I've taught and coached debate for 22 years, as well as taught at SDI. I've had multiple Michigan state novice champions. As a judge in general, I am tabula rasa.

On the novice level, I am looking for clash, and understanding of the arguments that you are running. I am open to any type of argument, including T, CPs, and Ks, as long as you can articulate what you are reading. Framework is crucial when running Ks. I am open to tag-teaming in CX, as long as you don't dominate your partner. I expect novices to divide the block, and to narrow down their arguments in the rebuttals. If you go for T in the 2NR, it should be the only thing you are going for. I do not read speech documents online, I flow on paper; if an argument is not articulated in the round, I will not intervene by reading it off the computer. If it's not on my flow, it won't be evaluated in the round. I can handle speed, as long as it is delivered with clarity. If not, I will say 'clear' twice, after that, I will stop flowing. The affirmative must extend case each speech if they expect me to vote on it at the end of the round. I am looking for good weighing of the affirmative advantages over the neg disadvantages. I like to hear arguments on timeframe, probability, and magnitude during the rebuttals.

• I started debating for Dow High School in 2007 and debated for four years. Since the I have coached and judged for Dow. After high school, I went to Central Michigan University and did not debate there.

• I’m not going to disregard any type or specific argument just because I don’t like or agree with it. But in order to win an argument or have me consider it in my BOD, you have to be able to adequately explain and understand the argument. For example, don’t run a K if you don’t understand the K completely.

• If you have a topicality flow, you need to be able to win both the top and bottom of the flow. If you just read me a definition and violation, but no voters in the shell, I’m not going to vote for it.

• Tag teaming in cross-ex is okay with me, as long as it isn’t excessive. Your partner should be able to answer some questions on the arguments that you are running, without you answering every question for them. If you have questions that you want your partner to ask, write them down. But if needed, it’s okay by me.

• I’m not a huge fan of performance affs, I want to actually talk about and listen to the debate topic for the year. I’m all for teams branching out and running these arguments, but it’s going to need to be very well articulated and have excellent framework in the round telling me where and why to vote for you.

• Framework in general is really great to have. Weighing the round at the end is always going to be beneficial for you, since it eliminates the need for me to blindly judge the round by myself at the end. Impact calc is always great. Weighing your framework (why I should prefer yours).

• Always feel free to ask me questions before the round starts if you need any further clarification!

I am the Co- Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate for 49 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3.5 years and coached at Michigan for one year (in the mid 1970s). I have coached at summer institutes for 48 years.

Please add me to your email chains at johnlawson666@gmail.com.

I am open to most types of argument but default to a policy making perspective on debate rounds. Speed is fine; if unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate the content of arguments and evidence and their implication or importance. As of April 2023, I acquired my first set of hearing aids, so it would be a good idea to slow down a bit and make sure to clearly articulate. Quality of arguments is more important than sheer quantity. Traditional on- case debate, disads, counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non mainstream political philosophies (Marxism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern philosophers and psychoanalytic literature. If your kritik becomes an effort to obfuscate through mindless jargon, please note that your threshold for my ballot becomes substantially higher.

At the margins of critical debate, for example, if you like to engage in "semiotic insurrection," interface psychoanalysis with political action, defend the proposition that 'death is good,' advocate that debate must make a difference outside the "argument room" or just play games with Baudrilliard, it would be the better part of valor to not pref me. What you might perceive as flights of intellectual brilliance I am more likely to view as incoherent babble or antithetical to participation in a truly educational activity. Capitalism/neoliberalism, securitization, anthropocentrism, Taoism, anti-blackness, queer theory, IR feminism, ableism and ageism are all kritiks that I find more palatable for the most part than the arguments listed above. I have voted for "death good" and Schlag, escape the argument box/room, arguments more times than I would like to admit (on the college and HS levels)-though I think these arguments are either just plain silly or inapplicable to interscholastic debate respectively. Now, it is time to state that my threshold for voting for even these arguments has gotten much higher. For example, even a single, persuasive turn or solid defensive position against these arguments would very likely be enough for me to vote against them.

I am less likely to vote on theory, not necessarily because I dislike all theory debates, but because I am often confronted with competing lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other on the basis of fairness and/or education. In those cases, I default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Specifically regarding so-called 'trigger warning' argument, I will listen if based on specific, explicit narratives or stories that might produce trauma. However, oblique, short references to phenomena like 'nuclear war,' 'terrorism,' 'human trafficking,' various forms of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the abstract are really never reasons to vote on the absence of trigger warnings. If that is the basis for your argument (theoretical, empirically-based references), please don't make the argument. I won't vote on it.

In T or framework debates regarding critical affirmatives or Ks on the negative, I often am confronted with competing impacts (often labeled disadvantages with a variety of "clever" names) without any direct comparison of their relative importance. Again, without the comparisons, you will never know how a judge will resolve the framework debate (likely with a fair amount of judge intervention).

Additionally, though I personally believe that the affirmative should present a topical plan or an advocacy reasonably related to the resolution, I am somewhat open to a good performance related debate based on a variety of cultural, sociological and philosophical concepts. My personal antipathy to judge intervention and willingness to change if persuaded make me at least open to this type of debate. Finally, I am definitely not averse to voting against the kritik on either the affirmative or negative on framework and topicality-like arguments. On face, I don't find framework arguments to be inherently exclusionary.

As to the use of gratuitous/unnecessary profanity in debate rounds: "It don't impress me much!" Using such terms doesn't increase your ethos. I am quite willing to deduct speaker points for their systemic use. The use of such terms is almost always unnecessary and often turns arguments into ad hominem attacks.

Disclosure and the wiki: I strongly believe in the value of pre-round disclosure and posting of affirmatives and major negative off-case positions on the NDCA's wiki. It's both educationally sound and provides a fair leveling effect between teams and programs. Groves teams always post on the wiki. I expect other teams/schools to do so. Failure to do so, and failure to disclose pre-round, should open the offending team to a theory argument on non-disclosure's educational failings. Winning such an argument can be a reason to reject the team. In any case, failure to disclose on the wiki or pre-round will likely result in lower speaker points. So, please use the wiki!

Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't like than intervene directly with my preferences as a judge. Generally, the check on so-called "bad" arguments and evidence should be provided by the teams in round, not by me as the judge. This also provides an educationally sound incentive to listen and flow carefully, and prepare answers/blocks to those particularly "bad" arguments so as not to lose to them. Phrasing this in terms of the "tech" v. "truth" dichotomy, I try to keep the "truth" part to as close to zero (%) as humanly possible in my decision making. "Truth" can sometimes be a fluid concept and you might not like my perspective on what is the "correct" side of a particular argument..

An additional word or two on paperless debate and new arguments. There are many benefits to paperless debate, as well as a few downsides. For debaters' purposes, I rarely take "flashing" time out of prep time, unless the delay seems very excessive. I do understand that technical glitches do occur. However, once electronic transmission begins, all prep by both teams must cease immediately. This would also be true if a paper team declares "end prep" but continues to prepare. I will deduct any prep time "stolen" from the team's prep and, if the problem continues, deduct speaker points. Prep includes writing, typing and consulting with partner about strategy, arguments, order, etc.
With respect to new arguments, I do not automatically disregard new arguments until the 2AR (since there is no 3NR). Prior to that time, the next speaker should act as a check on new arguments or cross applications by noting what is "new" and why it's unfair or antithetical to sound educational practice. I do not subscribe to the notion that "if it's true, it's not new" as what is "true" can be quite subjective.

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

Although I have guest presented at public forum summer institutes and judged some public forum rounds, it is only these last few weeks that I have started coaching PF. This portion of my philosophy consists of a few general observations about how a long time policy coach and judge will likely approach judging public forum judging:

1. For each card/piece of evidence presented, there should, in the text, be a warrant as to why the author's conclusions are likely correct. Of course, it is up to the opponent(s) to note the lack of, or weakness, in the warrant(s).

2. Arguments presented in early stages of the round (constructives, crossfire) should be extended into the later speeches for them to "count." A devastating crossfire, for example, will count for little or nothing if not mentioned in a summary or final focus.

3. I don't mind and rather enjoy a fast, crisp and comprehensible round. I will very likely be able to flow you even if you speak at a substantially faster pace than conversational.

4. Don't try to extend all you constructive arguments in the final stages (summary, final focus) of the round. Narrow to the winners for your side while making sure to respond to your opponents' most threatening arguments. Explicitly "kick out" of arguments that you're not going for.

5. Using policy debate terminology is OK and may even bring a tear to my eye. I understand quite well what uniqueness, links/internal links, impacts, impact and link turns, offense and defense mean. Try to contextualize them to the arguments in the round rather than than merely tossing around jargon.

6. I will ultimately vote on the content/substance/flow rather than on generalized presentational/delivery skills. That means you should flow as well (rather than taking random notes, lecture style) for the entire round (even when you've finished your last speech).

7. I view PF overall as a contest between competing impacts and impact turns. Therefore specific impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame, whether solving for your impact captures or "turns" your opponents' impact(s)) is usually better than a general statement of framework like "vote for the team that saves more lives."

8. The last couple of topics are essentially narrow policy topics. Although I do NOT expect to hear a plan, I will generally consider the resolution to be the equivalent of a "plan" in policy debate. Anything which affirms or negates the whole resolution is fair game. I would accept the functional equivalent of a counterplan (or an "idea" which is better than the resolution), a "kritik" which questions the implicit assumptions of the resolution or even something akin to a "topicality" argument based on fairness, education or exclusion which argues that the pro's interpretation is not the resolution or goes beyond it. An example would be dealert, which might be a natural extension of no first use but might not. Specifically advocating dealert is arguably similar to an extratopical plan provision in policy debate.

9. I will do my level headed best to let you and your arguments and evidence decide the round and avoid intervention unless absolutely necessary to resolve an argument or the round.

10. I will also strive to NOT call for cards at the end of the round even if speech documents are rarely exchanged in PF debates.

11. I would appreciate a very brief road map at the beginning of your speeches.

12. Finally, with respect to the presentation of evidence, I much prefer the verbatim presentation of portions of card texts to brief and often self serving paraphrasing of evidence. That can be the basis of resolving an argument if one team argues that their argument(s) should be accepted because supporting evidence text is read verbatim as opposed to an opponent's paraphrasing of cards.

13. Although I'm willing to and vote for theory arguments in policy debate, I certainly am less inclined to do so in public forum. I will listen, flow and do my best not to intervene but often find myself listening to short lists of competing reasons why a particular theoretical position is valid or not. Without comparison and refutation of the other team's list, theory won't make it into my RFD. Usually theoretical arguments are, at most, a reason to reject a specific argument but not the team.

Overall, if there is something that I haven't covered, please ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to answer. Best wished for an enjoyable, educational debate.

I did high school Policy debate with Kingsley Area Schools from 2010 - 2015 with Hahna Martinez as my coach. For two years after that I assisted in coaching the Kingsley High School team. I competed at Leagues in Northern Michigan and Tournaments in the south of the state. I have not competed since 2015, but I do judge Policy and LD tournaments on occasion.

There are no arguments I will not inherently go for. I try to be as tabula-rosa as I possibly can. If you can explain it to me, and explain why I should vote on it, it's as good as anything else in the round. I love nonconventional arguments, but do not assume I know the acronyms or jargon specific to your argument. The more unconventional or fringe the argument is, the more you will have to make sure it is sufficiently explained. If I can't understand it, I won't vote on it.

If you are going to use abuse as a voting issue (or reverse voting issue) please make sure you take the time to tell me exactly what is abusive in this specific round.

I really appreciate strong impact calculus in your rebuttals.

I am confident with speed, but make sure you give me a roadmap for your speech, you are signposting as you go, and that you slow down and make your tags extra clear. Only go fast if you can be clear. If I can't understand you I will let you know by saying "clear."

I have a general understanding of this year's topic because nuclear war is a common impact, but I haven't spent a lot of time with the topic itself. Do not assume I know acronyms or specific arguments even if you've heard them all year.

I am fairly new judge and find myself generally apathetic towards many things, as such I have very few strong opinions about most topics usually covered in these pages.

I debated for 4 years at Dexter High School and currently debate at Wayne State University

At Dexter I read exclusively traditional policy affs and at Wayne both traditional policy aff and more left affs.

I may make faces during the round that may either mean that I am not a fan of what you are doing or I am tired and cursing myself for getting out of bed that morning. Regardless don't let that deter you from "doin' you."

Short version:

Do whatever you want (there are exceptions dictated below), explain it well, tech over truth, and if both sides have similar qualities of evidence I default to spin.

Longer version:

As an important note to begin that while these opinions may influence how I perceive and think about the round, they are not the end of the discussion. I will do my best to evaluate the round as it happened based on my flow. Just do whatever it is that you want to do, your goal is to convince me that your line of argumentation is best and that as a result I should vote for you.

I tend to default to an Offense/Defense paradigm due to reasons of laziness, however I tend to think it is not a particularly useful way of thinking about things. A simplified version of what I think may be better is to consider risk. This involves a threshold where I think that sufficient defense can convince that something is just as likely not to happen as it is to happen. Slightly more bluntly, a reasonable to high risk of a non extinction event can outweigh a low to minuscule risk of extinction. This also means that with sufficient defense, a more nebulous ontological impact can outweigh even the aff's "seven extinctions."

Case -

Love big case debates - perhaps my favorite strategy while debating is the super specific case turn or the generic but classic impact turn - these debates show off your research, indepth topic/aff knowledge, and are super clash heavy. Pulling this off successfully is to me very impressive. For the aff - I expect y'all to understand the strategy of your aff - I am sure that you put together the 1ac the way you did for a reason, now use it throughout the rest of the debate. My single pet peeve on this front is when 2As just read a large block of text to extend their entire 1ac rather than taking the opportunity to point out strategic points like concessions or flow interactions/tricks - unless you are making good strategic arguments or nuances this overview extension is probably just on my flow as "extend 1ac." Other than that I assume that y'all will just be doing whatever it is you normally do so just do it well.

T v. USFG Plan Action -

I have not really judged many rounds where an attempt was made to turn T into a viable strategic option. In the instance that some attempt was made, it has been too surface level. Given that I haven't seen many of these debate really play out, I don't know exactly what I find compelling - I think that the impact portion of the T debate should be handled much like a disad. You have internal links to an impact based on an interpretation of a word/s of the resolution. This is basically always Fairness or Education in some form. K's of T are fine is handled along the lines of my other thoughts on Kritiks. In this instance though a way I am probably more persuaded by an explanation of how the Kritik of their interpretation affects their Fairness and Education claims.

Also here are one of the above exceptions to the "Do whatever you want" rule - NEVER attempt to make T a RVI (you smirk, you laugh, but enough have tried it in front of me that I feel the need to mention this), the aff has the burden to prove that they are topical is the neg brings it up - I am leaning toward the not even requiring negs to answer it - you will lose speaks, end of discussion.

T v. Not USFG Plan Action -

Similar story as above but I tend to err aff as most neg teams seem to be too whiny or simply lack sufficient defense to aff offense - I find that the most compelling args have to do with policy simulation (not roleplay) good and am potentially willing to buy a big fairness push if it moves beyond the usual tagline "but it is unpredictable and makes it impossible to be neg," this will also require that you answer any access arguments the aff may have. Agonism based Framework arguments are also becoming something that I tend to agree with, but I am still trying to organize my thoughts about this.

In the instance that the aff chooses to K the negs interp, I simply ask that you impact it in a way that makes sense for a procedural question of "whether this debate ought to have occurred." (Yes obvious, but again teams have read them and never explained why it actually answers the negs interp).

Ks -

I have begun to enjoy these debates more now that I am out of high school - I still am not a perfect judge for these debates given that I am not super well read in the various literature - I do know some of it, but it would be better if you assume that I don't get it and then explain arguments rather than blast through with buzz words and other jargon. I tend to think that the neg is well suited by using specific parts of the aff speeches and evidence to help their link/impact story. Framework is very important for both sides, I am lazy, so with out it I find that I default to "well extinction is super bad and stuff." I also can be fairly easily convinced that the K doesn't need to prove that it solves all of the real world issues of X but that it is a better understanding of X and proves that the aff doesn't access said good stuff thus the aff should lose.

DAs -

Super awesome - I think the Link and Internal Link are the most important and often under-utilized part of the debate (I have certainly been guilty of this myself). Not much else to say, I think.

CPs -

Also pretty great - I tend to think that most CPs are fine, this however depends on the topic/aff. CPs like Word PICs and the "Do the aff minus 1 person/penny" are also usually stupid/probably illegitimate. Specific literature goes a long way toward proving CP legitimacy in my mind, at least in terms of Consult and Conditions CPs. In terms of other sorts of questionably legitimate CPs I don't really have many thoughts but in general the further away from aff/topic specific literature the more accepting of aff theory/perm legitimacy I become.

In terms of competition I don't have a ton of thoughts assuming for all other intents and purposes that the CP is legitimate. I think that it is burden of the neg to prove a meaningful opportunity cost to voting aff, which means y'all definitely have to win something more than just a nebulous "solves enough of the aff and I guess makes a sad child slight less sad."

Theory -

I think one or two conditional options are acceptable, any more and I am more receptive to theory arguments. This is magnified if they contradict. Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument or a justification for some other potentially objectionable argument. However conditionality is always a reason to reject the team, the "reject the arg not the team" is nonsensical to me.

Misc -

I really don't want to be at all responsible for timing anything - time yourselves, be honest, I will be upset if have to find a timer or use my phone's timer (it kind of sucks)

Ethics stuff - less serious, stealing prep, first time it is a warning then it comes out of your prep time (which the other team gets to time) and hurts your speaks - more serious, clipping and the like, I will not tape nor call you out on it. If the other team thinks you clipping they can challenge you on it, I will stop the round and ask for a recording and speech doc to determine the validity of the challenge. If I think that you are clipping (consistent, lines - not just you didn't say a word like "a") you will lose the round and recieve zero speaker points, and vis-versa if I think that you are not clipping.

Offensive actions or language or any other type of harassment will also not be policed by myself but the other team may ask to stop the round to address it. It can/should be remedied (in terms of the ballot) with an apology (also assuming it was not intentional/severity) - if the language continues then you may face consequences depending on severity of the action/language.

Be nice (or at least professional/courteous toward your partner and opponents), be smart, and have fun.

Email: shannonnierman@gmail.com

I debated for Wylie E. Groves High School for four years, debated for 3 years at MSU, and currently coach at Groves.

Topicality: I’m not opposed to voting on T, but rereading T shells is insufficient. There needs to be substantial work on the interpretations debate from both teams, in addition to the standards and voters debate, i.e. education and fairness. As long as the aff is reasonably topical and it is proven so, T is probably not a voter. Also, if you are going for T in the 2NR, go for only T, and do so for all 5 minutes.

Counterplans: Any type of counterplan is fine; however, if it is abusive, do not leave it for me to decide this, make these arguments.

Disads: Any type of DA is fine. A generic link in the 1NC is okay, but I think that throughout the block the evidence should be link specific. When extending the DA in the block, an overview is a must. The first few words I should here on the DA flow is “DA outweighs and turns case for X and Y reasons.”

Kritiks: I will vote on the K, but I often find that in the K rounds people undercover the alternative debate. When getting to this part of the K, explain what the world of the alternative would look like, who does the alternative, if the aff can function in this world, etc. I am well versed in psychoanalytic literature i.e. Zizek and Lacan and I do know the basis of a plethora of other Ks. This being said, I should learn about the argumentation in the round through your explanation and extrapolation of the authors ideas; not use what I know about philosophy and philosophers or what like to read in my free time. Read specific links in the block and refrain from silly links of omission.

Theory: I am not opposed to voting on theory, but it would make my life a lot easier if it didn’t come down to this. This is not because I dislike the theory debate rather I just believe that it is hard to have an actual educational and clear theory debate from each side of the debate. Now, this said, if a theory argument is dropped, i.e. conditionality bad, by all means, go for it!

Performance: An interesting and unique type of debate that should still relate to the resolution. As long as there is substantive and legitimate argumentation through your rapping or dancing and whatever else you can come up with, I am willing to vote on it. Even if you are rapping, I would prefer to have a plan text to start.

*As technology is vital in our life, many of us have switched toward paperless debate. I do not use prep for flashing, because I have also debated both off of paper and paperlessly in debate and I understand that technology can sometimes be your opponent in the round, rather than the other team. I am being a nice and fair judge in doing this, so please do not abuse this by stealing prep, because I will most likely notice and take away that stolen prep.

FAQs: Speed – I’m okay with speed as long as you are clear!
Tag teaming - I’m okay with it as long as it’s not excessive.

Things not to do in rounds I’m judging: go for RVIs, go for everything in the 2NR, and be mean. Believe it or not, there is a distinction between being confident and having ethos vs. being rude and obnoxious when you don’t have the right to be.

Daniel Oleynik

Experience: I debated for Wylie E. Groves High School (2011-2015), debated for 1.5 years at MSU, and currently a graduate student at UCF studying physics.

Admittedly, it's been a while since I've participated in the debate community (Tabroom has me last judge in 2017) so I'm a bit rusty. However, everything under this introduction should still be accurate. As long as you explain your arguments and debate well, there should be no problem.

COVID-era Disclaimer: With everything being online, I feel its's pertinent to mention I am hard-of-hearing, and wear hearing aids, and that's how I'll hear you (They act as headphones, so all sound goes through them). I will be fine, and I've both debated and judged at the national level, but do with this information what you'd like.

Pre-round

• I’m a fan of all arguments and there’s nothing I won’t vote on. On that note, I’m a large fan on Ks and non-traditional arguments, though I don’t mind a good T debate every now and then.

• I see too many teams doing tagline extensions of cards and think that means they extended the warrants as well, if you want to make a good argument, don’t just extend the card, but make some warranted analysis as well.

• Use Cross-Ex well, but there’s a brightline between a sassy C/X and a rude one.

• Analytics are pretty under-used as arguments, a good analytic can beat evidence a good amount of time

• I don’t take prep for flashing

• Tag-teaming is fine, just don’t let it get abusive or excessive.

• Having debated for Groves, both JL and Ryan influenced me in the opinion of tech vs. truth. I usually prefer tech debates, and will vote on that, but I can be persuaded truth debates are better (though that takes techiness as well…) And if an argument is dropped or conceded, that argument gains full weight unless the team can give me a valid reason why not

• I’m a very clear judge, in the idea that, when speeches will be going, I’ll be making facial expressions and looks. If you see me making a confused look, either move on or provide more explanation for me to get it. If you see me making a pleased face, keep going.

Clipping Cards

Clipping cards is cheating, and any recorded act of it happening will be met with an L and reduced speaker points.

Bad Arguments

I’m not a fan of bad arguments, but at the same time, if a team loses it on because they failed to flow it, and doesn’t answer it throughout the whole speech, that’s on them more than me. To answer bad arguments, just say something along the lines of “this is silly” and move on.

Bad arguments include, but are not limited to: Time Cube CP/K, FIAT solves the link, Plan is bottom of the docket, any of the specification arguments that aren’t ASPEC.

Regarding the top, there are some arguments I will not vote on regardless of concessions or not: Racism/Sexism/Discrimination Good, Torture Good, and RVIs.

Being AFF

Make sure both the 2AC and the 1AR do effective line by line and don’t concede a negative argument.

Case debates are pretty nice, debating the effects of the plan are what the case debate should be about, if the debate becomes more about the impacts and less about the plan, something’s gone wrong.

I have a high threshold for allowing dropped arguments past the 1AR and doing work for the affirmative in pulling across impacts from the 2AC to the 2AR. If you can give me a reason why I should, I’ll look at it, otherwise, make sure 1AR does everything they need to.

Framework

As a former K debater, I’m not a fan of framework debates and I won’t be happy, but I’ll evaluate them the same as any other argument. As long as you win the flow, I see no reason you don’t win the debate.

Fairness and Educations are good, but they’re not specific reasons to vote one side or the other. You’ve got to impact both of them, and give me reasons why your fairness/education is better than the other teams, whether it be decision making, portable skills, ect.

Kritiks

Having read kritiks for most, if not all, of my varsity debate career I’m pretty familiar with most of the literature out there. In terms of authors.
COVID-Updates:

The only small update, is with time, I haven't interacted with these arguments as much. I love DnG and Butler still, but I don't know the "debate" version of them. In that regard, just move all down a rank. Really Familiar is now Familiar, Familiar is now Familiar-ish, ect.
________________

Really Familiar (these are arguments that I can not only follow jargon wise, but I’ll understand a lot of the arguments really well)

DnG, Zizek, Fanon, Lacan, Saldahna, Butler (grievability ethics)

Familiar (these are arguments I’m familiar with, but I’m not exactly perfect on, may need a little more explanation)

Wilderson, Agamben, Foucault, Puar, Heidegger, Butler (feminism)

Familiar-ish (these are arguments that I’m only slightly knowledgeable in, good amount of explanation will be needed)

Baudrillard, Negri, Nietzsche, Wendy Brown, Derrida, Antonio, Camus

Who? (these are arguments where I’ve heard of the person, or have a slight idea of their arguments, otherwise, a lot of explanation needed.)

Mignolo, Deloria, Hardt, (others I haven’t heard of…)

Quick side note: If you have an author, and you’re thinking I’ve never heard of ‘em, at least ask me before the round, I may have forgotten somebody.

Now that that’s out of the way, general idea of kritiks.

These are my favorite arguments and I really enjoy both debating and listening to them.

Notes for Aff

Read a perm

Watch out for arguments like Root Cause, Floating PIKs, Serial Policy Failure and Error Replication arguments, dropping these usually means game over for the aff.

The easiest, and weakest part of the Kritik is the alternative, make sure you try to take it out.

Notes for Neg

Use your link arguments well, they’re usually able to be independent reasons to vote neg.

No matter if I know the argument or the author, you should still explain what the Kritik does, explanation only helps you.

Specific links to the aff make it easier to win the Kritik, but are not necessary to win the Kritik.

Disads

I’m ok with them, don’t love them, don’t hate them.

On DAs, there’s usually three types of debaters I see.

1. They spend too much time on Link/Uniqueness/Internal Link and not enough time on impact analysis

2. They spend too much time explaining the impact and don’t bother doing any link/uniqueness work.

3. They explain all the parts of the Disad equally, with warranted analysis.

Be the third debater.

While I’m not a fan of politics, I like Case Specific DAs, really use these to your advantage and turn the case with them.

Don’t forget to do impact overviews: Mag, Probability, Timeframe, and why DA turns case.

CPs

Counterplans are fine, like with the DA, I’ll evaluate them. I don’t love them, don’t hate them.

Out of all counterplans, I think Process CPs are probably the best, while Agent CPs are my least favorite, but I’m always ready to hear theory arguments debating why I should/shouldn’t listen to either one.

If the counterplan, not including advantage, that relies on a possibility of resulting in the Aff instead of a 100% risk, I’ll evaluate with caution, and this will usually be my last-choice argument. Make sure there’s at least one argument that makes the case that the CP will result in the Aff.

I’ll listen to all theory arguments equally, but conditionality is usually is the most persuasive, especially if the Neg has more than 3 conditional advocacies.

I’m fine with PICs, but make sure you’re ready for theory arguments if they come up.

Topicality

Ironically enough, even as a K debater, I enjoy debating T. Not enough people know how to do it effectively, so a good topicality debate is pretty fun to watch.

If it’s conceded, I’ll default to reasonability and topicality is not a voter, make sure not to concede these.

If topicality is going to get developed, both sides should give examples of bad/absurd affs that one can read on the other’s interpretation.

SPECIFIC TO NON-PLAN AFFS - If debating topicality, or on that note framework, the negative should make sure to make a topical version of the plan. Affirmative should give at least one reason why the topical version doesn’t solve.

Non-Traditional Affs

I’m a fan of watching non-traditional arguments, especially with debate flooded with policy aff after policy aff.

Same with the Kritik, make sure to explain how your plan functions and any jargon that might be involved.

If I, as the judge, can’t understand how the plan solves the impacts or how the solvency mechanism operates because of a lack of bad explanation, I will default Neg to presumption. However, I have a high threshold for what constitutes a “bad explantion”

Aff - Read a role of the ballot, if the neg concedes it, you know have a much better chance of winning this debate.

Speaker Points

Humor is good, the more you can brighten up a judge’s mood, the better.

A lot of it will rely on good ethos moments and how you do on the flow. If you can keep up and not drop/concede key arguments, it’ll go better for you.

Don’t be offensive/rude, this shouldn’t have to be said…

I know that speaks matter, so if you want to know, ask me after the round individually and I’ll happily tell you what you got. It’s not that big of a deal to me.

Seem knowledgeable about the literature base that you’re reading and about the aff.

Specific things to up speaks
Related to humor: make me laugh

Bad puns, bad jokes, making fun of someone you think I know, all will probably make me laugh.

If you do something risky and it works, I’ll reward you.

Debate Background: I debated for four years at Petoskey High School, and I am currently a sophomore at University of Michigan; I debated at U of M my freshman year. I am more used to policy arguments, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on critical stuff, that just means you will have to explain it more depth.

Philosophy: I will vote on pretty much any argument, but you need to tell me what the role of the ballot is. I need to know how I should frame the debate in order to vote properly. If no one tells me what the role of the ballot is I will default to the team that I think debated the best. So tab.

Specific Arguments:

1) Theory- I generally think theory debates are boring, and either side should only go for theory when absolutely necessary. If it is argued well and has warrants I will vote on it, but I'm not a huge fan.

2) Kritiks- Kritiks are fine arguments, but make sure I understand it, and you understand it. At some point you will need to give me a coherent explanation of the K, and the alt. K affs are fine as well, but I will probably be inclined to vote neg on T if it is brought up and argued well. Other psuedo-kritikal arguments should just be explained well then I don't care if you run it. P.S. you have to win framework if it is brought up in order to win the K.

3) Counterplans- Counterplans are great. Have a net benefit, and win the perm debate and you will probably win the round. Delay, consult and other PICs of the like can be annoying, but like I said, just win the perm debate :)

4) Topicality- Don't go for topicality unless they completely drop it OR the plan REALLY isn't topical.

5) Disadvantages- Great. Do it. I will vote on it.

6) Case- Good clash on case makes me happy. A negative can't win on just case defense though for the most part. In that situation I usually would give some risk of solvency or some risk of the impacts, so have offense on case or a DA, CP or Alt on a K as well as case defense.

In round Conduct: Be respectful. Nothing irritates me more than when people are rude to their opponents, or yell at each other in cross-ex. This is a debate round not a middle school cafeteria.

Prep/speech Time: I will keep you speech and prep time, and my time counts, not yours. Also don't steal prep. That's not a cool thing to do. I don't take prep for flashing or emailing, but if I notice you steal prep time you will lose speaks.

CX: If you make an argument in CX you have to bring it up in a constructive or rebuttal speech in order for it to be weighed in the round. Good CX questions and answers = good speaks.

Speed: Speed is necessary in the way that policy debate has evolved, but make sure you are clear. If you aren't clear I won't yell at you, but I might not hear your argument to flow it, and if I don't flow the argument then it doesn't exist. It helps if you start a little slower than your top speed at the beginning of your first speech that way I can get used to your style. Another note: double breathing annoys me so much, try not to do it please and if you do don't be obnoxious about it.

Other: I'm generally tech over truth, BUT truth outweighs when both sides are similar technically. Also, if either side says something extremely inappropriate along the lines of racist, homophobic, transphobic, ablest etc. speech, then I will give that team VERY VERY low speaks. Be respectful and not a bigot, thanks. If you have any questions, just ask.       

delete

Hi,

I debated for four years in high school in the Flint Hills Area in Kansas. I attended NSDA nationals my senior year. I am now 3 years out from debating. I am tabula rasa, default policy maker. I will listen to spreading, and will say "clear" if you are not intelligible to me.Keep in mind that it is to your advantage to make it easy for me to flow what you are saying. In that spirit, you should slow down on theory; if you spread full blast through theory blocks, I will likey give up and stop flowing. You can run almost anything you like, just make it clear why I am voting. I like impact calculus, case debate and clash. Please be nice in cross-ex.

I do not take myself to have jurisdiction to adjudicate over things that did not occur in round. I.e., I won't evaluate things like "lying during disclosure" theory arguments.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask before the round.

I debated for three years in high school for Portage Northern, and currently debate for Michigan State.

I am, in general, fine with any kind of argument. There are a few things I like/you should know in regards to each kind of arguments.

Topicality: I am not, and have never been, particularly a fan of T. I really think that, for the most part, things like the caselist and generic cp/da links mitigate the vast majority of abuse on the part of the affirmative, and I would much rather listen to a debate about the substance of the affirmative rather than sit and listen to different interpretations of the resolution. I will still vote on topicality, but I'm really not going to like it.

Disads: I don't really have much to say here, beyond the need to stress strong impact work on the bottom of the flow for both the negative and the affirmative.

Counterplans: I love counterplans in all forms. I think that my threshold for general counterplan theory is very high, getting me to vote on PICS bad or Process bad is going to be an uphill battle. If the net benefit to the counterplan is not a disad, but rather a non-mutually exclusive part of the cp, I need enough analysis there to vote on the perm do both. I think that those kinds of net benefits need an impact of some kind, I'm not going to vote on a plan-inclusive counterplan just because the counterplan solves slightly better. For the affirmative, when it comes to perms, I'll only vote on perm do the cp or other perms that could be considered severance if you grammatically prove why that doesn't sever the 1AC.

Kritiks: In high school, I was more kritikal than I currently am. I will still vote on kritiks and kritikal affirmatives, and I think they are a massively important part of policy debate, but know that I may not be speccifically familiar with many forms of critical literature, especcially higher theory. Feel free to clarify before the round. I'm also not a fan of novices running kritiks until a bit later in the year.

Condo: I think that my preferred limit for the neg is two conditional advocacies. That doesn't mean I'll always vote you down on condo abuse if you run three, but I think it would be very hard for me to vote down a team for running two or less conditional advocacies.

Please make sense of your arguments and ask for a ballot. I want to do the least work possible as a judge to determine an rfd.

10+ years as a judge. Debate is a game among other things. At this point, I'm pretty soulless and I don't know what more to say than that. The rounds that I enjoy the most are well organized and the debaters attempt to inform clear decisions on how the game should be won.

Fine with all kinds of debate and arguments

David Zin

Debate Coach, Okemos High School

debate at okemosk12.net

Quick version: If you want to run it, justify it and win it and I'll go for it. I tend to think the resolution is the focus (rather than the plan), but have yet to see a high school round where that was a point with which anybody took issue or advantage. I like succinct tags, but there should be an explanation/warrant or evidence after them. I do pine for the days when debaters would at least say something like "next" when moving from one argument to another. If you run a critical argument, explain it--don't assume I understand the nuances or jargon of your theory. Similarly, the few critical debaters who have delivered succinct tags on their evidence to me have been well-rewarded. Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but I can't flow your 55-70 word tag, and the parts I get might not be the parts you want. I think all four debaters are intelligent beings, so don't be rude to your opponent or your partner, and try not to make c-x a free-for-all, or an opportunity for you to mow over your partner. I like the final rebuttals to compare and evaluate, not just say "we beat on time-frame and magnitude"--give me some explanation, and don't assume you are winning everything on the flow. Anything else, just ask.

The longer version: I'm a dinosaur. I debated in college more than 30 years ago. I coached at Michigan State University for 5 years. I'm old enough I might have coached or debated your parents. I got back into debate because I wanted my children to learn debate.

That history is relevant because I am potentially neither as fast a flow as I used to be (rest assured, you needn't pretend the round is after-dinner speaking) and for years I did not kept pace with many of the argumentative developments that occurred. I know and understand a number of K's, but if you make the assumption I am intimately familiar with some aspect of of your K (especially if it is high theory or particularly esoteric), you may not like the results you get. Go for the idea/theme not the author (always more effective than simply saying Baudrillard or Zizek or Hartman or Sexton). If you like to use the word "subjectivity" a lot on your K argumentation, you might explain what you mean. Same thing for policy and K debaters alike when they like to argue "violence".

Default Perspective:

Having discussed my inadequacies as a judge, here is my default position for judging rounds: Absent other argumentation, I view the focus of the round as the resolution. The resolution may implicitly shrink to the affirmative if that is the only representation discussed. If I sign the ballot affirmative, I am generally voting to accept the resolution, and if the affirmative is the only representation, then it is as embodied by the affirmative. However, I like the debaters to essentially have free rein--making me somewhat tabula rosa. So if you prefer a more resolution focus rather than plan focus, I'm there. I also like cases that have essential content and theory elements (stock issues), but if one is missing or bad, the negative needs to bring it up and win it to win. I do generally view my role as a policy maker, in that I am trying to evaluate the merits of a policy that will be applied to the real world--but that evaluation is being done in a format that has strong gamelike aspects and strong "cognitive laboratory" aspects. A policymaker perspective does not preclude examining critical/epistemological questions...but ultimately when I do so, I feel it's still through some sort of policy making perspective (educational policy, social policy, or "am I thinking about this correctly" when considering my view on the policy question: if my epistemology is a geocentric universe and the plan wants to send a mission to Mars, do I have the right knowledge system to guarantee the rocket arrives in the right place). I will accept counter-intuitive arguments (e.g. extinction is good) and vote on them--although you will have to justify/win such an approach if it is challenged and in many cases there is a bit of a natural bias against such arguments.

I say "absent other argumentation" because if you want me to use another process, I all ears. I'm pretty open-minded about arguments (even counter-intuitive ones), so if you want to run something, either theoretical or substantive, justify it, argue it, and if you win it, I'll vote for it.

Weighing Arguments:

The biggest problem I observed when I did judge college rounds, and at the high school level, is that debates about how I should evaluate the round are often incomplete and/or muddled, such as justifying the use of some deontological criteria on utilitarian grounds. While such consequentialism is certainly an option in evaluating deontological positions, I struggle to see how I'm not ultimately just deciding a round on some utilitarian risk-based decision calculus like I would ordinarily use. I've had this statement in my philosophy for years and no one seems to understand it: if I reject cap, or the state, or racism, or violations of human rights, or whatever because it leads to extinction/war/whatever, am I really being deontological--or just letting you access extinction via a perspective (using utilitarian consequences to justify your impacts, and some strategy or rhetoric to simply exclude utilitarian impacts that might counter your position). That fine if that's why you want it, but I think it makes "reject every instance" quite difficult, since every instance probably has solvency issues and certainly creates some low internal link probabilities. If you do truly argue something deontologically, having some sort of hierarchy so I can see where the other team's impacts fit would be helpful--especially if they are arguing an deontological position as well. Applying your position might be helpful: think how you would reconcile the classic argument of "you can't have rights if you are dead, yet many have been willing to give their life for rights". Sorting out that statement does an awful lot for you in a deontology vs. utilitarianism round. Why is your argument the case for one or the other?

Given my hypothesis-testing tendencies, conditionality can be fine. However, as indicated above, by default I view the round as a policy-making choice. If you run three conditional counterplans, that's fine but I need to know what they are conditional upon or I don't know what policy I am voting for when I sign the ballot—or if I even need to evaluate them. I prefer, although almost never get it, that conditionality should be based on a substantive argument in the round, preferably a claim the other team made. Related to that, you can probably tell I'm not a fan of judge kick for condo. If you have it in 2NR, my perspective is that is your advocacy option...and if it isn't internally consistent, you may have problems. Similarly, if you are aff and your plan merely restates the resolution but your solvency evidence and position clearly are relying on something more nuanced (and obviously you don't have it in your plan), you make it difficult for me to give you a lot of solvency credibility if the neg is hitting you hard on it (if they aren't, well that's their poor choice and you get to skim by).

Theory and K's:

I can like both theory args, especially T, when the debate unfolds with real analysis, not a ton of 3-5 word tags that people rip through. Theory arguments (including T) can be very rewarding, and often are a place where the best debaters can show their skills. However, debaters often provide poorly developed arguments and the debate often lacks real analysis. I do not like theory arguments that eliminate ground for one side or the other, are patently abusive, or patently time sucks. I like theory arguments but want them treated well. Those who know me are aware I like a good T argument/debate more than most...I'm just complaining that I rarely see a good T debate.

I'm not a fan of K's, but they definitely have a place in debate. I will vote on one (and have voted for them numerous times) if two things happen: 1) I understand it and 2) you win it. That's a relatively low threshold, but if you babble author names, jargon, or have tags longer than most policy teams' plans, you make it much harder for me.

Style Stuff:

As for argument preferences, I'll vote on things that do not meet my criteria, although I dislike being put in the position of having to reconcile two incomprehensible positions. I'll vote on anything you can justify and win. If you want me in a specific paradigm, justify it and win that I should use it. I like a 2ar/2nr that ties up loose ends and evaluates (read: compares)--recognizing that they probably aren't winning everything on the flow.

I don't like to ask for cards after the round, or reviewing the evidence in pocketbox, etc. and will not ask for a card I couldn't understand because you were unintelligible. If there is a debate over what a card really says or signifies, or it seems to contain a nuance highlighted in the round that is worth checking, I may take a look at the evidence.

I traditionally rely on providing nonverbal feedback—if I'm not writing anything, or I'm looking at you with a confused expression, I'm probably not getting what you are saying for one reason or another.

Debate is still a communication activity, even if we rip along at several hundred words a minute. If I missed something in your speech, that is your fault--either because you did not emphasize it adequately in the round or you were unintelligible. If you are a gasper, you'll probably get better points if you slow down a bit. I tend to dislike prompting on content, but keeping your partner on pace is fine. I'd prefer you ask/answer your own c-x questions. I like numbering and organization, even though much has apparently died. At this point, even hearing "next" when going to the next tag would be a breath of fresh air (especially when it isn't being read off of a block). Similarly, I'll reward you if you have clear tags that would fit on a bumper sticker I could read without tailgating. Humor is a highly successful way to improve your speaker points. If you are organized, intelligible and funny, the much-sought-after 30 is something I have given. I haven't given many, but that reflects the debaters I've heard, not some unreasonable predisposition or threshold.

If you have questions about anything not on here, just ask.