and clear extensions/analysis, the more I'll actually be able to understand the argument.

Feel comfortable to do what you do best, but here are some specific thoughts:

Framework – If you are able to successfully frame the round in your favor, it can go far to help you win the round. It is important that both teams engage each other’s interpretations instead of just reading and extending.

Case Debate – Specific on-case arguments can be very compelling. I always have believed that smart analytics are preferable to just reading a bunch of cards.

DA/CPs – The more specific the better, but I’ll vote on anything.

Kritikal Debate – Sort of like what I said under case debate, taking the time to evaluate why the K is the most important impact in round is preferable to just reading your cards and extending them in later speeches. I think 2NC attempts to gain inroads to the case by suggesting the alternative is a necessary precondition to case solvency can be persuasive and is a helpful way for me to evaluate the K against the aff. I'm fine with kritikal affirmatives so long as you explain what exactly I'm endorsing by voting affirmative.

Topicality – My threshold for T is the same as any other stock argument. I think of standards/reasons to prefer as external impacts to a vote for a given team’s interpretation. That means that comparative impact calculus is important for any 2NR going for T. Explain to me what debate looks like if I vote for your interpretation and why that vision should be preferred to one that would allow for cases like the affirmative’s. That also means that proving in-round abuse isn’t necessary if you’re winning the standards debate, but it does make it a lot easier to vote on T.

Theory – Theory becomes easier to evaluate when actual clash takes place instead of just reading blocks and not engaging with the other team’s argument. If you expect to solely win on theory you should give me some kind of substantive reason why a given violation merits a rejection of the team and not just the argument.

Non-Traditional Debate – If I’m provided with a standard for evaluation that both teams can reasonably meet, I don’t care what you do.

Speed – I think I’m slower than a lot of judges. Breaking up your cadence and tone between tags/authors/analytics and warrants will help you make sure I don’t miss anything.

Speaker Points – 27.5 is average. I’ll add points for things like clarity and efficiency and subtract for messy debating or getting too harsh with your opponents/partner.

Feel free to ask any questions.

Hello all, I just finished debating for four years of varsity policy for Nevada Union and now I am a Stanford freshman. I was the 2n for Nevada Union's A team for the last two years. I debated on the transportation infrastructure topic through the surveillance topic. I got to a couple bid rounds and made a finals appearance at DDI. I read mostly kritikal arguments although I am fine with any type of debate and I default policy maker unless I am told otherwise. I am not debating in college and am also not familiar with this years resolution.

General Things:  

An argument is a claim and a warrant. Please warrant your claims. 

Please time your own speeches. 9 minute 1NC's make me sad. 

I don't count prep for flashing but don't go overboard.

Slow down on theory and analytics.

Don't be an asshole. People don't like that. I am fine with a good amount of sass though.

Specific Arguments:

K Affs: I have read mostly non-plan text affs for the past couple years and I enjoy this type of debate. I do believe that these affs should have a good justification of why they are not defending a plan text. I am not biased for or against T arguments against K affs. 

K's: I enjoy K debate. Please don't just assume that everyone is on the same page if you make vacuous postmodern claims. Explain the story of your argument just like you would on any other type of argument.

T: I like T debate and went for T in a pretty decent amount of my 2nr's. I will probably default to competing interpretations but am fine with voting on reasonability

Framework: I'm good for framework - see the k aff section.

DA's and CP's: these are arguments. I will vote on them. Do Impact calc work on DA's and solvency explanations on CP's.

Theory: I will vote on theory arguments. Make sure you clash with the other teams theory arguments instead of just reading your 15 point condo block. Voters are claims. Claims need warrants. It will be very hard to convince me that the statement "they dropped condo that's a voter, moving on to the case flow" is a reason you should win a debate.

Feel free to contact me at either jfenner@stanford.edu or joefenner@rocketmail.com for questions about this paradigm or judging. 

Updated for Northwestern: It occurs to me I haven't touched this thing in awhile. They often feel quite self-aggrandizing, so I'm hoping to keep this short and informative.

For college debates, please add

caldebatechain@gmail.com

For HS, please add

nathankarlfleming@gmail.com

Ks & Framework: I like clash. I think debate is special because of the depth of debate it allows. That means if your K aff is only for you, I'm not. If your K aff defends topic DAs and has a cool spin on the topic though, I'm your guy. I don't believe that heg good isn't offense, and people should feel comfortable going for impact turns against the K in front of me, because it's cleaner than T a lot of the time. Fairness is an impact, but it's way worse than skills.

Theory: the primary concern is the predictability of the interp. In order for it to be predictable, it needs to be based in a logical interpretation of the resolution. This precludes the vast majority of theory arguments. People seem to be souring on conditionality --- I am not one of those people. I've yet to hear an objection to it not solved by writing and reading higher quality arguments.

A few closing comments: unsorted

-I'm kind of an ev hack. I try not to read cards unless instructed, but if you read great ev, you should be loud and clear about telling me to read it, and if it's as good as you say, then speaker points may be in order.

-Sometimes recutting the other team's card to answer their argument is better than reading one of your own. If you want me to read their card on your terms, include highlighting in another color so we're on the same page on what part you think goes the other way.

-Arguments I won't vote for

-X other debater is individually a bad person for something that didn't happen in the debate

-saying violence to other people in the debate is a good idea

-speech times are bad or anything that literally breaks the debate

-new affs bad

Lincoln Douglas

I judge this now, but I'm still getting used to it, so go easy on me. So far, my policy debate knowledge has carried me through most of these debates just fine, but as far as I can tell these are the things worth knowing about how I judge these debates.

-Theory doesn't become a good argument because speech times are messed up. Dispo is still a joke. Neg flex is still important. That doesn't mean counter plans automatically compete off certainty/immediacy, and it doesn't mean topicality doesn't matter. It does mean that hail-marry 2AR on 15 seconds of condo isn't gonna cut it tho.

-Judge instruction feels more important than ever for the aff in these debates because the speech times are wonky.

-I generally feel confident w/ critical literature, but not all of the stuff in Policy is in LD and visa-versa. So if you're talking about like, Kant, or some other funny LD stuff, go slow and gimme some time.

-This activity seems to have been more-or-less cannibalized by bad theory arguments and T cards written by coaches. I will be difficult to persuade on those issues.

-I don’t flow RVIs.

Public Forum

Copy-Pasting Achten's.

First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence.

This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

Homewood Flossmoor High School 2011-2015

Pomona College 2015-2019 (not debating)

Meta Level

The more work you do, the happier you will be with my decision. By this I don’t just mean that I reward smart strategies, research, etc. (I do), but rather that the better you explain and unpack an argument and tell me how to evaluate it, the less likely my own biases and preferences will affect the decision. With this in mind, there are a couple takeaways

-          Framing is important. At a certain point, this seems redundant to say (obviously impact calc is important), but all too often debaters fail to “tie up” the debate in a way that is easy to evaluate. What impacts matter? What arguments should I look to first? How should I think about making decisions? Leaving these calls up to my gut may not work out well for you. Do not assume that I will put together the pieces of your argument in the way that is most favorable to you, or the way that you they should be viewed. Your best bet is to do this for me. As a general rule of thumb, your likelihood of picking up my ballot is directly proportional to the number of “even if” statements you make.

-          truth and tech are both important and the divisions between them are far more arbitrary and vacuous than it is usually given credit for. That being said, it is up to you to give me a metric for evaluating what claims are true. What types of evidence should I look to? Should I view that evidence through a certain lens? How should I treat dropped/under covered arguments? Obviously I have some personal proclivities that may be harder to overcome than others

o   I will always tend to evaluate dropped arguments far less than extended arguments. This does not mean that dropped arguments are automatically “true” or that truth claims made earlier in the debate are suddenly gone (that may well require more work on my part), but it does mean that I am less likely to give these arguments weight.

o   Although they can be important parts of a speech, I am not inclined to give as much weight to solipsistic narratives as evidence. This is not a hard or fast preference, and some smart framing arguments about the way I should evaluate narratives will go a long way, but do not assume I will immediately evaluate a narrative as evidence in its own right sans an evidenced claim that I should evaluate them this way.

o   Make smart analytic arguments, these can often be better than reading yet another terrible uniqueness card on the politics disad. The more I see you thinking for yourself and making creative and smart arguments in a debate, the better speaks you will get.

I appreciate creative and innovative strategies, maybe more than others. If you want to bust out that weird impact turn or super cheating counterplan or sweet ass new K, you should do that. You will always be better at doing what you do best. Please don’t feel deterred from reading a strategy in front of me because the community has generally frowned on it (spark, death good, etc.), I’m down to hear things outside of the norm. That being said, I included a few notes about how I feel/debated like in high school, you can take these preferences however you want, they are subject to change within a round.

As a caveat, Debate should be a space where everyone feels welcome. Please do not read racist/sexist/anti-queer/ableist/ or otherwise offensive arguments in front of me.

Please add me on the email chain: Jacob.a.fontana@gmail.com.

Framework

I debated both sides of this extensively in high school. I will not “penalize” you for reading framework; I think it is a smart and strategic argument. Similarly, do not assume that because you read framework you have my ballot, I am very middle of the road on these issues. You should treat this as any other K/CP strategy you have read. Too often teams miss nuance in these debates and read a bunch of state good/bad evidence while neglecting the smaller moving pieces, I tend to think those are important, and the more you address the internal link level of the debate, the better off you will be.

T

Affirmatives should find ways to leverage offense against the negatives interpretation. Playing some light defense and reading some reasonability blacks is not going to win you my ballot. I generally tend to default to competing interpretations. Furthermore, teams need to treat this debate more like disad, you should do impact calc, read impact, link, or internal link turns, explain why your interp solves a portion of their offense, etc. I greatly enjoy smart T debates and will reward you handsomely in speaker points if you execute it well.

Disads

Absolute defense (or defense to the point where I should cease to evaluate the disad outside of the noise of status quo) is a thing and far too few debaters go for. 90 percent of disads are absolute garbage and you shouldn’t be afraid to point that out. More broadly, Offense defense tends to be a heavily neg biased model of debate and contributes to a lot (in my eyes) to the denigration of the activity towards the most reality-divorced hyperbolic impact claims, and I will not default to it. Obviously this is subject to change in a given round, but you should be conscious of the weight I tend to give to defensive arguments. In general, I think link controls the direction of uniqueness, but I can easily be persuaded otherwise

Please, if you have it, read something different than politics. I don’t hate the politics disad, but it is an often overused strategy and I will reward your innovation with speaker points

Counterplans

Any argument is legitimate until it is not, don’t hesitate to read your cheating counterplans in front of me, but be ready to defend them. Theory debates are good and valuable, but I do not want to listen to you read your blocks at 400 words a minute. Slow down, make smart arguments, and go for what you’re ahead on. Less is often more in these situations. I actually very much enjoy good theory debates and find them quite interesting. You should treat these like any other type of debate, you should do impact calc, flesh out internal links, etc.

Kritiks

I have a reasonable familiarity with most mainstream critiques and greatly enjoy these debates. In high school, I would most often read the security or the cap K, but this should not be interpreted as an exclusionary list. You do you and I’ll likely jive with it. I will reward innovation, reading a tailored critique is far more interesting to me than rereading the same Spanos block your team has had for the last 8 years. The one caveat here is that my familiarity with certain “high theory” authors (Bataille, Deleuze, etc.) is rather passing. I am more than certainly open to hearing these arguments and don’t have any prejudices against them (I debated on the same team as Carter Levinson for 3 years), but this does mean that you may need to take extra time to unpack arguments and contextualize them in terms of the debate.

Topic Notes

I have not worked on the China Topic, for you this means you probably want to slow down on, and possibly explain, acronyms the first couple times.

Ethics violations

Ethic violations are deliberate, not accidental. Missing a few words or accidentally skipping a line isn’t a big deal, but repeatedly doing that or doing it in a way that is clearly intentional is. If you believe that someone has committed an ethics violation, please start recording the round, I also reserve the right to do this. If I think you are clipping, I may start a recording of my own, I will also try read along in the speech docs whenever possible. If I do determine you’ve committed a violation, you will lose the debate and receive 0 speaks, I will also speak to your coaches. Clipping is a serious offense and I will treat it with the attention it deserves.

Email chain/contact: lanikfrazer@gmail.com

About me - I was the director of speech & debate at sonoma academy for 4 years, and coach for 3 years prior. I debated at SVDP and at Cal and have taught at the CNDI. I no longer do anything debate related.

General - My judging philosophy is pretty simple - you should ultimately do what you do best. I prioritize specificity, contextualization, and evidence quality over your style of debate. Really, I can't stress this enough. I don't judge many policy v. policy debates, but I am able to adjudicate them. I do, however, primarily judge K v. K/clash rounds.

Organization is very important. I flow on paper. I am not a fan of huge overviews and card dumps- please do the work for me and tell me where I should flow things. Explaining warrants is crucial. Empirics and examples are great. Impact analysis is critical. Tech should be truth.

Topicality - I will vote on topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation is good, predictable, and resolves their voters. You should be explaining why, as a whole, your vision of the topic is good, and have tangible impacts. Potential abuse isn't super compelling to me, but I'll vote on it if you tell me why I should. Ks of T are often pretty trifling and need to be explained in depth. "Community consensus" on T doesn't mean much to me and should not be taken for granted.

Theory - I have a high threshold for theory debates and find them to be blippy and frivolous most of the time. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, but if there is a voting issue it must be thoroughly articulated and should have a very strong presence in the 2nr/2ar. Slow down, be clear, and do more than read the shell.

Framework - I mostly judge debates wherein affirmatives do not read a traditional plan text. I am fine with this. Should affirmatives at least be in the direction of the topic? Probably, but not necessarily. Framework read against a K/performance aff that does something concrete is typically not a good argument to read in front of me. You should be engaging in what they do and you should do more than say that they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Provide a creative topical version, and explain why fairness or education or whatever comes first (and why this means the aff can't access their own pedagogy). Do more than provide a case list, but explain why those cases are good for debate. I tend to think that fairness is more of an internal link and not a terminal impact, but if you're winning that I will vote for you.

The K - love it. I spend a lot of time reading critical theory and am probably familiar with your lit, but I will not do extra work for you, so the less jargon/more explanation, the better. Be specific and have contextualized links (the link should be to the aff and not the world). You should also answer all of the aff's impacts through turns, defense, etc. Framing is super important. The permutation is underutilized. Impact turns on the aff are cool, but not when it's something you shouldn't say pedagogically.

Disadvantages - Fine. Win your link, turn/outweigh the case, impact calc. Intrinsicness is silly and I'll probably not evaluate it much unless it's seriously mishandled (though it can be compelling against things like riders DAs, which are, in my opinion, a misinterpretation of fiat).

Counterplans - Great. I love a creative advantage CP. You should have a solvency advocate. I definitely lean neg on most theory arguments here, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on them.

Let me know if you have any questions. Shoot me an email before the round if you want me to be aware of access needs, pronouns, etc.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Garcia%2C+Brandon

TLDR; May your heart be your guiding key, I say it all the time. You ultimately need to do what your heart feels is right.

Background: Debated LD in Colorado during high school; coach since graduation also in Colorado, MA in International Studies (Governance, Human Rights, and Civil Society). 2023 - 2024 season: I've watched mostly LD > PF > only a few CX rounds.

I have judged at Stanford and Berkeley tournaments for several years, plus numerous out rounds in LD and CX at NSDA Nationals.

Apparently I haven't updated this in a while...since that last update I've come to believe that paradigms are even more useless. I write it. You read it. We probably both ignore it.

General:

• Please impact your extensions. I won't simply flow through a card author.
• Give me voters! Probably with some weighing and clash...
• I dislike it when individuals run arguments that they don't understand: 1) quality over quantity; 2) don't waste my time. (I am seeing SO much power tagging. I can pull up your evidence very quickly and do a keyword search.)
• I think the best debate rounds are those in which the debaters agree what is being debated and don't try to play games--don't try to confuse your opponent, don't try to tell me you addressed something when you didn't, etc. Just be clear and engage with the issues of the round.
• If you want to ask me additional questions before a round, please be specific. Otherwise you prepped for a round and my paradigm is just some words on a screen.

PF Paradigm

I've never really thought about having a PF specific paradigm... My overall thought is that PF is meant to focus on the topic. I want substantive debate and not theory. I'm normally pretty tab at debate, but I find it so uninspiring to hear a whole round on theory.

LD Paradigm

Nothing special for LD. Be smart on time use.

CX Paradigm

My debaters have called me out and said I seem anti-CX here. Truth is, I think really good CX debate is better than anything else, and I've come to really appreciate CX. The problem is that it is rare to see a good round of CX. There's never clash. People read arguments they don't understand. People ignore evidence at a whim. There's a tension between just reading a bunch of cards and wanting the judge to do the work of analysis and then complaining about judges not understanding arguments. And more. And it's not unique to CX.

So, long-story short: I try to be pretty tab in CX -- because I wasn't a competitor I have very few preconceived ideas of what I want to see in a round. Take some extra time and explain any CX theory to me. I'm not going to love a lot of "education is better" or "truthiness is better" either. Do some work if it comes down to theory.

Speed: I have no preference and a pretty high threshold for an LD judge from backwards Colorado. I try to keep a rigorous flow so if you get too fast I will clearly stop typing or writing. If you also don't slow down a bit on taglines, arguments and cards probably won't get flowed where you want them.

Arguments: I tend to be more interested in philosophical debates and "traditional" LD (for CX this means I probably enjoy a good K debate, but I also appreciate a clear policy framework), but I will listen to, and flow anything. Start with a clear framework, provide clash, and make it clear for me where I vote. I have a pretty solid background in political theory and an interest in German philosophy broadly (Kant to Habermas).

I will judge your debate by determining which arguments have been preserved to the final speeches and are adequately supported by evidence or persuasive explanation. Then I will compare your arguments, hopefully with instruction from you which frames the important issues and tells me how to make close calls.

Judge philosophies are a bit silly because it is the exceptionally rare case where an issue must be resolved with reference to the judge’s arbitrary preferences. Usually the debaters make their arguments, one side presents a more comprehensive approach to the important issues and frames the close calls, and then judge votes for that team. That being said, I include the following as my thoughts on issues which many teams seem to base their judge preference decisions on.

1. In an ideal world, the affirmative will read a plan that is topical. I do not feel the need to impose a hard rule here; the arguments against affirmative topicality are bad. A debate between equally competent teams should not produce the sentence: “I voted affirmative despite them being untopical.” I do not think debate would function if everyone disregarded the topic, and I think debate—a thing we all do—is good.

2. The arguments against negative conditionality are equally unpersuasive. Again, no hard rule. But I struggle to imagine an affirmative team that convincingly defends an arbitrary limit on the number of a certain type of argument that the negative may read after the 1NC has already occurred, and also that that limit requires the negative team lose the debate. If you think CPs are not “kickable,” then just say that.

3. Cross-examination answers should be binding on the team which made them. Possible exceptions include intricate clarifications of plan mechanism for the purposes of competition (which may not be suitable for on-the-spot Q&A) and promises about how the debate will unfold (e.g., whether a CP will be kicked or whether you will impact turn something if given the chance; I do not think debaters can reasonably rely on advance notice about their opponents’ strategy).

4. Initial constructives should be flowable. Rebuttals should be thoroughly understandable.

5. Speaker points are a composite of argument strategy (ultimately successful or not), clarity in speaking, cross-examination tactics, and organization.

6. I reserve the right to handle ethics challenges on an ad hoc basis to best facilitate the continuation of a fair debate. Sometimes this is impossible.

Stanford 2021

Former college policy debater at UC Berkeley

I mostly did K debate that's definitely my area of expertise but argument flex is fine I can flow and understand just about anything

I would slow down for more complicated theory args and if you don't make them a significant portion of the final speeches I am not likely to vote for them

don't be offensive

ask me specific questions if you have them

don't have a lot of rounds on the topic

2020 update

mggreenbury@gmail.com

Not much experience on this topic

Been away from the scene for the past semester. Don't worry, I can still listen to speed, but you might want to assume I'm not fully aware of all the topic details.

I like K debate. Prefer poststructuralism or whatever you call it - would probably be what I have the most experience in. Performance debate is cool. Policy debate is good too, just not what I did for the most part. Good plans with solid solvency mechanisms vs intriguing CP/DAs are always engaging to judge for me but politics debates are boring so if you come with generics you better do it right. I consider myself open minded but I do find myself unpersuaded by the same generics FW args that teams have been reading since 2015. Try explaining things in new ways, using new words and examples. I will reward that.

almost all ideas are fair game, except those which offend or harm other people. please use common sense in this regard or I'll dock speaks.

2019 update

very few rounds on the policy topic, please explain any acronyms or details that one might assume a judge with experience on the topic would understand

speed is fine

argument flexibility is fine and good

focus on explaining things; less is more

”debate does not necessarily take the form of a disagreement; it can yield a more complex disimplication or displacement”

i don’t vote on things not In the final speeches

2017 for Stanford

Very few (<20) rounds on the topic. Mostly policy, weirdly, but it's been three months. Please explain any terms (locations, documents, events, concepts, etc.) that may require more experience.

Aside: the term high theory now for me demonstrates the general implosion of meaning.

Out of competition since last season. Everything below still true, with the caveat that my appreciation for the the decorum and the ethos of debate has diminished. I think you can interpret that how you want. Creativity and clarity are awarded with speaker points.

Lastly the authors of flavor for the rhetoric department are Schmitt, Heidegger, and Hegel. Please do not read a critique of Bildung.

2016 Update

About two dozen total rounds on the 2015-2016 HS topic. Mostly on the non-topic but plenty of K affs with plans and a few policy debates.

I do and prefer K debate for the most part, but I am still interested in hearing policy arguments. I understand and like them, at times.

I vote on T/FW, but I think most teams would be helped by substantive and explicated impact calc vs the aff, articulating a strong T version solves arg, etc. You can't just extend T like you would in front of a judge who ideologically prefers your args.

If you're too fast I might ask you to slow down. You should do you. Within reason, try to offend me.

Most familiar in high theory arguments: afropessimist, feminist, queer theory, and Marxist-derivative literatures. I sort of major in critical theory at Berkeley so sometimes I just happen to know a lot about Ranciere or Edward Said depending on the semester.

Feel free to ask any other questions.

i use they/them pronouns!

Add me to the email chain! tonyhackett (at) alumni.stanford.edu

Chances are if you're reading this, you're up late deciding where you should pref me or you already have me in the back and you're frantically trying to prep and look and see if I'll be down for what you want to read. To save you the time -- I'm probably fine with it, and the tldr; of my philosophy is that you should feel comfortable doing whatever you're best at.

If you want to read the more long-winded version of my debate background / personal style / my methodology for adjudicating debate rounds, read below.

I debated for C. K. McClatchy High School in Sacramento, CA, and Stanford University ('20). I did the whole TOC thing my senior year and qualified to the NDT my freshman year. I'm currently affiliated with C. K. McClatchy/Nevada Union and St. Francis High School (Mountain View, CA).

I'll try to keep this brief --

Ultimately, my goals are to try my hardest and vote for the team who won the debate, no matter who they are.

If i have the pleasure of sitting in the back of the room and watching you debate, here are some pieces of advice --

Do what you do best. I'd rather see a well-debated counterplan and disad debate (if that's what you want to do!) than a poorly executed attempt to appease me based on my argumentative preferences in high school. If you're asking yourself at this moment whether or not I'm fine with the arguments you're planning on reading, the answer is almost assuredly yes.

Critics that I most respect are: Sarah Lim, Mimi Sergent-Leventhal, Kevin Hirn, Jarod Atchison, John Spurlock, and Sam Haley-Hill, Taylor Brough, Brian Manuel, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Syndey Pasquinelli, and Brian McBride.

When I go about deciding debates, I try answer a series of questions. Primarily, if both teams win all of their arguments, who wins the debate? Is there a major execution error? Is there a team lacking offense on any given position? Has either team won an impact framing argument by virtue of execution or evidence? Is there significant argument interaction? Once I have found answers to these questions, I've likely decided who won the debate.

That being said, here are some specific thoughts.

K affs -- I think Kevin Hirn said it best when he said " Despite some of the arguments I've read and coached, I'm still sympathetic to the framework argument (especially in high school). I don't presumptively think that topicality arguments are violent, and I think it's generally rather reasonable (and often strategic) to question the aff's relationship to the resolution. For what it's worth, I would generally prefer to see a substantive strategy if one's available, but I understand that often framework is the best option (especially in certain circumstances, like when the aff is new or you're from a school with a small research base).

I typically think winning unique offense, in the rare scenario where a team invests substantial time in poking defensive holes in the other team's standards, is difficult for both sides in a framework debate. I think affs should think more about their answers to "switch side solves your offense" and "sufficient neg engagement key to meaningfully test the aff", while neg's should brainstorm better responses to "other policy debates solve your offense" and "wiki/disclosure/contestable advocacy in the 1ac provides some degree of predictability/debateability."

I'm interested (and invested) in both sides of the framework debate, and have about a 50/50 record voting both ways. Being inventive, smart, daring, and responsive will win you major points, as it seems like I judge mostly clash debates, and the prospect of listening to a decaf state good/reform bad debate seems unfair.

Disads/CP's -- I love nuanced counterplan/disad debates. Explain the mechanism for your counterplan and slow down on the text. I'm persuaded by presumption arguments insofaras you win a turns case argument or are winning some hard core terminal defense to the aff. I love intrinsic offense and well-prepared stategies over generics with poor evidence quality. Disads with plan specific links are for real.

Topicality -- I used to think that Topicality was incredibly trivial, but after having debated in college and seeing some of the downright wild things that policy aff's can try to get away with sometimes, I think it's an essential argument for the negative arsenal. You should explain your internal links in the context of the aff and have external impacts. Ask Jordan Foley.

I think evidence comparison is a job of the debaters, but I'll call for it if there is a technical question that comes down to how the ev reads or if there is a concern about the validity of args made in the evidence by the debaters where a large portion of the debate rests.

If you've made it this far and you're still not sure if you should strike me, maybe seeing what args I currently read in college can provide some insight:

https://opencaselist.paperlessdebate.com/Stanford/Prabhu-Hackett+Aff

https://opencaselist.paperlessdebate.com/Stanford/Prabhu-Hackett+Neg

Have fun!

TLDR VERSION

I've been around a long time. I've seen a lot of conventional wisdom come and go. I don't always agree with the consensus of the moment. Be fast, be clear, read a K and/or a counterplan.

Remote Debates:

I flow on paper and actually make an effort to watch you and listen to the words you are saying. It's hard to give speaker points to a glowing dot, so turn on your camera when speaking if possible. I will not follow the speech doc as you are talking, so be clear.

Want to be on the email chain? - Yes, but know that I won't look at the docs until the debate is over.

Please send docs to: samhaleyhill@gmail.com

Speed? - Yes

Open CX? - Sure, but if you aren't involved somewhat, your speaker points suffer.

When does prep time stop? - When you cease to alter your speech doc and to talk about the debate with your partner.

Judge Disclosure - Unless the tournament has some terrible counter-educational policy preventing it (looking at you, NCFL).

Can I read (X argument)? Yes, if it's not offensive.

T? - Reasonability (whew - really feels good to be honest there)

Will you vote on disclosure theory? - No. Disclosure is a good community norm which I support, but I do not think ballots can or should enforce this norm. The exception would be if you can prove that someone straight up lied to you.

Tech over truth? - Yes, but I think people often take this way too far.

FULL VERSION

Biography

Years Judging: 16
Years Debated: 4

I debated for four years in high school for Nevada Union (1998-2002) during which time I made two TOC appearances. I did not debate for Berkeley during my time there, but I was an assistant coach for the College Preparatory School from 2002-2006. After that, I was off the circuit for a few years because I moved to Hong Kong for a year and then went to graduate school. 2010-2011 was my first year back. I worked for New Trier for a year after that and at Nevada Union from 2011-2012. After that I went back to CPS for three more years. I then spent four years running the program at St. Francis. I now work with the Washington Urban Debate League. I have judged a lot for a long time.

Tech Over Truth - This is not dogma

I think that the phrase "tech over truth" is just as vacuous as its inverse, "truth over tech." I honestly have no idea what either of these slogans is trying to say, but I do know that people who repeat either of them incessantly tend to make decisions that I don't get.

"Tech" is just as subjective as "truth" because whether someone's embedded clash has answered something, whether an argument has a warrant, whether someone has explained something enough to have extended it, etc. are all judgement calls at some level anyhow.

I think that dropped arguments are conceded. I think that I should refrain from dismissing arguments that I don't agree with. I think that arguments which I think are bad should still win the debate if the debater advancing them has argued better than the opponent. I guess that's tech over truth?

At the same time, I am the kind of judge who thinks that one compelling, well-developed argument can be more important than three specious, underdeveloped ones. I don't think that the concession of a less significant argument necessarily outweighs a more significant argument that is won despite contestation. Is that truth over tech? Is this whole tech vs. truth binary kind of pointless?

My bumper sticker slogan would be something like: "Analysis over blips."

Speaker Points - No, you can't have a 30.

It used to go without saying that I award speaker points solely based on how well I feel the debaters performed in each round. These days, it seems that I need to say that I will continue to do this regardless of what anyone else does and regardless of what debaters tell me to do during the debate.

I think that there's a performative/communicative aspect to this activity. Speak persuasively and your points will improve.

Try to be nice.

Judge Disclosure - I do it.

I'll disclose my decision and talk about the round with you in depth afterwards. I remember getting a lot out of post-round discussions when I was a debater, and I hope I can pass something along. If your analytics are in your speech docs for my later reference, I'll even give you my flows.

Speed - Go ahead, but be clear

I can flow any rate of delivery.

Lately, someone out there has been telling high school debaters to slow down and emphasize tags. Stop it, whoever you are. This advice implies that I don't care about the text of the card. In fact, I care about how you tagged the card far, far less than I care about what the text of the card actually says. When you slow down for the tag, but slosh unintelligibly through the card, you are implying that I can't understand high speed and that the actual card text is a mere formality. If this is so, you may as well just paraphrase the card like a PF debater.

Believe it or not, I actually can understand your card at high speeds if you read it clearly. I'm actually flowing what the card says. Often as not, I won't flow your (often misleading) tag at all.

I'll yell "clear" at you if you're not being clear. I'll do this twice before putting my pen down and pointedly glaring at you.

Line By Line - Please and Thank You

I'll look at evidence, sure, but I will be grumpy if you make me sort out a huge rat's nest of implied and unexplained clash for you. I am a believer in directly responsive line-by-line debate. I think that explaining warrants is good, but comparing warrants is better.

Framework - Can't we all just get along?

I am one of the last folks out there who won't take a side. I vote neg on framework sometimes; I vote aff on framework sometimes. I think framework debates are kind of fundamental to the activity. I'm up for any kind of argument. I love a good K debate, but I'm equally pleased to adjudicate a game of competing policy options. Run what you love. In my heart, I probably don't care if there's a plan text, but I'll vote for theory arguments demanding one if the better debating is done on that side. Please don't read offensive/amoral arguments.

Conditionality - Yeah, sure, whatever

I think one or two conditional CP's and a K is just fine. You can win a debate on conditionality being more permissive than that or being bad altogether. I won't intervene.

T - I am different from the folks at Michigan

I think that winning complete or nearly complete defense on T is sufficient for the aff even in a world of competing interpretations. If the aff meets, they meet. I'm unlikely to give this RFD: "Even though you're winning a we meet, the neg interpretation is better, so any risk that you don't meet etc etc." Ever since someone told me back in 1999 that T should be evaluated like a DA, I have not agreed. It's a procedural issue, not a predictive claim about the consequences of implementing a policy. As such, I evaluate T procedurally. Whether or not the aff meets is a binary question, not a linear risk.

I think sometimes people think that "competing interpretations" means "the smallest interpretation should win." To me, smallest is not necessarily best. Sure, limits are a big deal, but there is such a thing as over-limiting. There are also other concerns that aren't limits per se, like education, ground, and predictability.

I can be persuaded otherwise in a debate, but I think we should evaluate T through the lens of reasonability.

Open Cross Ex - Yeah

Just make sure that you're involved somewhat or I'll hammer your speaks.

Disclosure theory

Stop it. People choose to disclose as a courtesy. It is not and should not be a requirement. I tell all my teams to disclose. I think you should disclose. If you choose not to, so be it.

If you make a disclosure theory argument, I will ignore you until you move on to something else. I will never vote on a disclosure theory argument, even if it is not answered.

I always find it sadly hilarious when big, brand-name programs tell me that disclosure is good for small schools. It most definitely is not. The more pre-round prep becomes possible, the more that coaching resources can be leveraged to influence debates. That's why the most well-resourced programs tend to be the most aggressive about disclosure theory.

New Affs

New affs are fine. I will not consider arguments which object to them, even if the aff team never answers such arguments.

pls read the whole thing!:)

do what you are best at, and try to maintain good spirits while doing so!

the innate purpose of education is healthy, reflexive, and fruitful for any parties involved

at the end of the day, you are educating yourself to an extent that the average human will not reach, and you also have the ability to test that knowledge competitively with your peers- that's really an amazing thing, and something that should be remembered even in the heat of competition.

i'm not including any information about my debate history, as i am not currently coaching: far less (personally) concerned about the inner-workings of debate procedurals and standards being set within the community. on the flip-side, i am much more concerned about evaluating debates purely for the sake of deciding a winner, as well as being able to provide students with ample constructive criticism that allows them to elevate competitively, as well as foster more creative educational possibilities in future rounds, whether winner or loser.

and most of all, have fun- the more you can laugh and reflect on a round with a grin, on even your worst mistakes (or biggest successes), the more you will be able to be kind to yourself and become better, not at the expense of your mental health. and remember, never have fun at the negative expense of your opponent- a brilliant troll becomes ignorant the moment they become a bully.

peace & good education,

cheers!

she/they

put me on the chain - skylrharris917@gmail.com

Overview:

Y'all know me, still the same O.G. but I been low-key
Hated on by most these nigg@s with no cheese, no deals and no G's
No wheels and no keys, no boats, no snowmobiles, and no skis
Mad at me cause I can finally afford to provide my family with groceries
Got a crib with a studio and it's all full of tracks to add to the wall
Full of plaques, hanging up in the office in back of my house like trophies
Did y'all think I'mma let my dough freeze, ho please
You better bow down on both knees, who you think taught you to smoke trees
Who you think brought you the oldies
Eazy-E's, Ice Cubes, and D.O.C's
The Snoop D-O-double-G's
And the group that said motherduck the police
Gave you a tape full of dope beats
To bump when you stroll through in your hood
And when your album sales wasn't doing too good
Who's the Doctor they told you to go see
Y'all better listen up closely, all you nigg@s that said that I turned pop
Or The Firm flopped, y'all are the reason that Dre ain't been getting no sleep
So duck y'all, all of y'all, if y'all don't like me, blow me
Y'all are gonna keep ducking around with me and turn me back to the old me

Nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say
But nothing comes out when they move their lips
Just a bunch of gibberish
And motherduckers act like they forgot about Dre

Line-by-line

Semi-retired from the policy debate world few years back, but I am around for 4 years during my daughter’s high school policy debate career. Maybe another 4 after that for my son’s. Maybe even longer if they decide to debate in college. “Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in!”

Experienced former circuit debater from the Bay Area. Previous coach in Sacramento for CK McClatchy, Rosemont, Davis Senior, and others. Also coached several Bay Area programs. I am the former Executive Director and founder of the Sacramento Urban Debate League (SUDL). I spent the better part of a decade running SUDL while personally coaching several schools. I've judged a ton of rounds on all levels of policy debate and feel in-depth and informative verbal RFD's are key to debate education.

I will adapt to you rather than you to me. It's not my place as a judge to exclude or marginalize any sort of argument or framework. On the neg, I will vote for K/K + case, T, CP + DA, DA + case, FW/FW + case, performance, theory.... whatever. I personally prefer hearing a good K or theory debate, not that I'm more inclined to vote on those genres of argumentation. I am down for the K, performance, or topical aff. Anything goes with me.

I'm big on organization. Hit the line by line hard. Don't just give me 3 min overviews or read a bunch of cards off the line, then expect me to conveniently find the best place on the flow for you. Do the work for me. I flow on paper OG style, so don't drop arguments. I don't flow off speech docs (neither should you), but put me on the email chain so I can read cards along with you and refer back to them. I can handle any level of speed, but please be as clear and loud as possible.

I will work hard to make the debate accessible and a safe place for you and your arguments. If you have access needs during a debate, wish to inform me of your preferred gender pronoun, or if there is anything you wish to communicate privately, please let me know or send me an email. markcorp2004@msn.com

My judging philosophy is very short for a reason. Its your debate, not mine. Do you. Just stay organized and tell me where and why to vote. Write my ballot for me in your 2NR/2AR.

John Hines
DOD at Head Royce
20+ Years Judging/Coaching

UPDATE--1/2/24

Commencing old man ranting at clouds:

So, it appears my addendum from 6 years ago was just marking the beginning of the end of line-by-line debate.

After returning from a four-year hiatus, I discovered last year that flowing and line-by-line debating are essentially a thing of the past that current debaters don't even really realize they aren't actually doing.

I blame the judges who started flowing directly from the speech docs and decided they no longer needed to hold debaters accountable for what actually came out of their mouths.

So, we now have a community of JUDGES who never actually learned how to flow or debate line by line, either.

This creates a fundamental problem for me. I have no idea how to evaluate debates when everyone else in the room is just reading and responding to the speech docs without knowing whether the judge who actually listens and flows is getting things down on the flow where they belong.

I honestly have no idea how judges today decide debates fairly and objectively based on what was actually said in the debate.

So, I'll summarize everything else below very simply here:

If you don't flow, I probably won't vote for you.

If you don't debate line-by-line, I probably won't vote for you.

If you don't care whether I'm trying to flow the words coming out of your mouth, I probably won't vote for you.

If neither you nor your opponent flows or debates line by line, I will be forced to vote for somebody, but I will have ZERO TOLERANCE for someone who didn't flow or debate off the flow, post-rounding me for why I didn't vote theway they wanted me to vote.

Addendum--10/15/17

Line-by-line debate is actually a thing. It's a skill not a referendum on you as a person or what I think about your arguments. It's a method of clash that allows judges to decide rounds with minimum intervention on their part. If your approach to debating line-by-line includes extensive overviews, "cloud clash," and requests for me to pull out new sheets of paper I am probably not a very good judge for you. I will do my best to evaluate the round in front of me, but if you chose to abandon the line by line please know that you have asked me to insert my subjective views of debate into the round and you are not likely to be happy with the outcome.


Standard philosophy begins here:
Rather than list off a series of personal beliefs about arguments, an explanation of how I decide debates seems more productive. Three keys to debating well in front of me:

1. Make Arguments. I tend to decide debates within 20 minutes of the end of the round. I will call for VERY few cards after the debate as I prefer to make my decision based upon what you argued in the last rebuttals rather than what I think about the quality of your cards. I will not re-read every card read in the debate. I will not read portions of evidence not read in the round by debaters. I will not read cards handed to me that were not extended in the last two rebuttals. I will resolve arguments consisting of disputes over interpretation of warrants in evidence by reading those cards. I will make sure arguments extended in the last two rebuttals can be traced back across the flow to the point they originated. I will make sure cards handed to me were extended properly during the debate before reading them. I will keep a careful flow of the debate and will do my best to vote based upon warranted arguments extended throughout the debate. Your job is to speak clearly and coherently and to dispute the warrants within your opponents’ arguments with analysis and evidence.

2. Make Choices. Most debates come down to a couple of key issues which need to be resolved by me; awareness of these nexus issues and the ability to clarify how they should be resolved is the key to your success. Does the perm on the CP avoid the links to the net-benefits? Does the solvency deficit to the counter-plan outweigh the net-benefits? Who controls the question of uniqueness (both at the link and impact level)? Can the alternative to the criticism function simultaneously with the plan? I prefer to intervene as little as humanly possible. Your ability to accurately frame the nexus issues of the debate for me will reduce the need for me to resolve these questions for you and make me a much happier judge.

3. Don’t be a Jerk. As Ed Lee of Emory says in his most recent Judge Philosophy--"Respect is non-negotiable for me". I work VERY HARD as a judge. I flow on paper, I generally keep my computer closed the entire debate and I try to pay very close attention to everything you say. I spend time constructing my post-round discussion to be clear, concise, and educational. I do not take kindly to debaters or coaches who wish to interrupt and argue with me before I've reached the conclusion of my RFD. I promise to give you plenty of time to ask productive follow-up questions. Lately, I've become even more concerned with in-round comity. Rudeness and snide remarks during cross-ex, insulting the intelligence and goodwill of the other team, and other derisive and insulting behavior towards opponents will not be tolerated. To once again quote Ed - "If you are engaging your opponent in a way that you would not if you were in front of one of your professors [teachers] or the president of your university [principal/head of school] then you should not do it in front of me." I love seeing passionate engagement with argument, but quickly become physically uncomfortable when passion turns into hostility. If you are confused as to where this line resides watch my non-verbals...it will be very obvious.

Finally, on the question of "What kinds of arguments do you prefer" I'll answer by agreeing with Jarrod Atchison on the importance of FLEXIBILITY as a debater. To quote his ballot from a recent NDT final round "Debater flex is the past, present, and the future":

Jarrod ATCHISON, Director of Debate and Assistant Professor of Speech and Drama at Trinity University (Incoming DOF at Wake Forrest), 2008
[Judge Ballot from the Final Round of the 2008 National Debate Tournament, Available Online at http://groups.wfu.edu/NDT/Results/JudgesBallots2008final.htm, Accessed 03-16-2010]

7. Debater Flex is the wave of the future: I would have loved to have been a part of the Dartmouth coaching staff and squad when they were brainstorming a negative strategy for this debate. Although they had an extremely limited amount of time, they had two fantastic debaters in Josh and Kade that could execute a wide range of arguments leaving no option unavailable. In this debate, they had two case specific counterplans, a well developed kritik, two topicality arguments, etc…This debate reminded me that debaters who self identify as “policy” or “kritik” are missing out on a wide range of ways to win. Forget the labels, just think of everything as an argument. Some arguments require more understanding than others, but they are just arguments. If you want to be able to take on a new high tech aff with less than 45 minutes of prep before the final round of the NDT, the last thing that you want to tell your coach/partner is “I can’t argue __.” Debater flex is the past, present, and the future and I hope that students will see Josh and Kade’s 1NC as an example of how important it is to be versatile.

Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.

CX Paradigm

Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.

Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.

Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.

Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.

Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.

For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.

LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards. *For this January/February topic I understand it is essentially a Policy topic in LD so to be fair on this that doesn't mean I can't understand progressive LD but like shown in my Policy Paradigm above I have disclosed what I am cool with and what biases I have tread carefuly if you don't read it thoroughly.

PuFo Paradigm:

Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.

I did Policy Debate in Colorado for three years before switching to LD. Spreading is ok, but only if you're intelligible. I will vote on Ks and T, if the analytics are sound, and I prefer well-reasoned and thought out arguments as opposed to many arguments with wildly unlikely impacts. Please be civil to one another, especially during CX. 

Fangwei (Berber) Jin
Edgemont High School '16
Stanford University '20 (not debating)

Email: bjin162@gmail.com

High School Debate Experience: I debated all four years of high school and broke at the TOC my senior year after receiving 7 bids during the season. In terms of my argumentative background, it might help to know that my experiences at the Michigan and Northwestern camps shaped much of my vision for debate. I ran plan-based AFFs my whole career, with both large extinction-based impacts and more structural impacts as well. On the negative, against non-plan AFFs, I mainly read framework, though I was comfortable going for a variety of identity-based and policy Ks in addition to more traditional DA/CP strategies.

Debaters who have influenced me the most: Alex Miles, Sara Sanchez, Jeff Buntin, Vikram Kohli, Brian Manuel, Zach Mohamed

Meta-Level: I will do my best to withhold my ideological predispositions as I enter into a round. That being said, I believe in the pedagogical benefits of switch-side debate based of the limits established by the resolution. However, I do think that many non-plan teams have thought more thoroughly about their relationship to the resolution than many more policy-based teams, and I am more than willing to vote against framework. The best debates are ones that involve fruitful clash stemming from specific strategies developed by the negative. I believe that nuanced warrant resolution is one of the most important qualities that a debater can garner from the activity, and debaters that reflect a high level of critical thinking during the round will be rewarded through speaker points.

Tunnel vision lost me many of my biggest debates in high school, and I believe that developing the ability to be intellectually flexible and adapt to the contingencies of the specific direction a debate takes it another extremely important pedagogical benefit of debate.

Though specific strategies are awesome, generics are totally underrated. Don't underestimate your ability to beat the best teams with the most generic topic strategies. 

Framework: I think there is a distinction between framework and topicality, and such a distinction matters when it comes to approaching different types of non-plan AFFs. Impacts need to be thoroughly fleshed out and implicated. In my opinion, the more compelling FW impacts stem from arguments based off limits and switch-side debate, rather than the content of debating about policy. Affirmative teams often get away with winning framework debates by luring the NEG into defending more than they have to; if AFF teams are able to get away with this, more power to them. 

Kritiks: I'm generally more familiar with identity-based and policy-based kritiks; I am more unfamiliar with and skeptical of post-modernist kritiks. Kritiks can be an incredibly powerful argument, but too often debaters on both sides lack a thorough understanding of the complexities of such an argument. Debaters need to explain the implications that winning framework have for the rest of the debate (those implications can vary depending on the type of kritik), contextualize generic links to the AFF (preferably with turns case and external impacts), and also thoroughly explain the alternative. I believe that, for many kritiks, if the negative convincingly wins a FW argument against plan-based action, an actionable alternative is not required.

DAs: Case + DA strategies were my favorite in high school. I find the best debaters are ones that can poke logical holes in AFF link chains while making a convincing case for the status quo. To be honest, it's a bit disappointing that teams have shied away from what I believe to be the bread-and-butter of negative debate strategy. Obviously, impact calculus is important, but garnering turns case arguments and impacts off the link can be incredibly smart and sneaky.

Counterplans: Specific and well-researched counterplans are awesome. I'm agnostic on most theory questions -- if you can articulate why conditions CPs and six conditional arguments are legitimate, all the more power to you. Technical debaters that remove 1AC offense through sneaky CPs may be annoying for AFF teams, but if you aren't able to launch a legitimate theoretical attack on such strategies, you shouldn't deserve to win. That being said, the theory debate is probably slanted to the AFF for the more ridiculous usages of CPs that have proliferated in recent years.

Judge Intervention:
Clipping is bad. Don't do it. You will lose and get zero speaker points.

Miscellaneous:
Be nice. Always remember that debate is an extracurricular activity. Don't say offensive shit. Other than that, have fun :)

If you have any questions, feel free to email me before the round.

The philosophies of the judges I most admire tend to explain relatively little in terms of which arguments debaters should run. Objectivity is an ideal I will strive to reach in my own judging. However, while I strongly believe that debate should be entirely about the debaters, I also understand that we all have biases that cause us to make decisions counter to our ideals for judgement and that it would be irresponsible of me to suggest otherwise. I tend to believe that the best way to know what those biases are is through looking at what judges empirically vote for. You're probably best served by looking at my past judging history. Otherwise, I will just tell you some general statements about things I, myself, have done in debate/personally believe about debate, and you can interpret these as biases or not, as you will, knowing that I will actively attempt to prevent them from affecting my decision.

My debate history/education/general preconceptions --

I debated in high school and part of college. Since then, I coached high school debate for awhile. Now, I judge occasionally. As a debater, I tended to read postmodern arguments (Baudrillard, Bataille, etc). I read a bit of Afropess in college. I coached kids reading policy and k arguments. I also graduated pretty recently with a degree in rhetoric (sorta like philosophy but a bit more in the postmodern direction). Since leaving debate, my personal reading has drifted away from critical literature towards more things about policy. related to Ks/debating against Ks --

I'm very conflicted in terms of what I actually believe -- in an outside of round sense -- about framework as a strategy against k affs, because although I, myself, have read mostly kritikal affs and think there are educational aspects to them, I do think there are also some benefits to a more limited topic. I have found that, in my own prep, it has been easiest to effectively prepare against an opponent when their affirmative is at least related to the resolution; however, I have also read affirmative's unrelated to the resolution. Framework is neither engagement with the aff nor is it not engagement with the aff; it is one or the other depending on how it is read. There is no "most" important part of a K. It is illogical to claim that the link is more important than the impact or vice versa (because you can't make monolithic statements about rounds, "Ks" as a category, or even with regards to any individual K, especially given that the parts are dependent on each other...). In a similar vein, I do not think winning an alt is necessary to win every K (although, it is necessary to win many and perhaps most).

Things related to T/Theory --

I'm super interested in T and theory. Debaters don't read either of those positions enough. Also, I don't think debaters, in high school, read enough cards on topicality. People should have more nuanced theory interpretations that are as specific to their position as possible. People shouldn't read "cheating" CPs, but they would win more if they did.

Things that are miscellaneous in nature --

Generally, the more disclosure the better. CX is undervalued. Defense is too. Zero risk is possible but unlikely. Avoiding extinction is maybe the highest collective human imperative, but the ways that debaters get to supposed extinction impacts are almost always inane from a realistic perspective. In terms of the tech/truth question, I used to debate in a pretty techy way that was very centered on the flow. I'm not even really sure what it would mean for someone to vote on truth over tech. If judges are rated on a scale of "willingness to vote on an argument they know is ridiculous if it is well executed," I am probably one standard deviation above the mean in the direction of willingness to vote on absurd things. Realistically, most debate arguments are a bit silly when you really look at them, but we are willing to suspend disbelief for certain things and not others. I generally try to suspend as much outside disbelief as I can and just understand the debate as a sort of internally coherent text.

Finally, I love bad jokes, particularly puns. If you make them, I will not intentionally give you more speaker points, but I will be amused and maybe even like you more as a person. I, however, cannot control if said positive impression unconsciously causes me to give you more speaker points in an unintentional way.

My paradigm was too long. Here is a good one that should make preffing easier.

“If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people, or that rock genocide is good even though they’re people, then you are a bad advocate of your cause and you should lose.” - Calum Matheson

Email for chain: adam.martin707@gmail.com

First: Qualifications

• Competing: St Vincent ‘16, UC Berkeley ‘20

• 3x TOC, 14 bids, coach’s poll, tournament wins, speaker trophies, etc

• Coaching: South Eugene 16-18, Analy 22-23, Sonoma Academy 2023-Present

Second: Argument Preferences

• I try very hard to be a judging robot. I will vote for any argument with a warrant. ASPEC, Process CPs, Death K, Set Col, Time-Cube - they are all as good as the warrant you give.

• I read a kritik on the aff and went for framework on the neg. I truly don’t have any emotional attachment to a particular argument.

• While I don’t have argument preferences, there are things I know more or less about.

• Debate things I know a lot about: Baudrillard, Deleuze, Bifo, Set Col, Queerness, Afropess, Framework debates, really any K

• Life things I know about: Philosophy, politics, tech, mushrooms!

• Debate things I don’t know a lot about: Most topics, competition theory norms, process CPs, general policy tricks. By don’t know “a lot” I just mean I’m not an expert - I still have a pretty solid understanding of all of this, but I generally prefer you explain more on competition shells rather than just reading 30 definitions and expecting me to know the norms of how to interpret them

• My lack of argument preferences applies to theory, meaning I’m more likely to vote for straight up “condo bad” than most judges. Just as I’m willing to listen to any arg, I’m equally willing to hear that an arg is unfair.

Third: Notes on How I Judge

• I flow what you say, not what I read in your doc. For the most part, I do not open speech docs during the round. I will not read your doc to understand something that didn’t make sense in your speech. This means you need to slow down on theory arguments and counterplan texts. I am a techy judge so if I don’t understand the CP because you went too fast, you don’t have a CP.

• Arguments need warrants. I will very quickly vote on 0 risk if you don't say "because" in your arguments and instead just extend author names. I am very strict about this so don't be surprised when my RFD says "you had no reason for this claim".

• Do not try and bring up anything that happened outside of the round. I cannot verify any claim about something external to the round. The only exception is disclosure. I will check the wiki to see if you disclosed if that is relevant to the round.

• Normal means is a thing and you should know how that works. If you write a vague plan text, you don’t get to define what it means. I assume that congress will pass the most likely interpretation of what your plan text says. You do not get to read a generic “federal jobs guarantee” plan text then say it just means bunny daycare jobs on Mars.

• New arguments in rebuttals are becoming the norm. I now hold the line for you in the 2nr and 2ar, but it is up to the 2nr to point out how certain 1ar args were completely new and explain why that means I should reject them. Flagging “no new 1ar args” in the block can help get ahead of this.

• Until an argument is made to the contrary, I think of voting for an advocacy as me signifying that that thing would be a good thing if done, not that the negative or affirmative has actually performed said advocacy.

• I will kick the CP for you if condo is never mentioned or won by the neg and I decide that the aff is a bad idea. This is something I am going to think about a lot but as of now, I will presume judge kick.

• Cross-applications are not new arguments. If the 1ar says reasonability on one T violation, and the 2nr goes for a different one, the 2ar can cross-apply it legitimately. However, this does assume that there was a reason why their c/i is reasonable in the 1ar.

• You can have my flow: I always wished that it wasn't awkward to ask the judge for their flow, so this is me telling you that it is not awkward for you to ask me for mine. I think that reading someone's flow of your speech is incredibly educational and so I will happily send you a copy.

• I may be standing for some or all of your speech. Yeah I know it’s weird, but sitting sucks. I promise I am paying better attention than the half-asleep judge sitting comfortably in their chair.

• Contradictions are only abusive if the negative asserts two opposing truth claims neither of which did the affirmative explicitly defend. This standard usually means it is more strategic to just cross-apply one of their claims to take out the other then spend your time no-linking the first position. To give an example, I do not think that it is abusive for a team to read a death reps K and then read a disad that has death impacts if your affirmative also had death impacts. I just can't conceive of how that could be abusive. There is no functional distinction between '1nc - Death K, DA, Case' and '1nc - Disease Reps K, DA, Case' in terms of abusing the affirmative. However, reading the cap K and then a DA that says the aff hurts cap and cap is good against an aff that is about emission reduction and doesn't mention capitalism is obviously abusive. The negative has made two competing truth claims, neither of which did the affirmative defend. HOWEVER, this rant is just my thoughts, and can be used by either team in the round but it does not mean that I won't vote for con if the neg reads a Death K and an extinction-level DA, I'll still evaluate it like any other round.

• Always send cards in docs, not in the body of the email. Otherwise it's hard for me to steal them.

• You can ask for a marked copy outside of cx, but any question about which arguments were read is cx.

Speaker Points – (I inflate/curve points depending upon the difficulty of the tournament)

To me, speaker points are where I get to reward quality debating. Quality debating means the following: understanding of your argument, clear speaking, smart choices, and kindness. My speaks may surprise you. A team who is less technical but clearly communicates their argument may get a 29.5, while a highly technical team who shadow-extends arguments without warrants may get a 28.5. I heavily punish being mean - there is no reason for it.

- Above 29.5: I will spend tonight crying about how beautifully you debated

- 29.5: I will tell my friends about you

- 29 – 29.5: You should get a top 5 speaker award

- 28.7 – 29: You should probably break

- 28.5 – 28.7: You gave solid speeches

- 28 – 28.5: You are a good debater, some strategic errors

- 27.5 – 28: You are decent, but made many errors

- 27 – 27.5: You made many mistakes, and probably lost the debate for your team

- 26.5 – 27: You made many errors and should end 1-5 or 0-6

- 26 – 26.5: You shouldn’t be in whatever level of debate you are

- Under 26: You were literally incomprehensible or offensive

tl;dr yeah, you can go fast

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I debated for four years in College doing Parli and LD. I also spent three years coaching on the High School level doing Policy, LD, and Public Forum. I am a pretty big flow judge so essentially, the team who makes me do the least amount of work at the end of the round to make a decision will, most likely, win. I appreciate it when you extend your own dropped arguments across the flow because I won't do it for you. The biggest weighing mechanism in the round for me is impacts and impact calculus, my favorite kind of impacts tend to be high magnitude however, in order to capture those for me you need to have a beautiful link chain. I'm okay with all arguments which include the K, standard Advantages and Disadvantages, Topicality, Theory etc. I am fine with speed but don't let your arguments get lost in the speed ; simply speak loud and articulate to ensure I get all of your arguments. If there is a problem I will call clear or volume but keep in mind that if I have to continually do this your speaker points will suffer. Other than that this is your round so do what you want with it and have fun. Feel free to ask any questions.

[Updated paradigm for Berkeley 2020 below]

New paradigm given my new circumstances. After 11 years coaching and debating at the high school and NDT-CEDA levels, I'm no longer actively coaching or competing in policy. I’m an experienced judge and have competed and coached at a very wide range of levels over the years, including the NDT and TOC, but I have pretty much tuned out debate since the end of last season. I'm looking forward to hearing my first debates on this year's topic as international topics were some of my favorites, but you should know that Berkeley will be my first tournament judging this topic. I am currently in my second and final year of a masters program in public policy here at UC Berkeley.

I’d like to be on the email chain if applicable: Menzies.benjamin530@gmail.com. If using flash drives or paper, I’ll ask for cards at the end of the round.

I debated at Nevada Union (2007-2010) and Whitman College (2010-2014), then coached at Whitman (2014-15) and C.K. McClatchy (2015-18). I coached NDT and TOC qualifying teams and attended the NDT myself (as well as participating in some pretty locally-focused lay debate and working at a very regionally-focused debate camp in the northwest – so from the most fast and technical kind of debate to the opposite of that).

Stylistically, I believe debate is up to the debaters and will judge whatever kind of debate you want me to. As both a coach and a competitor, I’ve been all over the framework spectrum and find that I am pretty flexible when it comes to issues of engaging the resolution, alternative approaches to impact debates, or whether debate is a good vehicle for various kinds of political commitments. Just do whatever you do as well as you can, and I promise I will give you the fairest opportunity possible to win my ballot. Absent some other story about how I should decide my ballot, I’m generally just going to weigh the benefits and costs of voting affirmative versus negative, as articulated to me in the last rebuttals. I’m pretty partial to offense-defense analysis since it makes sense to me and is what I was mainly trained in, but I’ve voted for plenty of other methods of weighing arguments on the flow.

Having spent most of my competitive career working on the affirmative side of the resolution, I find that I am generally sympathetic to many aff claims about the problems with some generic strategies that have cropped up over the years. In particular, I just don’t like process counterplans that are lazily executed as a way to steal the whole aff. But I have voted for plenty over the years, and I generally think the best answers to bad arguments are good analytical arguments or clever applications of thin evidence (not theoretical challenges). I have also cut a lot of politics/elections cards over the years, although I feel like these arguments are somewhat on the decline these days. I’m totally fine with critical arguments as well, although I will admit I have never been a huge fan of the psychoanalytic variety of Ks (but, again, have voted for them). I’m also now a graduate student in public policy and have worked on policy the past few years at the state level, so I’m naturally pretty interested in the “real” policy analysis that sometimes doesn’t show up in policy debate (but can be quite effective – it mostly takes place on the case!).

I don’t really have any strong opinions about conditionality and don’t really find the number of off-case positions read by the negative to be a salient point in many of those debates (i.e. “they read six off case positions, so we couldn’t answer their arguments” doesn’t really read to me as a complete argument or reason to vote affirmative).

I always really enjoyed cross examination and find it sometimes weighs pretty heavily in my speaker point allocation. It is some of your most precious time in the debate and can often prove decisive, so I recommend preparing for it like it is a speech and trying to make the most of yours. Also it’s sometimes not particularly relevant to the question of who won the debate, I do like to see quality evidence read. Most debate evidence is really not very good, so it’s always nice to see evidence of good research and preparation. And it’s easier to weigh persuasively than bad evidence!

Happy to answer any other questions you have. Remember that this activity is intended to be fun and educational, so do your best to create an inclusive community conducive to making that available for all people. In a communicative activity, rhetoric is certainly material, and you should pay attention to making yours constructive, thoughtful, and non-exclusionary toward groups underrepresented in debate.

Ryan Mills - Archbishop Mitty High School, CA

Competitor: Damien HS 1980-1984, Loyola Marymount University (LMU) 1984-1987

Coach: Loyola HS (Los Angeles) 1989-1994, Pinewood 1994-1995, College Prep 1995-2000, Archbishop Mitty 2016 - Present

Please put me on the email chain: rmills1916@gmail.com

[My] Framework - Or how do we achieve our best selves by doing this thing called 'debate'?

I approach debate as an educator so for me the primary reason we spend our nights and weekends together is our appreciation of the activity's ability to help us improve our critical thinking skills and articulate complex concepts in a logical and persuasive way. To that end

• Tell the story - the team who ends the debate with a coherent, compelling narrative is generally rewarded. Resolve, rather than merely extend, arguments in the 2nr/2ar.
• 'Debate the debate we're in.' Reading canned blocks, especially through rebuttals, means you're not clashing (or listening, or flowing) which also means I'm left to resolve the debate myself - no one's happy in that scenario.
• I'll be on the email chain, but I'm not reading along and won't fill in my flow from the speech doc what I don't hear comprehensibly. I prioritize flowing the card verbiage over the (very often overpowered) tag, so please don't do the slow tag line/incomprehensible high-speed card read routine. I flow, on paper, which is my detailed record of what transpires in the debate and is what I reference when rendering a decision. If it's not on my flow, it's not considered, so please make sure you tell me where your 2nr/2ar extension originates earlier on in the debate.
• Card clipping is cheating - loss and zeroes if caught.
• If the debate centers around whose evidence is better on a particular argument, best you do the evidence comparison work for me because...
• If you *do* ask me to read a piece of evidence, you are inviting my intervention in the debate regarding the 'quality' of the evidence (whether it actually says what you claim it says). Once you invite me (or any critic) into *your* space, you've lost control of how far that critic engages your invitation.
• Overtly racist, sexist, misogynistic, anti-LGBTQ discourse, etc. results in a loss and zero points.
• I welcome a spirited discussion during the RFD, but sometimes we simply won't agree on the outcome. Most judges make decisions on 'meta' arguments governing the overall direction of the debate, not some claim buried in the quickly-spewed third-level subpoint in a block. Even if you come away from my RFD thinking I'm a complete idiot, the best way to approach any critic is to ask probing questions about how we arrived at our conclusions. That way next time you debate in front of me you have a beat on how I think and can craft your approach accordingly (or decide my view is just so antithetical to yours that you strike me, which is fine too). If you treat these exchanges as a training ground for successful future, much higher stakes exchanges you'll have both personally and professionally, you'll have absorbed the best of what this activity has to offer.

That's my framework. Now, a few words on how I default if you leave me to my own devices.

Overview - 'You do you' as long as you warrant it

I do my best to suspend my predilections: whether I love or hate a particular argument, I'll vote for you if you win it unless it's fundamentally reprehensible (genocide good, etc.).

Primary guidance: debate the debate we're in rather than read canned blocks written months ago in a land far far away from the round we're sitting in. Clash is paramount.

Default views on argument types

Topicality

I prefer to understand what specific ground the negative is rightfully entitled to that the affirmative interpretation precludes access to. I care more about what you do than what you might allow. Conversely, I am also receptive to arguments around T as language policing resulting in the exclusion of marginalized voices, so don't be afraid to go for that either. I'm a former English teacher, so to me words matter in both directions.

Plans/Counterplans/Permutations: Words Matter!

Document the exact plan/counterplan/permutation(s) wording before engaging. If there is a real grammatical flaw in the text, don't be afraid to stake the debate on it, properly impacted (the 2003 ToC was decided on a plan flaw argument so it's a thing, at least to me).

Won't 'judge-kick.' It's up to the negative to make strategic decisions about advocacy in the 2NR.

Disads

No link means no link. Offense always helps, but I will easily vote on a well-executed no link/internal link/low risk of impact approach.

I lean toward probability over magnitude. Focus on uniqueness and the link/internal link whether on aff or neg. Debate solvency on case and do the work to weigh impact vs. aff advantage remaining in the rebuttals. Extend impacts in rebuttals and tell the comparative story (again resolve, don't just extend).

Accordingly on the neg, your time is better spent making the link bulletproof than reading impact extensions unless the aff is impact-turning the disad/k. If you want to win on framing/framework invest time there.

Critiques

• Read extensively in the literature of the criticism you're advocating and compile your own positions. CX can be devastating with these arguments, so if you've read the literature you can tease out nuances that teams who take the lazy way out won't be able to account for.
• I'm receptive to specific link and impact assessment. Better to establish how this particular affirmative triggers a unique link to this specific criticism rather than rely on a generic indictment of a particular normative framework or 'you use the USFG' - i.e. a link to the status quo. Advocate an alternative and explain how you access it. 'Refuse' isn't a great option since that just puts the resister on a pedestal divorced from efforts to materially improve the lives of the marginalized, but I'll (reluctantly) vote on it if well defended.
• If your strategy is 'high theory' I'm not the best judge for you so please pref me accordingly. I strive to read enough critical literature to be conversant, but I have a day job so will not be PhD-level familiar with any critical argument. Please debate with this level of familiarity in mind or risk disappointment with the outcome.
• Critical affs/planless affs/Performance: Fine, again just want to understand what I'm endorsing if you're asking for the ballot.

If you have questions about something I haven't covered, please ask before the debate starts.. The activity is meant to be educational, fun, and inclusive - if it's not, we should all be doing something else.

Overview:

Y'all know me, still the same O.G. but I been low-key
Hated on by most these nigg@s with no cheese, no deals and no G's
No wheels and no keys, no boats, no snowmobiles, and no skis
Mad at me cause I can finally afford to provide my family with groceries
Got a crib with a studio and it's all full of tracks to add to the wall
Full of plaques, hanging up in the office in back of my house like trophies
Did y'all think I'mma let my dough freeze, ho please
You better bow down on both knees, who you think taught you to smoke trees
Who you think brought you the oldies
Eazy-E's, Ice Cubes, and D.O.C's
The Snoop D-O-double-G's
And the group that said motherduck the police
Gave you a tape full of dope beats
To bump when you stroll through in your hood
And when your album sales wasn't doing too good
Who's the Doctor they told you to go see
Y'all better listen up closely, all you nigg@s that said that I turned pop
Or The Firm flopped, y'all are the reason that Dre ain't been getting no sleep
So duck y'all, all of y'all, if y'all don't like me, blow me
Y'all are gonna keep ducking around with me and turn me back to the old me

Nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say
But nothing comes out when they move their lips
Just a bunch of gibberish
And motherduckers act like they forgot about Dre

Line-by-line

Semi-retired from the policy debate world few years back, but I am around for 4 years during my daughter’s high school policy debate career. Maybe another 4 after that for my son’s. Maybe even longer if they decide to debate in college. “Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in!”

Experienced former circuit debater from the Bay Area. Previous coach in Sacramento for CK McClatchy, Rosemont, Davis Senior, and others. Also coached several Bay Area programs. I am the former Executive Director and founder of the Sacramento Urban Debate League (SUDL). I spent the better part of a decade running SUDL while personally coaching several schools. I've judged a ton of rounds on all levels of policy debate and feel in-depth and informative verbal RFD's are key to debate education.

I will adapt to you rather than you to me. It's not my place as a judge to exclude or marginalize any sort of argument or framework. On the neg, I will vote for K/K + case, T, CP + DA, DA + case, FW/FW + case, performance, theory.... whatever. I personally prefer hearing a good K or theory debate, not that I'm more inclined to vote on those genres of argumentation. I am down for the K, performance, or topical aff. Anything goes with me.

I'm big on organization. Hit the line by line hard. Don't just give me 3 min overviews or read a bunch of cards off the line, then expect me to conveniently find the best place on the flow for you. Do the work for me. I flow on paper OG style, so don't drop arguments. I don't flow off speech docs (neither should you), but put me on the email chain so I can read cards along with you and refer back to them. I can handle any level of speed, but please be as clear and loud as possible.

I will work hard to make the debate accessible and a safe place for you and your arguments. If you have access needs during a debate, wish to inform me of your preferred gender pronoun, or if there is anything you wish to communicate privately, please let me know or send me an email. markcorp2004@msn.com

My judging philosophy is very short for a reason. Its your debate, not mine. Do you. Just stay organized and tell me where and why to vote. Write my ballot for me in your 2NR/2AR.

UPDATE CAL 2024

I haven't judged a debate in over three years. I don't really think I have any coherent thoughts on substance of debates anymore but I do think I am more ardent in the belief that it should be about whatever you want it to be as long as you're able to explain it to me.

UC Berkeley 2018

East Kentwood Highschool 2016

Put me on the chain:

michaelobuchi@gmail.com

I like:

warrants, line by line, effort and humor

I don't like:

rudeness

I will hold the line on:

speech times, evidence quality and clipping

Please put me on the email chain: eriodd@d219.org.

Experience:

I'm currently an assistant debate coach for Niles North High School. I was the Head Debate Coach at Niles West High School for twelve years and an assistant debate coach at West for one year. I also work at the University of Michigan summer debate camps. I competed in policy debate at the high school level for six years at New Trier Township High School.

Education:

Master of Education in English-Language Learning & Special Education National Louis University
Master of Arts in School Leadership Concordia University-Chicago
Master of Arts in Education Wake Forest University
Juris Doctor Illinois Institute of Technology-Chicago Kent College of Law
Bachelor of Arts University of California, Santa Barbara

Debate arguments:

I will vote on any type of debate argument so long as the team extends it throughout the entire round and explains why it is a voter. Thus, I will pull the trigger on theory, agent specification, and other arguments many judges are unwilling to vote on. Even though I am considered a “politics/counter plan” debater, I will vote on kritiks, but I am told I evaluate kritik debates in a “politics/counter plan” manner (I guess this is not exactly true anymore...and I tend to judge clash debates). I try not to intervene in rounds, and all I ask is that debaters respect each other throughout the competition.

Identity v. Identity:
I enjoy judging these debates. It is important to remember that, often times, you are asking the judge to decide on subject matter he/she/they personally have not experienced (like sexism and racism for me as a white male). A successful ballot often times represents the team who has used these identity points (whether their own or others) in relationship to the resolution and the debate space. I also think if you run an exclusion DA, then you probably should not leave the room / Zoom before the other team finishes questions / feedback has concluded as that probably undermines this DA significantly (especially if you debate that team again in the future).

FW v. Identity:
I also enjoy judging these debates. I will vote for a planless Aff as well as a properly executed FW argument. Usually, the team that accesses the internal link to the impacts (discrimination, education, fairness, ground, limits, etc.) I am told to evaluate at the end of the round through an interpretation / role of the ballot / role of the judge, wins my ballot.

FW v. High Theory:
I don't mind judging these debates. The team reading high theory should do a good job at explaining the theories / thesis behind the scholars you are utilizing and applying it to a specific stasis point / resolutional praxis. In terms of how I weigh the round, the same applies from above, internal links to the terminal impacts I'm told are important in the round.

Policy v. Policy:
I debated in the late 90s / early 2000s. I think highly technical policy v. policy debate rounds with good sign posting, discussions on CP competition (when relevant), strategic turns, etc. are great. Tech > truth for me here. I like lots of evidence but please read full tags and a decent amount of the cards. Not a big fan of "yes X" as a tag. Permutations should probably have texts besides Do Both and Do CP perms. I like theory debates but quality over quantity and please think about how all of your theory / debate as a game arguments apply across all flows. Exploit the other team's errors. "We get what we get" and "we get what we did" are two separate things on the condo debate in my opinion.

Random comments:

The tournament and those judging you are not at your leisure. Please do your best to start the round promptly at the posted time on the pairing and when I'm ready to go (sometimes I do run a few minutes late to a round, not going to lie). Please do your best to: use prep ethically, attach speech documents quickly, ask to use bathroom at appropriate times (e.g. ideally not right before your or your partner's speech), and contribute to moving the debate along and help keep time. I will give grace to younger debaters on this issue, but varsity debaters should know how to do this effectively. This is an element of how I award speaker points. I'm a huge fan of efficient policy debate rounds. Thanks!

In my opinion, you cannot waive CX and bank it for prep time. Otherwise, the whole concept of cross examination in policy debate is undermined. I will not allow this unless the tournament rules explicitly tell me to do so.

If you use a poem, song, etc. in the 1AC, you should definitely talk about it after the 1AC. Especially against framework. Otherwise, what is the point? Your performative method should make sense as a praxis throughout the debate.

Final thoughts:

Do not post round me. I will lower your speaker points if you or one of your coaches acts disrespectful towards me or the opponents after the round. I have no problem answering any questions about the debate but it will be done in a respectful manner to all stakeholders in the room. If you have any issues with this, please don't pref me. I have seen, heard and experienced way too much disrespectful behavior by a few individuals in the debate community recently where, unfortunately, I feel compelled to include this in my paradigm.

drmosbornesq@gmail.com

My judging paradigm has evolved a great deal over time. These days, I have very few set opinions about args. I used to think I had a flawless flow and a magnet mind but now I can't follow each little detail and/or extremely nuanced or shrouded arguments with 101% accuracy like once upon a time. Still pretty good tho lol. And that said, I believe I've come to prioritize debaters' decisions more than ever and try harder than ever to base my decision on what debaters are trying to make happen in the round, and how well they do it, as opposed to how I logically add up what occurred. No judge can totally eliminate their process of sorting things out or their lived personal experience but I try to judge rounds as the debaters tell me to judge them, and with the tools they make available to me. I do think debate is about debaters, so I try to limit my overall judge agency to an extent. But sometimes my experience with traditional policy debate matters and favors a team. Sometimes my lived experience as a brown dude effects my encounter of an argument. These things happen and they are happening with all of your judges whether they admit it or you know it or not. I competed with "traditional policy arguments" (which, frankly, I am unsure still exist #old) but by now I have voted for and coached stupidly-traditional, traditional, mildly-traditional, non-traditional, and anti-traditional arguments in high-stakes rounds for a ton of programs in high school, college, internationally, in different eras, dimensions, all kinds of shi*. If you think your reputation matters in how I see the round, don't pref me. If you or your coaches are used to attacking in the post-round, you're gonna play yourself because I'll either be 101% and crush you or I won't care and I'll just mock you. Debate's a game but we are people so we should treat each other with respect. Self-control is one of the hallmarks of critical thinking and a disciplined intellect; if you cannot make peace with results in a subjective activity, you are simply not an elite debater, imho. Take it or leave it. Good luck to all debaters, seriously -- it's a hell of a thing.

General Thoughts – I try to be as tab as possible. However, I think everyone inevitably comes in with some preconceived notions about debate. Don’t feel like you have to adapt to my preferences--you should do whatever you do best. But if what you do best happens to be judge adaptation, here are some of my thoughts:

Framework – All I ask is that you engage each other's interpretations and arguments--don’t just read and extend. Look to my comments on topicality if you're interested in how I try to evaluate standards-based debate.

Case Debate – I think case-specific strategies that integrate intelligent on-case arguments into the 1NC can be really compelling.

DA/CPs – The more specific the better, but I’ll vote on anything.

Critiques – Most persuasive when they interact explicitly with the 1AC/2AC. For example, I like specific 2NC link analysis (doesn’t necessarily need to be carded) that points to arguments being made in the 1AC/2AC, and I like 2NC attempts to gain in roads to the case by suggesting the alternative is a necessary precondition to case solvency. I'm fine with critical affirmatives so long as you explain the significance of voting affirmative. A general note: given that I'm trying to evaluate your arguments as though I'm hearing them for the first time, please operate under the assumption that I'm completely unfamiliar with the literature you're reading.

Topicality – My threshold for T is the same as any other type of argument, but like all other positions, there are central issues that the 2NR needs to resolve in order for me to vote on T. If neither team articulates a framework within which I can vote, then I’ll default to competing interpretations, but I’d much rather not have to default to anything. Assuming I’m voting in a competing interpretations framework, I think of standards as external impacts to a vote for a given team’s interpretation. That means comparative impact calculus has a huge place in a 2NR that’s going for T. Explain to me what debate looks like if I vote for your interpretation and why that vision should be preferred to one that would allow for cases like the affirmative.

Theory – Please engage the other team's arguments--don't just read blocks and talk past one another. If you expect to win on theory (independently), you should probably give me some kind of substantive reason why a given violation merits rejection of the team, and not just the argument.

Nontraditional Debate – As long as I’m provided with a standard for evaluation that I feel both teams can reasonably be expected to meet, you can do whatever you'd like.

In Round Decorum – Don’t be mean. Try to have fun.

Speed – As long as you’re clear, I’m fine with speed.

Speaker Points – 28.5 is average. I'll add points for things like clarity and efficiency, and I'll subtract points for particularly messy debating.

If you have any specific questions, please ask. Feel free to email me after round with questions: miles.owens43@gmail.com

Updated 4/11/23* Email: yungprk23@gmail.com

Me - I debated for Clovis North from 2012-2016. I debated for Cal from 2016-2018. Prior coach for Clovis North and BAUDL. Current coach for Leland High School.

Debate: Debate is a game, maybe it's more than just a game. I find myself adjudicating lots of these debates, and I find these discussions very interesting. Tell me what I should prefer. Some personal thoughts of mine for sake of transparency: I would like to believe that while we are all here to win, debate does have value to influence beliefs, inspire others, serve a platform for performances, and offer community for some. However, it is almost indisputable that competition, maybe for the sake of gamesmanship or maybe not, sustains the activity because it enables debaters to do what they need to do to win. Other side notes: I am indifferent to either a 9 off or 1 off strat, but what you decide to do might demonstrate some validity for conditionality arguments. Teams that treat their speeches as a story rather than a speech doc tend to be more engaging.

Topicality: The more you articulate your impacts or what the neg ground looks like in the world of the affirmative the better. If you want to run more than 3 T arguments, be my guest. Though when teams do this, explanations naturally tend to become repetitive. I will let the debaters choose if I will be weighing competing interpretations over reasonability or vice versa as long as you give a reason why one is better than the other.

Disads: Impact framing such as time frame and case turns are very persuasive arguments to me. External impacts also help me weigh the disad easily.

Counterplans: Do read solvency cards, or at least have a clear articulation of how the CP solves the aff. I don't necessarily need a specific solvency card if exploiting a plan flaw or reading a PIC. Net benefits to the CP vs external add-ons against the CP are often where I hang my decisions. Affirmatives should use their advantages as disads to the CP and pick out solvency deficits from the counterplan text.

Theory: It's a strategic procedural argument. I don't necessarily have strong feelings toward any theoretical positions. I am okay with teams reading 10 off or PICs that do the aff and spend 1 less dollar. However, this gives the other team more credibility if they read theory, but you could care less if you feel confident defending your position. I judge theory the same as I judge any other argument on the flow ie: impact calculus.

Framework/K Affs: - I've been on both sides of the argument, and I tend to judge these debates the majority of the time. For framework, offensive reasons why your interpretation matters in the debate and what the aff does to affect the general principles of the game. I am persuaded by arguments that list what specific affs under their counter-interp explode the limits of the topic. TVA's gain a large advantage over your opponents for strategic reasons. Both theoretical and substantive framework are great so long as you demonstrate your impacts whether that be fairness, movements, etc. Fairness can be a terminal impact. However, fairness can also not be an impact. Tell me what I should think of fairness and persuade me. Otherwise, movements/policy education are also great impacts. For K affirmatives, have some relationship to the topic whether that be negative or positive. Explain why you chose not to go through with traditional policy affirmatives and/or what model of debate you envision to be better. Impact turning framework or having internal link turns with residual offense are absolutely fine arguments.

Kritiks: Most of my experience lies here, but that doesn't mean i'll favor or give you leverage on your arguments in any way, it just means I know the literature enough to give better feedback and etc. High theory is strategic and fine but do be careful about buzzwords that aren't explained and assumed to be made true. Kritiks must be context specific to the aff. Just some of the authors I have knowledge of that might be useful: Marx, Wilderson, Lacan, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Moten, Kroker, Puar, etc.

Performance: Can be very strategic and enjoyable. However, you must have reasons why your performance was good and necessary. I will not allow speech times to be broken or interrupted, mid-round coach interventions, or anything silly of that sort - debate is an argumentative competition, just beat them at it.

Case: Probably one of the most underrated arguments people go for nowadays. I think case-turns, impact defense and solvency deficits are perfect. They lower the threshold of any risk to vote aff as well as give me reasons to weigh your other off-case positions more. I am willing to vote neg on presumption.

LD/Public Forum/Parli: I will likely view the debate from a policy perspective. This does not mean you have to change your style of debate. For example, this does not mean LD debaters need to change their value-value criterion structure and the same applies for public forum and parli. After all, you should do what you do best. However, because of my policy background, technicality and quality of evidence is super important to me. You may also decide to spread and/or read a plan, counterplans, disads, kritiks, and performative arguments. I will vote on these arguments even if unconventional in the practice. However, the other side may assert a theoretical argument that spreading has no place in a non-policy context. They could also assert a framework argument that policy and critical debates are bad alternative models of debate. If you do lean into a policy/K debate, then please feel free to read the rest of my paradigm above. In short, I am fair game and will evaluate such arguments as long as it is justified.

General Notes:

- Ask permission to record

- Don't clip cards

- Have fun! I recognize debate is competitive, but life is much more than debate. There is a clear line between passion and aggression. Give the proper respect to the other team and if for some reason this becomes a problem, it will be reflected in your speaker points.

***April 2023 TOC—I haven’t judged in 2 years and don’t know much about the topic.

***April 2021 rewrite—there’s a pretty good chance something I say in my RFD is going to be on here somewhere.

Bellarmine ‘16

Stanford ‘20

I have had many circuit debate influences, including folks who lab led or otherwise taught me, my debate teammates, students I’ve coached, judges I’ve had, debaters I watched a lot, and many others. Some of the strongest include Debnil Sur (who taught me circuit debate), Vinay Ayyappan, Albert Li, Rafael Pierry, Dhruv Sudesh, Tyler Vergho, Abhishek Rengarajan, Taylor Brough, Amber Kelsie, Ken Strange, Rishab Yeddula, Devansh Taori, Joshua Joseph, and Michael Koo.

General Experience: I debated at Bellarmine in San Jose, CA. I traveled on the national circuit my junior and senior year debating with Vinay Ayyappan. I read K arguments on the circuit, went for policy strategies at tournaments like state/nationals, and debated stock issues in front of parents at local tournaments. I went far at the NSDA tournament and qualled to the TOC. In college, I briefly debated with Tony Hackett reading K arguments and qualled to the NDT my frosh year. This is my fifth year coaching at Bellarmine (where I’ve been the main coach for circuit debate) and I have primarily coached teams reading policy arguments. I have been both a 2A and a 2N.

Topic Experience: I have a good amount of experience with both the policy and K lit on the CJR topic.

Deciding Rounds:

1. Tech over truth. But...

2. Debate is subjective and arbitrary. I consider “dropped arguments are true” to be not particularly helpful. Every judge has a different threshold for what a sufficient warrant is and a different understanding of the implication of every argument. The response will be, “Limiting subjectivity/arbitrariness is still good.” I partially agree. There are different kinds of subjectivity/arbitrariness. Using my knowledge of a particular subject area to navigate a complicated debate seems good. Using my personal opinion on a particular subject area as the sole grounds to make my decision seems bad. In some cases, there is a clear consensus on how judges will evaluate an argument (e.g. dropped Topicality). If there’s a gray area you fear may not go in your favor, you’re best served being as specific as possible in explaining the argument and its implication. All of this being said, my threshold for what constitutes an argument is probably lower than the average judge.

3. I try to line up arguments on my flow despite flowing on a laptop. Please keep that in mind. Specificity in roadmaps is appreciated when needed (e.g. if you’re about to spend 3 minutes on the perm in the 2NC, let me know beforehand so I can add more cells).

4. I prefer final rebuttals that have substantial (not inefficient) overviews to frame the debate.

5. “Specific brightlines and warranted calls for protections (anytime) will be zealously adhered to”—Michael Koo. Your 2NR shouldn’t say “new 2AR analysis is bad,” it should say, “The 2AR can’t apply the uncertainty deficit to the announcement plank, the plank was introduced in the block with an explanation of why it solves certainty and the none of the 1AR uncertainty warrants assume announcement.”

6. Spin over evidence, although some issues require evidence more than others. If you really want to make evidence matter on a specific question, then tell me why. Smart analytics can save you the time it takes to read multiple mediocre cards.

7. I usually flow CX.

8. I don’t mind postrounding. I take a lot of time to decide and carefully think through my decisions, and I’m ready to defend them. Fair warning though: most of you are bad at postrounding.

Speaker Points: I’ll roughly follow this scale.

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.8-29.0 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.6-28.7 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.2-28.5 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

27.9-28.1 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

1. Slow down in online debate.

2. Cheating means you will get the lowest possible points. You need a recording to prove clipping. If you mark a card, say where you’re marking it, actually mark it, and offer a marked copy before CX.

3. In general, debaters who do good line-by-line will get higher points in front of me. It’s not the only way to debate, but I find it tougher to resolve debates where there is less direct clash, and I think only a few debaters can effectively create clash without lining up arguments. If you think you’re up to the challenge then go for it.

4. Use specific language, don’t hide behind jargon. Sufficiency framing on CPs is incredibly powerful but is useless 95% of the time. Cite 1AC evidence to define the solvency threshold: “The threshold established by their X evidence is that the US needs a significant concession on prolif to China. This means the aff winning they’re a bigger concession doesn’t matter because the CP is sufficient to get China to the negotiating table.”

Topicality

1. I like watching T debates, but they’re kinda weird on the CJR topic.

2. I will evaluate T through interpretations. However, consider Ken Strange’s refrain, “The negative must show that the affirmative interpretation is bad for debate.” This seems like a higher burden than how competing interpretations is usually understood (e.g. “their interp is slightly larger so any risk of limits means you vote neg”). The articulation of reasonability that will persuade me is that the substance crowdout generated by T debates outweighs the difference between the two interps. Note that reasonability is about the interps, not the aff. It means the aff gets their interp comparison offense plus substance crowdout as bonus offense. Quantify how much substance crowdout matters in the debate (for example, it matters more if topic education is a relevant impact in the debate). Also, the risk of substance crowdout is higher if there’s a strong aff predictability argument (because one implication of aff predictability is causing more T debates). Debate all of this out in round.

3. Relatedly, T is a negative burden which means it is the neg’s job to prove that a violation exists. In a T debate where the 2AR extends we meet, every RFD should start by stating clearly what word or phrase in the resolution the aff violated and why. If you don’t give me the language to do that in your 2NR, I will vote aff on we meet.

4. I observe a lot of grammar issues in both T and competition debates. For example, two things being distinct doesn’t mean they’re exclusive. I’m not going to go through all the common examples I’ve observed here, but if you’re the one initiating one of these debates, be especially thoughtful and precise about your language and your logic.

5. Debatability matters a lot on T, but the definition needs to meet some basic quality threshold (the criminal justice is distinct from criminal law interp probably doesn’t meet it, but that requires good debating by the aff to establish). This is best impacted by aff predictability.

6. Functional limits, aff predictability, and reasonability are under-utilized by the aff.

Theory and Competition

1. I’m probably more willing to listen to a theory debate than most judges, but...

2. Theory blocks are terrible. Theory blocks spread at top speed are even worse. Theory blocks spread at top speed over Zoom are so bad that you just shouldn’t bother.

3. I largely concur with what Rafael and Tyler say about theory and competition on their philosophies. I’ll list a few key points below.

4. Just like with T, both teams should think carefully about what the interpretation and violation actually are. The burden is on the team advancing the argument.

5. Make relevant cross applications from other theory arguments and topicality.

6. Dropped theory arguments are an easy out, I won’t evaluate the substance if I don’t need to. I’m not going to feel better or worse about my decision depending on which team was ahead on substance.

7. Positional competition is hard to justify unless the aff very clearly grants it.

8. Going for competition is generally better than going for theory.

9. Limited intrinsicness (either functional or textual) is probably best to check against any number of “artificial” CPs. But there are also convincing neg arguments about the bad practices this justifies, so it’s a debate to be had.

Counterplans

1. A lot of aff teams simply do not work hard enough to generate deficits to various counterplans. Imagine the political blowback as a result of invoking X random political process (see parole CP...). You think that would be good for the business confidence scenario in your 1AC? If you’re struggling to apply your advantages in this way, then write more strategic advantages. 2As should be thrilled in the absence of specific neg ev applying the CP’s process to the aff. You then get a ton of leeway to spin deficits and the neg will struggle to push back.

2. Presumption goes to less change. Debate what this means in round. Otherwise, it goes aff in the event of an advocacy.

3. Decide in-round whether I should kick the CP.

Disadvantages

1. There is such a thing as zero risk. I think about this like I think about significant figures or the signal-to-noise ratio.

2. Make sure that turns case arguments are actually turns case arguments.

3. I like substantial impact turn debates (heg/dem/war/etc.). Organization is obviously a concern there, try to group the debate early on.

4. Minimize overviews, put as much as you can on the line by line.

K’s vs. Policy

1. All debate is storytelling, but K debate especially so.

2. I’m fairly well versed in most common K’s.

3. One common reason affs lose is by being too defensive. Think about how your heg advantage interacts with a settlerism K.

4. Overview length needs to be well justified, I generally will tell you that it should have been smaller. If you can speak for 3 minutes and explain every issue in the debate clearly without line by line, go for it. But most of us can’t do that very effectively.

5. “Recognize when it’s a horrible idea to kick the alt”—Albert Li.

6. Framework is a critical part of many K’s. I’m not “over framework” like a lot of judges. How I should "weigh the aff" versus the K is rarely self evident. I don’t mind a little bit of arbitrariness in a framework interp if you are instructing me clearly on how to evaluate your offense versus their offense. But really think about how your arguments interact. I’ve seen neg teams make the argument “reps shape plan implementation” and then non-ironically explain that as a reason to ignore plan implementation, which makes absolutely no sense. If the neg wants me to devalue plan implementation, then your arguments should actually be reasons why prioritizing evaluating plan consequences is bad. Treat framework less like a theory argument and more like a substantive one.

7. If the neg’s link offense centers on evaluating plan consequences, then I will have to evaluate the positive consequences of the plan as well.

8. The perm is overrated as the basis for affirmative strategy, but it is almost always a no-cost option you can include somewhere in the 2AR.

9. When applicable, the perm double bind can be a powerful aff argument. There are some cases it clearly doesn’t apply (for example, if the K is a very direct impact turn to the aff, or if there’s a robust neg framework argument). However, if you are reading a Cap K alt centered entirely on workers movements against an aff that reduces police funding, you need to explain why the plan prevents those movements from being successful. Otherwise, the perm will capture the offense of the K and whatever contingent offense the plan has.

Framework vs. K Affs

1. I’ve been on all sides of this debate.

2. Framework debates, like K debates, are much more about storytelling than about technical concessions because the implications of those concessions will often not matter in the grand scheme of things. This is particularly important for 2Ns to remember.

3. An impact is an outcome that is self evidently bad enough to matter. Pick the most strategic version of framework depending on your audience and your opponent. When I’m your audience, you can convince me that many things are bad enough to matter, ranging from fairness to skills. The teams I coach usually have: 1) a more procedural clash thesis impact, 2) an impact about how clash over the content of the topic is particularly educational. But stick to what you’re good at.

4. Impact comparison. If the aff’s model makes it substantially harder for the neg to engage but the neg’s speech act was problematic, which way do I vote?

5. All this discussion of “TVA,” “switch-side debate,” and “ground versus our aff” tends to miss the point. These are merely vehicles for each team to explain what debates under their model actually look like and why they are better than debates under the other team’s model. As the neg, you should explain to me what specific debates occur under your model (i.e. give examples of affs and neg strategies against them) and why that solves your impacts and theirs. Perhaps the debates we have where we critique specific policy reforms are better for critical education than comparing structural theories. As the aff, you should explain to me why the specific debates they say occur under their model don’t solve your or their offense. Perhaps the Courts CP doesn’t prepare us to engage movements and sidesteps discussion of the substance of the aff. The aff should describe debates under their model in concrete terms, not just list off structural K’s as neg ground and make vague references to “DA’s to our method.” It is odd to me that framework debates lack discussion of the specific kinds of debates that actually happen in each world.

6. Relatedly, “TVA solves” doesn’t answer every aff argument, especially if they have a K of your performance.

7. You don’t need to counter-define every word in the resolution. The justification for this is functional limits, which is an under-utilized aff argument in framework debates. For all practical purposes, I probably don’t need to worry about insert big policy school reading a new K aff every debate. I also probably don’t need to worry about an aff arguing the state government of Alabama should enact criminal justice reform. However, I may have to worry about every journal article advocating a mindset shift in the context of criminal justice turning into a K aff (depending on what the aff interp is). Everyone is best served by being realistic about their impacts and not jumping straight to hyperbole.

8. Policy T and Framework aren’t perfectly analogous. A world without courts affs (endpoint of T-enact) is far more plausible than a world without planless affs (endpoint of T-USFG). Some aff arguments (like the Floodgates DA) take advantage of this. It’s at the very least a conversation worth having and something all teams going for framework should reflect on.

9. Collapse down in the 2NR. You are more likely to lose because you insufficiently answered aff offense and didn’t compare impacts than you are because you didn’t extend an additional impact.

10. If a team going for framework also reads 5 contradictory off in their 1NC, chances are you can concede claims on some of the other off to undermine their framework argument.

K’s vs. K Affs

1. These were my favorite as a debater.

2. Debate more about what the perm means. Affs need to be held to a higher standard for explaining the perm. In fact, you should be explaining the perm as of the 1AC. What I mean by that is that you should be setting a framework for how I think about your advocacy/performance in relation to other advocacies/performances. Residual link analysis on the perm makes a ton of sense in policy rounds but doesn’t make sense in most K v K debates. Don’t discuss the perm as an abstract theoretical question, discuss it in the context of the specific debate you are having. These thoughts are vague, debate it out on your own terms.

3. It’s not enough that disagreements exist between your literature bases. Explain to me why that means the aff is undesirable.

Soft-Left Affs vs. Policy

1. The main difficulty for many of these affs is answering CPs, not DAs.

2. For most affs, the best way to debate framing in front of me is to treat it like a well-contextualized Security K. Rather than saying war in general is unlikely and that security reps in general are bad, construct a compelling critique of the particular DA scenario(s) they’re reading. Just like with the Security K, this involves winning significant defense to the DA itself. If executed really well, the K becomes sufficiently offensive and this can help you get out of a CP that solves all or most of your aff.

3. In general both sides end up agreeing consequentialism is good. This is fine for the aff as long as you are doing the above to generate offense against the DA.

4. For the neg, it seems more strategic to weigh 7-8 billion against the aff instead of “extinction is categorically first,” but it’s your call.

Misc

1. If you correctly use the term “nchtr” in round, you will get a 0.2 speaker point boost. Don’t use it unless you’re gonna do it properly.

2. Email ani dot prabhu98 at gmail dot com if you have questions.

3. Please put me on the email chain and send cards in a Word doc (not in the body of the email).

4. Emailing isn’t prep but don’t take forever.

5. I concur with Tyler’s policy for re-highlightings. Essentially, the closer a re-highlighting comes to being a new argument that you’re advancing, the more likely it is that you should be reading it instead of inserting it.

Howard Ritz

I have been Judge, Debate Coach for 26 twenty six years now in Texas circuits both UIL, TFA, and NSDA. I did not debate in college but have taught, coached, judged Debate for Rio Vista HS, Burleson High School, Wichita Falls HS, Northwest HS, and Now Mansfield Legacy High School, all in the DFW area of Texas. Have judged outside the area at Harvard U. , Berkley U, and Stanford, as well as colleges in Texas. Taught Policy and LD debate at Cameron University Summer Debate work shop for several years.

My Policy Debate Paradigms fall in the Traditional Debate category. I look for quality of arguments over quantity. Although I classify myself as a Stock Issue judge, I am open to some Negative Kritiks and conterplans but Kritiks and counterplans must be directly linked to the Aff Case. I am not a fan of theory based affirmatives or alternate worlds and really hate performance debate. Spreading will cost you speaker points if not the round if I can not understand your case. No Open CX for me. No Prompting of Partners written or verbal. Make arguments clear. Evidence and cards should be followed by analytics but analytics without evidence is of little value in my book. Show me that you understand what you are reading and not just reading cards.

Gbs ‘16 Michigan ‘20

Please add bjroche@umich.edu

I debated at GBS for four years and at Michigan for two. I’ve coached high school intermittently since 2016.

You can expect that I’ll understand the concepts and implications of your arguments but not that I have any exposure to communal consensus around the validity of any given topic strategy. This is most important if you decide to go for topicality.

My most important preferences by far are that you limit your overviews to 30 seconds or less, do rigorous line by line in every speech after the 1nc, and avoid spreading long pre-written blocks. My decision will be better and your points will be (significantly) better if you are able to do these things.

You should read a plan. This isn’t out of malice, I just find framework debates extremely boring to judge and I almost always vote neg. I’m pretty good for the k if you’re neg, though.

I don’t have any hot takes about policy strategies. If it’s well prepared and/or I can tell you’re adapting strategically during the round, I will want to vote for you. I have a soft spot in my heart for ridiculous impact turns and rider das.

brubaie at gmail -- Please add to email chains, thank you

Updated March 2022 for championship season -- congratulations yall!

1. Just do what you do and do it well.I like every "style" of debate and have been lucky to debate, coach, or judge most over these past two decades. Thank you for being stewards of a beautiful game at a pivotal moment in debate history.

2. Above all. The 2NR/2AR should clearly describe what the most important issue(s) in the debate are, why they're the most important issues, and how voting your way best addresses them. Choose, compare, and dig in on a few A+ arguments over a greater volume of A- arguments.

3. Framework. I judge quite a few framework debates and like them. I don't have a strong "lean," but I do notice some slight trends;

-- For the neg, I often find that leaning on fairness/some procedural impact is best. It's the thing the neg's interp most often clearly solves relative to a counter-interp. I think the TVA + aff doesn't solve combo is an effective strategy. I often find that lots of direct pushback vs. case (even without evidence) is necessary and effective. If you don't win some significant defense to the aff it can complicate most paths to victory.

-- For the aff, it helps to clarify a role for each side and to negate/impact turn the neg's interp from there. If you don't have a description of why debating the aff is good and/or how the other team can engage then it can complicate most paths to victory. I am more moved by "here's what the neg could do" than counter-interpreting "resolved."

4. Evidence quality. It's very important, but the key to activating it in my RFD is rebuttal framing. The way evidence is utilized and framed in the final rebuttals is usually the most important variable in how I assess it. The easiest way to hypothesize which evidence I read is a simple if/then: if I hear a clip/quote/even an author name referenced directly in the last speech then I'll 100% read it. Beyond that I'll read for comprehension but that is less likely to drive the outcome of my RFD than direct framing by debaters.

5. Counterplans/theory. Not the worst judge for a funky counterplan. Most common 2AC theory objections seem like competition concerns remedied by kicking the counterplan. I'm not terrible for conditionality bad, but that's almost always because of tech concerns like a flippant block that doesn't answer the 2AC than truth concerns like any real aversion to conditionality (I generally think it's good).

6. Topicality. I haven't really judged a big T throwdown this year. If you prefer someone with no set preferences I'm great, but if you want someone to adhere to consensus I'm afraid I'm unsure what consensus is and will need more explanation than most. Despite my unfamiliarity with many interps, T has generally been an efficient/low-risk/high reward block option in past rounds I've judged.

7. Critiques. The more a K identifies specific parts of the 1AC/2AC that it disagrees with, the better. The aff should attempt to identify which parts of the aff are offense, why only the aff solves them, and why they outweigh. I generally think the aff gets to weigh the aff and most neg framework arguments just seem like impact calculus.

8. National championships!! Congrats again yall :) March 2022 will mark my first tournament judging in person since February 2020. I am thrilled to see you all again and to celebrate all you've done for debate. I know it's the national championship and it's tough to relax, but try as hard as you can to just have fun and enjoy it. Debate goes by way too fast and is very easy to take for granted. Sending all who read this the best of luck and hope you can lift each other up and give each other some really fun, challenging debates to end the season.

I debated for USC for four years and now am an assistant coach for Cal-Berkeley.

Add me on email chain please --- ideen.saiedian [at] gmail

Top Level

--  While I've done some research and judged on emissions, you should not assume I know all the acronyms or have spent a lot of time considering what the topic should look like. This is most relevant in T debates, where you will benefit from explaining how the literature, argument trends, and the direction of topic uniqueness affect the desirability of your interpretation.

--  Probably more than most judges, I believe presumption/terminal defense is possible. Proper ev and logical explanation should be applied to win a 100% takeout. Burden of proof is on the team introducing an argument. I'm very open to reasonable/less than extinction impacts.

--  I won't vote on arguments I don't understand.

--  Counterplans that have a solvency advocate, use the same agent as the aff, and compete based off the explicit mandate of the plan are legitimate. The further you deviate from this, the more I incrementally lean aff, but the negative can easily win by out-debating the aff. Perms are better way to eliminate unproductive counterplans than theory.

--  I won't kick an advocacy for the neg unless they explicitly make an argument that I can and should revert to the SQ.

Critiques

--  My voting record suggests I am a better judge for critiques than my arguments in college would reflect. Take that for what you will. Here are some of my thoughts in these debates:

--  I find myself voting for critiques more often because the aff mishandles "K tricks" in the 1AR (FW, V2L, Root Cause, Floating PIK). My threshold for answering these is low.

--  Critiques that apply their general theory to the specific claims made by the 1AC and implicate the aff's ability to solve are great and under-utilized.

--  Feasibility is an important, yet under-debated, factor in determining the desirability of critique alternatives.

--  Magnitude of a link is a relevant consideration. Too often, teams let the negative get away with a sweeping impact to a marginal and insignificant link. 

Critique Affirmatives (Non-T)

--  I believe it is possible and desirable for the affirmative to argue in favor of the resolution. If the negative competently extends a framework argument, they will be in a good position.

--  I am especially convinced by topicality arguments that "solve" the aff by identifying a legitimate topical mechanism that enables a discussion of the 1AC content.

--  Magnitude of a link is also important in T debates. I am a better judge for an aff that defends the resolution minus USFG and eliminates a politics link than I am for an aff that is in the opposite direction of the topic or largely unrelated.

--  K affirmatives that choose not to defend the resolution should have a strong defense of why the discussions they create are valuable or productive. I find many of these debates often force the negative to defend polemical positions (e.g. cap/anthro/anti-blackness explain everything in the world ever) in order to avoid losing to a permutation, which turns these rounds into a root cause impact debate and obviates a discussion of 1AC content or means/ends for action.

--  In framework debates, I find myself voting for K affs when negatives read internal links (fairness, ground, predictability) without impacts, so please impact things like ground, limits, etc. with how changing the contours of debate as a competitive activity will change the valuable things we get out of it. 

Judge philosophies.wikispaces.com/Santos%2C+Alan

Competed: University of Minnesota
Coach (Present): Emporia State University; College Prep
Coached (Past): Augsburg College; Highland Park Senior High (MN)

PUBLIC FORUM

Although my primary background is in policy, I am familiar with the procedures of public forum and spent a season of my high school career competing in the format. Below are my answers to the suggested PF philosophy questions provided by the TOC.

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round: Speed of Delivery: Speed is fine so long as clarify doesn't suffer.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?):Both effective line by line and big picture storytelling are important to my ballot.

Role of the Final Focus: Providing a rubric/judge instruction for my ballot

Topicality: Generally these debates are done poorly, it's important to have a comparative metric for evaluating interpretations and a robust discussion of the various impacts to the violation. I do not view topicality in a purely "jurisdictional" way - offense/defense is important.

Plans: Not needed but not automatically disallowed.

Kritiks: Sure although just like any argument, it must be explained, applied, and impacted thoroughly.

Flowing/note-taking: I will flow the entirety of the debate.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Quality and depth of argument is the primary thing I will evaluate, but style is not unimportant by any means.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes.

POLICY

"I view my role in the debate not as arbiter of truth, but critic of argument, as such I attempt to divorce myself from relative "truth" values of arguments." - Chris Loghry

I like to see debaters deploying arguments that motivate and interest them.

I don’t call for many cards. This does not mean evidence quality does not matter, or that I don’t call cards often. What it does mean is: the debaters make the arguments, not the cards. I will not view them as placeholders for warranted explanation. Not every argument requires a card to answer.

Framing matters: provide me a macro-level filter through which to view the micro-components of the debate. The debates I find myself most frustrated with are the ones in which the 2NR and the 2AR have respectively delivered me 2NC #2 and 2AC #2 and left me to sort through the pieces. Rebuttalists that present a clear story while closing the right doors will be rewarded.

The more explicit you are with me in terms of my ballot, the better. This mostly goes for presumption and judge conditionality, but also for competing Frameworks/Role of the Ballots. If debaters are not explicit, there becomes no objective standard for me to use as a reference for when and where I infer these arguments.

Have a plan for Cross-X.

Things I like to see in cross-x: Asking precise, critical questions. Giving succinct, impactful answers. Writing down all concessions for utilization in the next speech.

Things I hate to see in cross-x: Ad-homs. Open-ended softballs. Questions that blatantly indicate a lack of flowing. Refusal to answer reasonable questions. Repetition of questions to avoid giving answers. Poorly-timed invocations of false ethos. 4-person shouting matches.

If you are reading critical literature, whether on the Affirmative or Negative, please explain and utilize your method. Make the links turn the case. Have a robust explanation of the alternative. Strive for internal, philosophical consistency. Your authors have particular theories of subjectivity, violence, etc., and I want to thear them; just remember that they all can and SHOULD be ACTIVELY applied broadly to frame many portions of the technical debate.

A speech doc is not a flow substitute.

Debate matters just as much to your opponents as it does to you, even if for different reasons. Be mindful of this and respect your competitors.

Strikes:
Saint Francis High School
Peninsula

Sup! I debated at Saint Francis the past 4 years and I currently attend USC. My senior year I broke at the TOC and was 5th speaker.

Here are my thoughts on debate:

Aff:
Affirmatives should defend the hypothetical enactment of a topical plan. Middle of the road or big stick, doesn't matter to me.

Neg:
Read what you want as long as it engages the affirmative in a meaningful manner. This necessarily excludes decontextualized criticisms and counter-plans that do not compete functionally and textually.

T/Theory:
My default is competing interpretations, but interpretations should be reasonable.

Reject the argument not the team, except for conditionality.

DA:
DA's other than politics are awesome.
Advantage CP + DA or DA + Case = my favorite 2NR's.

CP:
Must compete functionally/textually.
PIC's are awesome.
Advantage CP's are awesome.
International fiat tows a fine line. Could be persuaded it's good or bad.
CP's without solvency advocates are hard to win in front of me unless it's a new aff.

K:
I am not biased against these per se but they are by far the hardest argument to execute, absent dropped silver bullets i.e. root cause, ontology first, or floating pik's.
Framework should be impacted.
Links should be responsive to the content of the 1AC.
Impacts should be based off of such links, not the overall knowledge/material/methodological structure you are criticizing. K's should not be an excuse to sidestep conventional impact comparison.
Alternatives should either be explained to solve such links or explained within a framework that makes alternative solvency irrelevant.

Judge:
Explanation over evidence. If you ask me to read a card after the round which has warrants not explained in the debate, those warrants are irrelevant.
Tech and truth. Technical concessions matter, but there can be larger truths which belittle the weight of such concessions. Control framing to control the debate.
Rebuttals. Make choices. Go for what you are ahead on, and explain why what you are ahead on is more important than what you are behind on using even if statements.
Prep time ends after you are done writing the speech.

Debate is a game. Have fun, respect your opponents, and it'll be a good round!

jon sharp

Director of Debate @ GDS (the actual GDS, not the camp, not the affinity group, not the cultural phenomenon...well, maybe the cultural phenomenon...)

(Relevant) Background: Debated in HS (program doesn't exist any more) and college (Emory); coached at Emory, West GA, USC, New Trier, Kentucky, and GDS; taught around 75 labs (including, but not limited to the Kentucky Fellows, SNFI Swing Lab, Berkeley Mentors, Antilab, and the forthcoming Quantum Lab). This is what i do - i teach, coach, and judge debate(s). This is both good and bad for you.

This is Good for You: One could say that i have been around, as it were. If you want to do something that people do in debates, i got you. If you want to do something that people don't do in debates, i won't freak out.

This is Bad for You: This ain't my first rodeo. If you want to do something that people do in debates, i have seen it done better and worse. If you want to do something that people don't do in debates, i probably remember the last time that somebody did it in a debate.

Are You For Real? Yah, mostly...i just don't think judging philosophies are all that helpful - any judge that is doing their job is going to suspend disbelief to as great an extent as possible and receive the debate in as much good faith as they can muster...but almost nobody is upfront enough about what that extent looks like.

Well, that's not especially helpful right now. OK, you make a strong point, imaginary interlocutor. Here are a few things that may actually help:

1 - Flow the Debate - I flow the debate. On paper. To a fault. If you do not take this into account, no matter how or what you debate, things are going to go badly for you. Connecting arguments - what used to be called the line-by-line - is essential unless you want me to put the debate together myself out of a giant pile of micro-arguments. You Do Not Want This. "Embedded clash" is an adorable concept and even can be occasionally helpful WHEN YOU ARE MANAGING THE REST OF THE FLOW WITH PRECISION. There is no such thing as "cloud clash."

2 - Do What You are Going to Do - My job isn't to police your argument choices, per se; rather, it is to evaluate the debate. If debaters could only make arguments that i agreed with, there would not be much reason to have these rounds.

3 - If you are mean to your opponents, it is going to cause me to have sympathy/empathy for them. This is not an ideological position so much as an organic reaction on my part.

4 - "K teams," "identity teams," and non-traditional/performance teams pref me more than policy teams - Make of that what you will.

5 - Stop calling certain strategic choices "cheating" - This is one of the few things that just sends my blood pressure through the roof...i know you like to be edgy and i respect your desire to represent yourself as having no ethical commitments, but this is one of the worst developments in the way people talk and think about debate since the advent of paperlessness (which is essentially The Fall in my debate cosmology). Reading an AFF with no plan is not cheating; reading five conditional CPs in the 2NC is not cheating; consult NATO is not cheating. Clipping cards is cheating; fabricating evidence is cheating, consulting your coach in the middle of the debate is cheating. An accusation of an ethics violation (i.e., cheating) means that the debate stops and the team that is correct about the accusation wins the debate while the team that is wrong loses and gets zeroes. This is not negotiable. Ethics violations are not debate arguments, they do not take the form of an off-case or a new page and they are not comparable to anything else in the debate.

Also - just ask.

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

Update for Loyola 2020

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

.

.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja

top level predispositions (Update 2024 Emory):

I'd truly prefer that you don't debate if you're sick. If you must debate, I travel to every tournament with headphones and a laptop sufficient to allow you to debate from a hotel room or space separate from other judges and debaters. If you are symptomatic (nausea, persistent cough, runny nose, etc.) I will stop the debate and politely ask your coach to see if we can set up a remote debate setup for the round.

I won't be reading along with you, and won't spot either team args from pieces of evidence that weren't made in speeches. I'll resolve comparative evidentiary claims, if necessary, after the round. If you feel so compelled my team's gmail is hrsdebatedocs.

Plan texts nowadays aren't really descriptive of what the aff will defend and I think negative teams don't take advantage of that enough. I will expect aff teams not to dodge simple questions about jobs they provide, how the plan is funded, etc. I will also tend to read the debate through answers to such questions in CX. Being forthcoming and orienting your strategy around what the aff does is a much better basis for a win in front of me than trying to hide your hand.

I don't like generic neg strategies, if you're going to do this don't pref me please - - this means nonspecific process counterplans, disads, CPs with only internal net benefits, etc.

No, CX can't be used for prep lol.

I'm not going to judge kick. You make a decision about the world you'll defend in the 2nr and I'll follow accordingly.

For many of you reading this, speaker point inflation is the probably norm. I think the standard for what makes a good speech is a. too low and b. disconnected from strategy. My average speaker point range is 28.3-28.7, average meaning you're not doing any work between flows, not making the debate smaller for the sake of comparative analysis, not reading especially responsive strategies, not punishing generic strategies with pointed responses. On the other hand, I reward teams that have ostensibly done the reading and research to give me concrete analysis.

Given the above (and oodles of macrohistorical reasons), we probably are already in the world that the PRL warned us about. I'm more persuaded by empirical analysis of models of debate than the abstract nowadays.

Longer meditations below:

I've found that the integrity in which some high school debaters are interacting with evidence is declining. Two things:

1. Critical affirmatives that misrepresent critical theory literature or misrepresent their affirmative in the 1ac. I'm very inclined to vote against a team that does this on either side of the debate, with the latter only being limited to the affirmative side. Especially in terms of the affirmative side, I believe that a floor level minimum prep for critical affs should be that the affirmative clearly has a statement of what they will defend in the 1ac and also that they stick to that stasis point throughout the debate. If a critical aff shifts drastically between speeches I will be *very* inclined toward to any procedural/case neg arguments.

2. Policy affs that have weak internal links. I understand that a nuclear war scenario is the most far fetched portion of any advantage, but I've been seeing a lot of international relations scenarios that don't really take into account the politics of really any other countries. If your international conflict, spillover, modeling, etc. scenario doesn't have a semblance of the inner workings of another party to the conflict, I'll be *very* inclined to solvency presses and presumption arguments by the negative in that scenario.

I don't want to be on the email chain. If I want to, I'll ask. You should debate as if I'm not reading a speech doc.

I almost exclusively view debate as an educational / democratic training activity. I think rules are important to that end, however. This is to say that I ground much of what I think is important in debate in terms of how skills critical thinking in debate rounds adds into a larger goal of pursuing knowledge and external decisionmaking.

i've been in debate since 2008. at this point i'm simultaneously more invested and less invested in the activity. i'm more invested in what students get out of debate, and how I can be more useful in my post-round criticism. I'm less invested in personalities/teams/rep/ideological battles in debate. it's entirely possible that I have never heard of you before, and that's fine.

you should run what will win you the round. you should run what makes you happy.

Impact scenarios are where I vote - Even if you win uniqueness/link questions, if I don't know who's going to initiate a war, how an instance of oppression would occur, etc. by the end of the round, I'll probably go looking elsewhere to decide the round. The same thing goes for the aff - if I can't say what the aff solves and why that's important, I am easily persuaded by marginal negative offense.

Prep time ends when you email the file to the other team. It's 2024, you've likely got years of experience using a computer for academic/personal work, my expectations of your email prowess are very high.

Competing methods debates don't mean no permutation, for me at least. probably means that we should rethink how permutations function. people/activists/organizers combine methods all the time.

I've found myself especially unwilling to vote on theory that's on face not true - for example: if you say floating PICs bad, and the alternative isn't articulated as a floating PIC in the debate, I won't vote on it. I don't care if it's conceded.

I think fairness is an independent impact, but also that non-topical affs can be fair. A concession doesn't mean an argument is made. your only job is to make arguments, i don't care if the other team has conceded anything, you still have to make the argument in the last speech.

Affs I don't like:

I've found myself increasingly frustrated with non-topical affs that run philosophically/critically negative stances on the aff side. The same is true for non-topical affs that just say that propose a framework for analysis without praxis. I'm super open to presumption/switch-side arguments against these kinds of affs.

Affs that simply restate a portion of the resolution as their plan text.

I'm frustrated by non-topical affs that do not have any sort of advocacy statement/plan text. If you're going to read a bunch of evidence and I have to wait until CX or the 2AC to know what I'm voting for, I'll have a lower threshold to vote on fw/t/the other team.

Finally, I have limited belief in the transformative power of speech/performance. Especially beyond the round. I tend to think that power/violence is materially structured and that the best advocacies can tell me how to change the status quo in those terms.

Negs I don't like:

Framework 2nr's that act as if the affirmative isn't dynamic and did not develop between the 2ac and the 1ar. Most affs that you're inclined to run framework against will prove "abuse" for you in the course of the debate.

Stale politics disadvantages. Change your shells between tournaments if necessary, please.

Theoretically inconsistent/conflicting K strats.

I don't believe in judge kicking. Your job is to make the strategic decisions as the debate continues, not mine.

if you have questions about me or my judge philosophy, ask them before the round!

he/him/his

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

Pronouns: He/ Him. Will respect whatever your preferred pronouns are.

Role/ Experience: Director of Debate @ Archbishop Mitty High School in San Jose, CA. Formerly debated circuit Policy & coached @ Logan, & Parli @ UC Davis.

Evidence: Put me on the chain: mwoodhead@mitty.com & mittypolicydocs@gmail.com. However, I try to avoid reading speech docs for substantive issues- you have to make the arguments, interps, weighing clear to me in your verbalized speech. I will try to intervene/ "do work" for the debater as little as possible, so don't expect that I will buy all of the "fire analysis" of your card if you aren't extending or explaining any of it. Prep stops when you send out the doc. Don't burgle. Don't clip cards. Mark your docs if you end early.

Decorum: Be respectful of all in the round. Ad hominem attacks (about a person's immutable identity/ characteristics/ background) are never OK and will cost you speaker points at the very least. If you cross the line, expect the L and a talk with your coach. Attack arguments and their justifications, not the person.

Policy:

• Open to any argument. I would say that I default policymaker but am completely open to K arguments/ affirmatives. If going for the K, please overcome my general skepticism by clearly explaining the role of the ballot and demonstrating some level of competitive fairness in your framework. I want to know what exactly I am voting for, not simply that the other side was thoroughly confused.
• Speed is fine, but slow down on tags, blippy analytics, interps, alts, and CP and perm texts. Pause after cites. Introduce acronyms. I'll yell clear if necessary. Avoid other distracting behaviors like loud tapping, pen-dropping, and super-double breadths. Non-speaking teams should limit their decibel level and overt facial indignation.
• T, theory, Ks, etc. are fine. But, as with any argument, if you would like for me to vote for these, you need to give me a clear reason. I am not as well-versed in some K Affs or high theory Ks, but am certainly open to evaluating them if you can make them make sense. I am more comfortable adjudicating T, CP, DA/ case debates, but I am open to voting for arguments of all types (Ks, K Affs, etc...). I will vote for non-conventional argument forms (songs, dance & poetry, etc...), but will be very acutely focused on the education and fairness implications of these alternative styles. I will give you more leeway on unconventional arguments (on the aff) if they bear some relation to the topic. Topic education is valuable. But, other things matter too.
• I leave my assessment of the round largely in the hands of the team that presents me with the best explanation of how to frame the major issues in the round, and why that favors their side. If that work is done thoughtfully and clearly, then my decision about which way the round should go becomes much easier. Oh yeah, it typically helps when you win the actual arguments too (warrants, evidence, links, impacts, & all that micro stuff).
• On theory, I usually will only pull the trigger if I can see demonstrable abuse or unfairness. The "potential for abuse argument" alone doesn't usually cut it with me (unless it's cold-conceded). Show me what specific limitations their interp caused and why that's bad for debate. Condo bad may be a good time trade-off for the aff, but probably won't convince me without some demonstrable in-round fairness/ education loss.
• I appreciate strategy, creativity, and maybe a little humor. Speaks typically range from 27-29.5. I am not impressed by shouting, bullying or obstruction- these will cost you points!! Most importantly, have fun! If you have questions, you can ask me before the round.

LD:

(Please see my policy paradigm above as this is where I draw most of my experience and perspective from. You can also find my thought on speed/ evidence/ speaks there. The gist is that I default as a policymaker, but this can be upended if you convince me your framework/ ethical system is good or preferable)

Cross: Speaking over or past your opponent goes nowhere fast. If you ask a question, allow them an answer. If you want to move on, kindly ask to move on, don't shout them down.

Plans: I love them since they impart a clearer sense of your advocacy and one concrete comparative world. Still, you will be held to that plan. Shifting advocacies, vagueness on key functions of the plan, inserting extra-topical provisions to deck case neg offense are likely to get you in trouble. Spec args and funding questions need to be reasonable. Aff can, and probably should, defend normal means in these instances, but clarify what that probably looks like.

Whole Res: This style of debate is fine, but it makes affs vulnerable to a large set of topical, but terrible, ideas. It is each debater's job to weigh for me the preponderance of the evidence. So, even if you prove one idea is the res could cause nuke war, I need to weigh that eventuality's probability versus the rest of the aff's probabilities of doing good. This is a daunting task given the limited speech times, so make your examples as clearly defined, relevant, and probable. I am often persuaded by the most salient example.

Theory: I am far more receptive to theory arguments that pertain to choices by the opponent. Attacking structural differences of the aff/ neg in LD as a justification for some unfair strategy choice is not likely to persuade me and often ends up as a wash. Tell me what arguments their interp specifically limits and why that's bad in this round or for debate in general.

Other things: I do not favor whimsical theory arguments that avoid debating the topic or avoid normative questions of public policy in general. So, save your font size theory for another judge.

Parli:

Plans are cool/ extra-topical planks are not. Evidence is cool, but warranted and empirically supported reasoning is best. DO NOT take 45 seconds between speeches. DO ASK POIs! Please take at least 2 POIs in constructive for the sake of clarity and education.


PF:

Years Judging Public Forum: 9

Speed of Delivery: moderately fast, I would say full speed, but since people throw 8 "cards" up in 20 seconds in PF, you're better off at like 70% of full speed.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Line by line with some framing/ voters if it helps to clarify the round.

Role of the Final Focus: Establish voters, demonstrate offense, and weighing.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: do it, please don't shadow extend everything, I won't do the work for you.

Topicality: cool
Plans: fine/ unless impossibly narrow
Kritiks: if it links, sure
Flowing/note-taking: Do it, I will.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Arguments matter more. But, as a member of the human species, style and conviction impact the level to which I am persuaded. Still, I prefer a style that oriented to a calm and reasoned discussion of the real facts and issues, so I think they go hand in hand.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Typically, yes, especially in the summary. The rebuttal may not necessarily have to extend defensive elements of the case.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Opponents case only; though, you won't get back the time later to explain and frame your best responses, so I'd try to cover responses to case too.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Not unless something unique prompted the response for the first time in the immediately prior speech/ grand-cross.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. Be civil, succinct, and provide plenty of examples (either common knowledge or your evidence).

Very experienced judge and coach for Saint Francis high school. I will consider pretty much any arguments that are not blatantly sexist, racist or crudely discriminatory (blatant is the key word here, much of this stuff is debatable and I will try not to punish you for my general feelings about your arguments).

It is important to me that debaters be respectful and polite to each other, this puts the spotlight on the arguments themselves and I am not a fan of extra drama.

I try hard to be fair and the following things help me do that:

- I rarely call cards. I like to focus the debate on the analysis given by the debaters (of course I will usually give more weight to analysis that is taken from qualified sources). I do not like to decide debates on random parts of a card that neither debater really focused on. I will call cards if I forget what they said, if there is a conflict about what they say and I can not remember, or if I am personally interested in the card.

- I try to judge on the flow in the sense that I evaluate the debate on the arguments presented, explained and extended into the rebuttals. I will occasionally do the work to weigh impacts or decide framing if the debaters are not doing that for me.

- I will not yell "clear", so mumble and slur at your own risk (I don't yell clear because I don't want a team to find that sweet spot where I can understand them but their opponents can not). I will also not evaluate arguments that I can not hear. I do not read speech documents during the debate rounds, sometimes I will look at them after the round (see calling cards stuff above).

Argument preferences:

I am cool with critiques on the aff and neg.

I am cool with framework (I like the debaters to work this out and I am pretty neutral on this question).

I like clarity (both in speech and arguments). I am not impressed by things that are "too complex" for me to understand but I will do my best to try to make sense of it. I am confident enough to not pretend I know your position and I will not fill in the blanks for you.

I am cool with policy arguments.

I have a wide breadth of knowledge but little depth on certain positions, don't assume I know your literature.

Speaks:

I give high speaks for clarity, efficiency, a pace that I can flow, respectfulness and occasionally speaking style.

I feel like the speaker point range I give is pretty close to average (I am not a reliable source of high speaks for everyone, but I will reward excellent debate with high speaks).

Contact info

mail all speech documents to: headofthewood@gmail.com

anything else (if you want me to read the e-mail or respond): thomaswoodhead@sfhs.com

Competition/Coaching History:

Competed in the Coast Forensics League for 4 years— mostly in league competition. I'm now an economics major at Stanford, interested in public policy and urban governance. I coach extemp part time at Mitty (CA). I've debated every event at some point, but have the most experience with public forum, parli, and policy.

Judging Philosophy:

- I'm very unfamiliar with this years topic, have only watched a handful of practice debates on it

- I personally don't like spreading & think it's bad for debate/the accessibility of the activity, but I am a flow judge and can follow spreading fine as long as tag lines are being properly emphasized.

- Tabula Rasa, so always give me a way to judge the round. That being said, I think impact calc (like actual math e.g. multiplying the magnitude by the probability of the impact) is utterly nonsensical. If I'm not given a framework on how to vote, I'll default to policy maker.

- I'm really enjoy K debate as long as the debater understands the theory behind the argument and why that theoretical framework is important. Don't run a Queer Theory K without understanding why Queer Theory is so important in the real world. Don't run K's just to win a debate— theory has relevant and personal meaning to real people. I respect debaters who respect that.

- I'm not super familiar with policy theory (condo, in-depth topicality, etc.), but am willing to vote on theory args if they're explained well

- I won't call for evidence unless the particular card has become a point of contention in round.