I debated for four years at Glenbrook South High School and don't currently debate.

I have not judged a round on this topic yet so don't just expect me to know every term or the jargon of this year.

Going to Glenbrook South High School I love a good DA or CP but that isn't to say I won't vote for a K or a planless team I just don't know as much about those arguments which could make it harder for you to get my ballot.

In the end, I will vote for who wins the round regardless of the arguments that are read so choose what you are comfortable with and debate.

I'm pretty done with debate and don't anticipate judging again any time soon unless my career takes a very unfortunate turn.

It's been an interesting time - acknowledgements to the following people:

Rubaie

Muse

Spencer

Ryan

Snelling

General Overview

I will vote on anything, granted that it has an impact to it. I don't think I have the right to try to alter how the debaters make arguments or present claims, but it needs to actually have warrants and a reason it should make me vote aff or neg. I try as strictly as possible to evaluate the debate solely based off of what was said in the round, but absent any explanation of certain issues in the round, my unconscious dispositions will probably kick in.

T

It's great. I default towards competing interpretations, but a well argued reasonability argument as a lens through which I can evaluate your interpretation is powerful. You must explain the impact to limits, ground, precision, etc. for it to be a persuasive reason to reject their interpretation (likewise with overlimiting and other aff arguments). Impact comparison is crucial for these debates, and the team that controls this element of the debate will probably win.

Disads

They're good.

Link probably controls the direction of uniqueness.

Do impact calc and turns case.

Politics-

My junior year consisted of this in every 1nr, so i have some love for politics.

I was also a 2a who loved intrinsicness. Do as you will.

Counterplans

I don't have very strong feelings about competition/legitimacy either way for any type of counterplan, so I don't care what you read as long as you justify it. This does not mean I'm bad for theory, I actually love theory args, but you'll need to win the debate either way.

Debates about solvency deficits should be framed in terms of comparative risks of solvency defecit v net benefit.

Kritiks

I love the k and have read a lot of the relevant literature, but you still need to be explaining yourself in these debates. Don't rattle off a bunch of buzzwords and expect me to fill in the holes.

You need to win some substantive link to the aff, their reps, or some assumption intrinsic to the aff. These don't necessarily need to be carded, but should have some logical or contextual explanation of the link. Using lines of the other team's ev is always a plus.

You must either win a mutually exclusive alternative that resolves the harms of the kritik, or a framework argument that obviates that consideration entirely. 

For alts-What does the alt do? How does this resolve the harms you articulate? Is it an indict of the affirmatives action/presumption of action?

For framework-What is the role of debate?-Why should resolutional policy considerations be ignored?

Planless Affs

They're cool.

You need to articulate what the method/performance/analysis of the 1ac does to combat the problems you outline

On framework, you need to prove why you fit into a good interpretation of the topic, or why that understanding of topicality is bad

Framework

You need to prove why their violation of topical advocacy makes a worse model of debate.

I've always tended to prefer arguments based on debate's status as a game and procedural fairness, but arguments about the state being good and skills impacts are cool too.

Theory

I will vote on any well argued theory violation, but it needs an impact and a justification why that impact is sufficient to reject the team

Slow down on these debates, and provide clear impact comparison.

Conditionality-I'm fairly agnostic on this-Read 7 condo for all I care, but your theory block better be pretty incredible to pull that off.

I will not presumptively kick your cp, butif the neg wins the judge kick debate I obviously will.

Other Notes

Be Nice. I've had an aggressive style fo most of my carreer, so I get it, but don't cross the line into being a scumbag.

Clarity matters a lot to me. I will call clear twice. Then I will stop flowing.

Be yourself. If you're funny, be funny. If you're serious, be serious. 

No memes. I can't in good conscience vote you down if you read time cube or consult jesus, but I can aggressively dock your points.

Things that will boost your speaker points:

• Well thought out, case specific strategies
• Meta level framing debate
• Blocks that spend at least 4 minutes on case(13 minutes of case probably gets an extra speaker point)
• Contextual and well developed K debating

Put me on the email chain: dustyn.beutelspacher@gmail.com

Affiliations: Debated at Niles West in high school, UTD in college. Now coach for UTD and Greenhill school

LD exception - If an argument can be described as a 'trick', please dont read it in front of me. Likewise, if your theory argument is based on something you opponent didn't do, it is probably unpersuasive to me.

TL;DR:

Go for what you want to go for, if you got a K aff, make sure you can beat framework, if you go for a process cp, make sure you can beat theory, etc, etc, I will try my hardest to adapt and judge the round as objectively as possible.

I love line-by-line. The more you engage with your opponent's arguments, the more likely you are to win and the higher your speaks will be.

I won't vote on things that happened out of round or in other debates.

You can insert rehighlightings of the other team's evidence, text of a card only needs to be read once for it to be evaluated.

No racism/sexism/etc, be nice. Don't do that thing where you delete tags or read new affs on paper or stuff like that to make your speech harder to read.

Longer:

I've become more willing to comb through evidence over the years, but it's mostly out of curiosity since debaters seem to be getting better at spinning ev, obviously I have my limits, but the debate includes the debate over the evidence.

I think conditionality is good, it seems to be necessary in this day and age when topics are very broad. I've become more neg biased recently but maybe it's just my disillusion with one unwarranted sentence of condo bad somehow becoming an entire 2ar. Condo in general seems to have gotten significantly more shallow. There probably is some point at which condo becomes bad, but I can't truthfully see myself voting for condo bad absent some egregious neg strategy or technical error.

Since it has come up more than once, my stance on judge kick is that I will presume judge kick if nothing has been said on theory, if the aff wants to win no judge kick, then you must at least make the arg in the 1ar.

You get infinite condo against new or undisclosed affs.

I personally don't particularly like process cps, this is a sliding scale, as consult ICJ or a commission cp seems less competitive than something like a states cp on face, but it seems like people are either unwilling or unable to actually invest time in theory in the 1ar anyways, so it often doesn't matter. I think fiating multiple actors (think both USFG and the states, not the states cp, or fiating compliance with another actor whom you fiat) is probably cheating, but I can be convinced otherwise. I tend to lean neg on theory questions despite all that

I like Ks the more specific the link analysis is. I tend to think of Ks as one or multiple thesis statements that, if won, should theoretically disprove the aff. This means the more you pull warrants from cards, explain the aff in the terms of your K, etc, the more likely it is that you beat the perm since that explanation makes links a lot more salient. That's a lot more persuasive than big aff/neg framework pushes to me

FW/T vs K affs. Since this is the only portion of a paradigm that matters for most pref sheets, yes I will vote on framework, yes I will vote against it. These debates seem to come down to impact comparison, as usually it seems hard to win either topical affs are necessary to prevent the entire collapse of this activity, versus framework is genocide, which makes winning as much of your impact quite important. Fairness impact seem to make intrinsic sense to me if debate is a game, but im not sure why that is a catch-all win if the aff wins debate rounds have impacts.

On a side note, I hate long overviews. Overviews should be for args that either: a. Are significantly more important and necessary for your argument to work, or b. Don't make sense when on the line-by-line (eg, meta-framing for how I should evaluate a debate). If you can do it on the flow, do it on the flow.

Good with anything. You do you.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Meyers-Levy%2C+Dustin

hey sup

i haven't debated in a couple years so probably start slow so I can get used to your voice. I also don't have much familiarity with the topic so don't assume I know what everything is. That being said I'm not an idiot so I'll be able to understand everything going on.

I'll admit to being a bit biased in rounds with the neolib k or similar things but I won't just hack out for the K team every time. Just know that sometimes it might make it a slightly more uphill battle.
Otherwise, I do appreciate the more interesting possibilities of arguments on the aff or neg, so I'm more taken by things like Baudrillard and Bataille and what not than the average judge might be. That being said, I debate so I also hate teams that run these arguments just to be incredibly shifty with what they're actually saying, so just don't keep changing what your kritik is through the round.

I actually enjoy a good topicality debate, but emphasis on good. If you plan on going for t you need more than 30 seconds in the block on it.

Really nothing else of note. I'm a trans girl so if you decide to talk about queer issues, just be careful you're not being an ass. Though that goes for, yknow, everyday life so if you haven't learned that lesson already I doubt the last part of my paradigm will be what spurs change.

Yes, email chain. debateoprf@gmail.com

ME:

Debater--The University of Michigan '91-'95

Head Coach--Oak Park and River Forest HS '15-'20

Assistant Coach--New Trier Township High School '20-

POLICY DEBATE:

Top Level

--Old School Policy.

--Like the K on the Neg. Harder sell on the Aff.

--Quality of Evidence Counts. Massive disparities warrant intervention on my part. You can insert rehighlightings. There should not be a time punishment for the tean NOT reading weak evidence.

--Not great with theory debates.

--I value Research and Strategic Thinking (both in round and prep) as paramount when evaluating procedural impacts.

--Utter disdain for trolly Theory args, Death Good, Wipeout and Spark. Respect the game, win classy.

Advantage vs Disadvantage

More often than not, I tend to gravitate towards the team that wins probability. The more coherent and plausible the internal link chain is, the better.

Zero risk is a thing.

I can and will vote against an argument if cards are poor exclusive of counter evidence being read.

Not a big fan of Pre-Fiat DA's: Spending, Must Pass Legislation, Riders, etc. I will err Aff on theory unless the Neg has some really good evidence as to why not.

I love nuanced defense and case turns. Conversely, I love link and impact turns. Please run lots of them.

Counterplans

Conditionality—

I am largely okay with a fair amount of condo. i.e. 4-5 not a big deal for me. I will become sympathetic to Aff Theory ONLY if the Neg starts kicking straight turned arguments. On the other hand, if you go for Condo Bad and can't answer Strat Skew Inevitable, Idea Testing Good and Hard Debate is Good Debate then don't go for Condo Bad. I have voted Aff on Conditionality Theory, but rarely.

2023-2024 EDIT:

**That said, the Inequality Topic has made me add an addendum to my aforementioned grievance about being on my lawn: running blatantly contradictory arguments about Capitalism, Unions, Growth, etc. are egregious performance contradictions that I will no longer ignore under the auspices of conditionality. Its not that I am changing my tune on condo per se, its that this promotes bad neg strats that are usually a result of high school students not thinking about things they should be before reading the 1NC. Its pretty easy to win in-round abuse when a Neg is defending Unions Good and Bad at the same time. I encourage you to try.

Competition—

1. I have grown weary of vague plan writing. To that end, I tend think that the Neg need only win that the CP is functionally competitive. The Plan is about advocacy and cannot be a moving target.

2. Perm do the CP? Intrinsic Perms? I am flexible to Neg if they have a solvency advocate or the Aff is new. Otherwise, I lean Aff.

Other Stuff—

PIC’s and Agent CP’s are part of our game. I err Neg on theory. Ditto 50 State Fiat.

No object Fiat, please. Or International Fiat on a Domestic Topic.

Otherwise, International Fiat is a gray area for me. The Neg needs a good Interp that excludes abusive versions. Its winnable.

Solvency advocates and New Affs make me lean Neg on theory.

I will judge kick automatically unless given a decent reason why not in the 1AR.

K-Affs

If you lean on K Affs, just do yourself a favor and put me low or strike me. I am not unsympathetic to your argument per se, I just vote on Framework 60-70% of the time and it rarely has anything to do with your Aff.

That said, if you can effectively impact turn Framework, beat back a TVA and Switch Side Debate, you can get my ballot.

Topic relevance is important.

If your goal is to make blanket statements about why certain people are good or bad or should be excluded from valuable discussions then I am not your judge. We are all flawed.

I do not like “debate is bad” arguments. I don't think that being a "small school" is a reason why I should vote for you.

Kritiks vs Policy Affs

Truth be told, I vote Neg on Kritiks vs Policy Affs A LOT.

I am prone to voting Aff on Perms, so be advised College Debaters. I have no take on "philosophical competition" but it does seem like a thing.

I am not up on the Lit AT ALL, so the polysyllabic word stews you so love to concoct are going to make my ears bleed.

I like reading cards after the debate and find myself understanding nuance better when I can. If you don’t then you leave me with only the bad handwriting on my flow to decipher what you said an hour later and that’s not good for anybody.

When I usually vote Neg its because the Aff has not done a sufficient job in engaging with core elements of the K, such as Ontology, Root Cause Claims, etc.

I am not a great evaluator of Framework debates and will usually err for the team that accesses Education Impacts the best.

Topicality

Because it theoretically serves an external function that affects other rounds, I do give the Aff a fair amount of leeway when the arguments start to wander into a gray area. The requirement for Offense on the part of the Affirmative is something on which I place little value. Put another way, the Aff need only prove that they are within the predictable confines of research and present a plan that offers enough ground on which to run generic arguments. The Negative must prove that the Affirmative skews research burdens to a point in which the topic is unlimited to a point beyond 20-30 possible cases and/or renders the heart of the topic moot.

Plan Text in a Vacuum is a silly defense. In very few instances have I found it defensible. If you choose to defend it, you had better be ready to defend the solvency implications.

Limits and Fairness are not in and of themselves an impact. Take it to the next level.

Why I vote Aff a lot:

--Bad/Incoherent link mechanics on DA’s

--Perm do the CP

--CP Solvency Deficits

--Framework/Scholarship is defensible

--T can be won defensively

Why I vote Neg a lot:

--Condo Bad is silly

--Weakness of aff internal links/solvency

--Offense that turns the case

--Sufficiency Framing

--You actually had a strategy

PUBLIC FORUM SUPPLEMENT:

I judge about 1 PF Round for every 50 Policy Rounds so bear with me here.

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at things from a cost benefit perspective. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Impacts need to be tangible.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote on what is on the flow (yes, I flow) and keep my personal opinions of arguments in check as much as possible. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

While I am not a fan of formal “Kritik” arguments in PF, I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. Racism and Sexism will not be tolerated. You can attack your opponents scholarship.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. Again, I am not a fan of the Kritik, but if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Often the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance and not style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

Updated for UMich 2018

TL;DR-- "usfgshould@gmail.com"- Anthony Valiaveedu - Jon Voss

Actual email is bagman91999@gmail.com

Longer version:

My philosophy is no different than that of any other very, very policy judge. Don't read a K and you can do what you want.

I have almost no experience with the immigration topic so super specific topic intricacies are going to need to be explained to me.

Some more specific thoughts

Topicality: I like limits. Aff proliferation is kinda bad so if your interp can solve prolif decently, I'll probably like it. Clearly articulate standards and impacts and I'll vote for it.

Critiques: I have no experience with reading or researching K's and because of that I really don't like them. It'll be hard to win a K in front of me.

Counterplans: Read anything. Counterplan debates are the best.

Disads: Nothing like a good DA and case debate. I miss those especially after the EduTrashtion topic.

Framework/K Affs: See the fake email address above.

Theory: Very under utilized part of debate for anything other than a time skew. I went for condo bad a few too many times when I shouldn't have but that's because the theory debate is fun. If you extend theory, go slow please. It sucks to flow.

Last Updated: November, 2023. Please put me on the chain: nathanglancy124@gmail.com

***Background***

Debated at:

Niles West High School (2014-2018)

Trinity University (2018-2020)

Michigan State University (2020-2023)

Coached for:

Winston Churchill (2018-19)

Niles West High School (2020-2023)

Niles North HS (2023-now)

University of Wyoming (2023-now)

I debated for 9 years, all the way from Oceans to Personhood. I've been a 2n for longer than I've been a 2a, but at heart I am a 2a. I currently coach at Niles North High School in northwest Chicagoland and do remote coaching for the University of Wyoming. I went for policy-style arguments throughout my debate career and relied on debate to help realize/finance my college education. Debate's done a lot for me and I'd like to think I'm doing what I can for debate. If you already know me, say hi!! If you don't know me yet, don't mind the fact that I have a grumpy resting face! I'm not shy and would love to show you pictures of my dog.

***TL;DR***

I really want to ensure you all have a satisfying judging experience. I think this means it is my role as a judge to try my best to render a decision based on the arguments made in the debate. I care about debate's existence and success. I hope that is reflected in my feedback and my efforts as a judge.

High school debaters will do well in front of me if they keep the round organized and moving, show their motivation to improve/learn/win, and maintain a positive approach to the round despite the competitive nature of debate. They'll do even better if this is coupled with good, SPECIFIC arguments :)

College Debaters should consider me capable of judging whatever you need me to. I don't have any large predispositions and therefore I would consider myself quite impressionable if faced with good judge instruction and application of arguments at the end of the debate.

I have comparatively lower amounts of college topic knowledge - fair word of warning for acronyms

*Non-argument Things*

CLIPPING: I am soooooo done with people getting away with murder clipping everywhere. In that light, I will now start dropping non-novice teams that meet my minimum standard for clipping. Triggering any one of these conditions will result in an immediate loss after the speech, with minimum speaks to the individual who does it...

1. Speaker skips a paragraph of a card in a speech

2. Speaker skips a sentence that is 10 or more words in a speech

3. Speakers skips 3-5 words 5 times within a speech

4. Speaker systematically skips 1-2 words throughout a speech

Speaks: I will reward speaks mostly on the following criteria...

1. How did you impact your team's ability to win?

2. How did you impact my judging? Did something impress me?

3. Mastery of Material - "knowing what's going on" at the highest level

4. Mastery of Tech/Organization - did you cause/fix any unnecessary/avoidable decision time hurdles?

Clarity: I'm starting to care way way more about the clarity of argument communicated earlier for how I assess risk later in the debate. I really feel like rewarding good packaging of arguments, labeling, and organization that guides the judge through what you're saying AND why that matters. I will try and highly prioritize this analysis over reading every card and seeing who did the better research project. However, instructing me to read a portion of a card obviously constitutes a form of argument that I will take into account.

Conduct: The more we have good vibes in the round, the better the experience will be for everyone. Feel free to have competitive spirit, but don't let that turn you into an unlikeable person!! That's not a winning recipe. Also I am a fan of corny humor, often to a fault. I have given one 30 in my lifetime, and it was to someone who's joke made me uncontrollably laugh during the 2ar (they lost). Don't reach for a bad joke though that's never funny.

Online Debate: Before EVERY speech and EVERY CX, please confirm that everyone is here AND that the sound is clear! Feel free to do camera on or off, I understand everyone has their reasons. Please be understanding of the different complications of online debate and let's do everything we can to keep online accessible and effective. Oh and I HATE prep stealing and doing it while online doesn't excuse it.

***Argument Things***

Case:

I should understand a consistent explanation of the 1ac and its advantages throughout the debate. Changing this narrative or being dodgy/vague is easily subject to punishment by a good neg team. AFF teams should punish teams that are light on case using clear 2ac articulations of dropped arguments instead of being equally as vague. 2NRs on case should focus on identifying what AFF impacts your case defense is responding to.

I am starting to get really tired of bad highlighting here and teams that point this out can mitigate offense here.

DAs:

They're cool, but oh my gosh do teams double, triple, quadruple turn themselves with these so often! I don't care about spamming DAs, but I wish more AFF teams would exploit contradictions in "neg flex". Neg teams can best win their DAs by getting impact framing out early and being clear about 1ar concessions to establish a high risk of your offense.

I am starting to get really tired of bad highlighting here and teams that point this out can mitigate offense here.

T:

I think explaining your vision of the topic is one of the most underrated and underutilized ways to win a T debate. Please just explain to me why in your squad room you decided that T made sense? What's the "core thing" that the AFF did that is the controversy being debated?

Things that help a lot: TVA, case-list of good AFFs under your interpretation, case-list of bad AFFs under their interpretation, definition comparison, explanation of neg ground under your interpretation AND the other teams'.

Theory:

I HATE bad theory arguments and don't want to vote on them, but I hate teams that don't flow slightly more so I will vote on that stuff (and if I miss one line ASPEC that's on you, debate's a communication activity!). Bad theory debating is a one way ticket to low speaks, but good theory debating can drastically alter how rounds go down.

I'm pretty good for theory all things considered. I went for states CP theory a lot on the education topic and am a 2a at heart, but as someone who was a 2n I understand the deep, deep love we share for condo. I feel like the best theory debaters are FLOWABLE while doing their theory debating, SPECIFIC in their impact articulation beyond just talking about clashing and doing some fair education, and INSTRUCTIVE to the judge on questions of impact comparison and justifying new arguments.

CPs:

CPs are defense and should be explained in the context of what it is defending against (the 1ac's mandate, evidence, and how the advantages are explained). This is how I often think about deficits and how a CP implicates my ballot. Re-cutting the 1ac/AFF evidence is usually the gold standard for proving a CP sufficiently solves. I feel like fore-fronting how you explain a CP early and not deviating from that is the best way to ensure you don't bring in new explanations so I don't let the AFF get new answers. I lowkey hate process CPs but sometimes it must be done.

Ks:

I'm better for the K than you think, but likely need more judge instruction about how to apply X argument. Better for evidence-heavy OR depth-focused debate. Any amount of generic evidence is best addressed through specific analysis.

"Exceeds expectations"/I've gone for: Cap, Security, Biopolitics/Agamben

"Meeting expectations"/I feel fine judging: Set Col, Anti-blackness (Nihilism, Pessimism, to name a few), Orientalism/Colonialism, Imperialism, Queer pessimism, Trans pessimism, Ableism

"Needs improvement"/err towards over-explaining: Psychoanalysis, Bataille, Heideggerian stuff, Baudrillard, Deleuze

I have not judged a KvK debate yet.

Framework:

I almost exclusively went for t-usfg/framework in HS and college, but that doesn't make me care about dropping a policy team. Impact articulation matters for me but far too often I find teams blending concepts such as fairness and clash in incoherent ways. I don't care about the label, but rather the underling explanation and how it is being applied in the debate. If you have any other questions look at Josh Harrington's philosophy on K AFFs, that'll reflect roughly how I feel.

Nate's sliding scales about debate:

Tech/Truth----------------------------X-Facts are Facts & Dropped args are as true as the warrants conceded

Condo-------X----------------------Respect the Aff Peasant (have and will vote on it, clear args in the 1ar key)

Process CP/Normal Means Competition----------------------------X- 100 plank case-specific advantage CP

Super Big CP-----------------X------------Deep Case Debating

Simply saying "Sufficiency Framing"-----------------------------X-Explain why CP solves sufficiently

Zero Risk Framing----------X-------------------Any Risk Framing

Perm Double Bind--------------X---------------Haha Silly Policy Hacks

Deb8=Karl Rove----------------------------X-That was one dude

Salad K----------------------------X-Single K Thesis

Economic Growth----------------------------X-( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

***Miscellaneous***

Email chain is always preferable to anything else barring tech issues

I don't like cards in the body of the email... but nobody seems to care... oh well...

I am fine with open cx. All people should be.

The Prep Rule: I will increase speaks from what I would have given by .1 for every minute of prep not used - speaks can be earned by specifically telling me the balance of prep your team had remaining before their last rebuttal. Capped at .5 boosted speaks.

Massive pet peeve: if you call a CP a "see-pee" I will think about it so much that it might disrupt my flowing and you might instantly lose (I am being sarcastic).

here's a photo collage about debate that I made in high school:

9th year head coach of Northside College Prep. I primarily teach novices but have obviously been out in the National Circuit madness with my varsity squads for the past decade also - so I'm familiar with bid circuit norms etc. I did not debate in high school, but have done my best to learn as much as possible about debate over my time in the game.

General preferences:

- FOR ONLINE DEBATE: PLEASE slow down slightly so I can actually hear you, and I strongly encourage you to send analytics even if you usually don't - if the mic drops out or I glitch, I bet you want me to see that you did in fact extend the dropped Condo violation etc.

- Don't be a jerk, during the round OR during the RFD. The idea that (adults or kids) people in the community think being known for being a post-rounder/jerk blows my mind. I will wreck your speaks for doing it, even if I pick you up. Just be nice, the whole world needs it right now.

- I vote on my flow, no matter how much I despise certain arguments or think they are stupid (with obvious exceptions like sexism is good etc). Understand though that it means I vote on what is on my flow, not what you thought you said.

- I've coached high-level teams that are both pure policy and pure K, and feel comfortable judging both types of debates (I've actually probably judged more high level K debates than anything). I'm probably a "soft left vanilla K policy-leaning" judge, if you want to shoehorn me.

- Fine for National Circuit speed on cards and clash, but please slow down a bit when reading a CP text, theory arg, framework interp, or making T args. I have not judged much recently, and I need to actually hear and process analytics.

- I am an English teacher first and coach second, which means I think your evidence should be good and qualified (not excessively power tagged or ridiculously underhighlighted or in the context of Australia). Feel free to crap on bad pieces of evidence the other team runs, and put me in a position to be able to throw it out by making smart args (through CX questions and then in speeches). Quality over quantity, children.

- I don't think tech and truth are mutually exclusive. I lean toward tech/dropped arg is true arg, but if you leave open-ended questions in the debate, I'm going to make a truth-based decision to resolve them.

K side preferences:

- I prefer affs with a plan (soft left especially), but I'm a fan of a good K aff also and will/have vote for them happily. However, I have a much greater skepticism for high theory (look, Baudrillard is dumb and trolling. I know his book, I get his theory, but we're not living in a simulation. In the words of a former debater "If I punched you, you'd probably say ow" kinda sums up my feelings on high theory)

- I think framework debates are interesting and important, and not structurally exclusionary, but if you win impact turns to framework I can be persuaded your way

- I think fairness is an impact to FW, although I'm more interested in debates about the educational potential/impacts of your framework when making my decision

- I think policy teams sadly never challenge the substance of K affs or thesis of kritiks enough - make case args and don't just read your FW blocks. I also love when teams try to boldly out-left K affs by reading sneaky word PICs, counteradvocacies etc - if you want to go 7 off against a K aff, I'm here for it.

- For the K on the neg, link debates need to be specific, sopull lines from their cards, set up specific links in CX, and read cards that aren't just links of omission. You need to prove the aff is making your issue worse in some way for me to pull the trigger on your K, even if I might think it's true outside of Debate World.

Policy Stuff

- I like a good counterplan debate, but do think artificially competitive process CPs and ridiculous multiplank CPs without solvency evidence are pretty unfair and am sympathetic to aff theory args in these rounds. For some odd reason, I love sneaky PICs.

- I love a run-of-the-mill disad or case debate, with the caveat that I am more comfortable assigning zero risk of a link to a truly dumb DA/case argument if the evidence is bad than most judges

- Ugh, topicality. My biggest issue with T debates (I'm admittedly not a great judge for them) is that debaters blast through T args with no consideration of whether I actually hear or understand them. In terms of preferences, I view T as a contest of competing views of the debate topic and activity i.e. which interpretation is better if the national community would be affected by my ballot. So, I look to competing interpretations first (and truly appreciate args on why interps are qualified or not, intent to define, etc), and for the love of God please impact out T clearly for me to make my head hurt less when I try to resolve the round.

- I usually think theory is a reason to reject the arg and not the team, but can persuaded otherwise (or, obviously, persuaded if they drop your cheap shot arg)

Add me to the email chain: addison.kane00@gmail.com

Pronouns They/Them or She/Her

Northside CP Class of 2018

University of Michigan Class of 2021

Currently Grad School @ University College London, doing a dissertation on queer geopolitics

Assistant Coach at Niles North (2020-2022)
-> Now a Remote Coach (2022-)

------------------------------------------------------------------

If I am judging you it means it is online and I am judging you from the United Kingdom. If it is past 10 P.M. where I am (I'm 5 hours ahead of EST - do the math), I'd prefer it if you debate at a slower speed.

I've judged multiple hundreds of high school debates at this point, in literally every medium, so I don't give any care about what style of debate you prefer. Just make creative, unique, and captivating arguments and defend those arguments well.

On framework:

I vote for framework quite a lot. It would be neat to do something creative with it and/or actually describe to me what your model of debate tangibly looks like outside of 'our model = fairness = inherent good'. Fairness to what end? What kind of scholarship does your model produce? What does it prioritize? What does it exclude? What community effect does it have? What skills do debaters gain that they can't gain elsewhere? Framework teams I've judged have hid behind these questions just to say "rules be rules, stop being unfair", which is only an argument if you win your ruleset has value in the first place.

It is also impossible to make me believe that debate does not shape individual subjectivity. It absolutely does. Anyone who genuinely believes otherwise needs to seriously look inwards on themselves and the rest of the community.

I also think debate is simultaneously a great activity and a very dangerous one as well - debate trains you to be a better reader/writer/researcher, it enables you to critically think about two sides of any argument, it allows students to make extremely valuable friendships, and its community can provide an insulated support system which can be an important safe haven for certain individuals. On the other side of things, I also believe and have witnessed the hypercompetitive nature of debate produce quite toxic and problematic personal characteristics in debaters as well, which has devastating mental health effects across the community. In framework debates, its both teams' job to convince me that your model of debate actively produces better/worse forms of these givens and/or other good/bad things outside of these givens. You can also try and convince me that some of these givens are more or less important than others, but you cannot convince me any of these givens are untrue.

Debate like people...please:

I think that debate is first and foremost a performative activity. I am increasingly frustrated by the ways in which online debate has produced a lot of ethos-less debate drones. Obviously I evaluate technical concessions and line by line, but the way in which I evaluate those speeches is filtered through the quality of your speech performance. What this means in a practical sense is, for example, if you're making an argument and sound like you have no idea if what you're saying is actually correct, or you are unable to hold the warrants up in cross-ex, I'm unlikely to vote for that argument, even if I could possibly justify it as a concession on the flow. Additionally, a convincing well-warranted analytic can beat pretty much any card, good and smart off-the-cuff rebuttals will usually beat out blocked out analytics.

Please read this:

Debate isn't life or death. Take breaks often, breathe, and relax. This activity can and will break you if you don't care for your mental health and wellbeing. If you're reading this doing prefs the night before the tournament or something, go do something nice for yourself that isn't debate.

Old Paradigm (use to determine your prefs at your own risk): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lL8SwemB064RuWAg6HB_aJzitSJaE8U7GDib6NxW2l0/edit?usp=sharing

I debated at Glenbrook south for all four years. My first two years were policy and the last two were strictly kritikal. Therefore I'd say I understand both sides of the spectrum and am really willing to vote on anything. Run what you'll be best at. For my last two years of highschool I ran a narrative aff kritiking the debate spaces and it taught me a lot. All this being said, if you say anything blatantly offensive (racist, homophobic, sexist, ect.) I will dock speaker points and possibly vote you down depending how the round plays out. Warming is real. I tend to lean more truth over tech but I won't do work for you. Speed is fine- be clear and I'll always want to be on the email chain.

I run offices for the democratic party across the country. I am the perfect example that you can still gain all of debates policy education while not reading a plan text.

DA's: I love a good disad with CASE SPECIFIC LINKS. If the link is just that any increase in immigration will trigger the link- I probably won't buy it. I need a very good Uniqueness debate and reason why the plan specifically causes something bad to happen.

CP's: I'll definitely listen to any good counterplan debate as long as the net-benefit is clear. States on the immigration topic is a bit iffy.

K's: Love, if you're pulling k tricks though- make sure everyone understands whats happening. Make the alt very clear, what the world of the alt looks like, and slow down during the block to explain the k throughly. You should pick their aff apart to find quotes that illustrate the links, I'm pretty unlikely to buy the aff links unless you can find at least two quotes from the 1ac. If you extend the alt until the 2nr and don't tell me I can kick it and vote on the k as a DA to the aff if you're not winning the alt, then I have to evaluate alt solvency.

Fiat isn't real obviously but the knowledge we get from each round is important. The aff gets the aff but should have to defend the implications of the aff passing.

I am well versed in settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, fem, queer theory, and baurdrillard. That being said, I won't make arguments for you or do work for unexplained arguments. Don't just throw around jargon.

Non- topical/k affs: Love these, don't run one unless you really understand it though.

Topicality: not a huge fan of these rounds. I'd say unless you can convince me the policy aff is blatantly untopical and that skews the neg in some way- I'd say choose a different 2NR choice. I do thing vague plan texts help the neg in a T round though.

Framework: Fairness is probably not an impact. I'll vote for whoever does the better debating on this.

Theory: love it. Won't vote on condo unless there are at least 2 conditional advocacies. More likely to vote on 3+ though. Some counterplans are probably abusive. Hash out a good theory debate- I find them interesting.

People don't go for presumption enough.

Hope this cleared some things up, if you have any more specific questions you can email me at nkkaravidas@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Vivekae. I debated for Northside College Prep for 2 years. Currently mentoring middle school debaters in the Boston Debate League. My email is vivekaemkim@gmail.com.

Please put me on the email chain : )

No predispositions -- just debate well & I'll evaluate to the best of my ability.

DAs: Strong link stories are most important -- I don't love seeing generic topic links. If you have to go that route, strong impact calculus should be sufficient.

CPs: The more specific the CP, the better. Not a big fan of stale 50 states CPs.

Ks: Vanilla Ks like neolib & security are all good. Anything else requires a lot more nuanced explanation because of my lack of experience with these concepts, but I'm definitely not opposed to voting on them.

Planless Affs: Both sides need to win that their method matters outside just a fairness impact debate. It'll probably come down to portable skills and real world implications of the kritikal affirmative.

Speed: Should be good as long as you're clear.

Kevin Le -- Lay Judge

OTHER STUFF: TSMDebateKL@gmail.com --> ALWAYS include me on the email chain

Note: I have not debated nor researched the current high-school topic, keep this in mind when you're explaining and contextualizing your arguments. I have not judged since I last debated, please slow down. I will not catch everything and then it's on y'all. I am ESPECIALLY unfamiliar with the virtual debate so please be patient with me.

-- I HATE it when teams don't flash analytics. Debate isn't about outspreading the opponent and hoping that they drop something. You should be able to out-debate them even when they have all your arguments and it also helps me out to flow when you're going 100000000 mph during your speech.

-- Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex.

-- If you're referring to me, please call me Kevin.

-- I do not count flashing time (or general tech screw-ups) as prep time and quite frankly I am not a fascist about this kind of thing as some other judges, just don’t abuse my leniency on this.

-- If you are running more than 5 off-case positions, you need to rethink your strategy. Run it at your discretion, but know that I will be more likely to evaluate in-round abuse (on theory debates) as legitimate and a reason as you why your model of debate is bad.

-- You should speak more slowly. You will debate better. I will understand your argument better. Judges who understand your argument with more clarity than your opponent's argument are likely to side with you. If you are going too fast or are unclear, I will let you know. Ignore such warnings at your peril, as with Kritiks, I am singularly unafraid to admit I didn’t get an answer and therefore will not vote on it. I'm average at flowing but may miss tricks/theory if you don't make them especially clear. If I can't understand your argument -- either due to your lack of clarity or your argument's lack of coherence, I will not vote for it. The latter is often the downfall of most negative Kritiks. I'm a 4/10 for speed and maybe even a 5 if I'm fully awake.

-- I will read evidence if it is challenged by a team. Otherwise, if you say a piece of evidence says X and the other team doesn’t say anything, I probably won’t call for it and assume it says X. However, in the unfortunate (but fairly frequent) occurrence where both teams just read cards, I will call for cards and use my arbitrary and capricious analytical skills to piece together what I, in my semi-conscious (and probably apathetic) state, perceive is going on. -- I generally will vote on anything that is set forth on the round.

-- I will not hesitate to vote against teams and award zero points for socially unacceptable behavior i.e. evidence fabrication, threats of violence, racist or sexist slurs, etc.

-- You can't clip cards. This is non-negotiable. If I catch it, I'll happily ring you up and spend the next hour of my life doing anything else. If you're accusing a team of it, you need to be able to present me with a quality recording to review. The burden of proof lies with the accusing team, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is my standard for conviction.

TOPICALITY: Enjoy. I believe it is the NEG's burden to establish the plan is not topical. Case lists and arguments on what various interpretations would allow/not allow are very important. I have found that the limits/predictability/ground debate has been more persuasive to me, although I will consider other standards debates.

DISADVANTAGES AND ADVANTAGES: Mostly fine with most DAs, but not a big fan of politics DAs.

COUNTERPLANS: Okay. Case-specific CP's are preferable that integrate well (i.e. do not flatly contradict) with other NEG positions. The AFF has the burden of telling me how a permutation proves the CP is non-competitive.

KRITIKS: Not a fan, but I have voted on them numerous times. I will never be better than below mediocre (3/10) at evaluating these arguments because I don’t read philosophy for entertainment. To win, the negative must establish a clear story about 1) what the K is; 2) how it links; 3) what the impact is at either the policy level, or: 4) pre-fiat (to the extent it exists) outweighs policy arguments or other AFF impacts. Don’t just assume I will vote to reject their evil discourse, advocacy, lack of ontology, support of biopolitics, etc. Without an explanation, I will assume a K is a very bad non-unique DA. As such it will probably receive very little weight if challenged by the AFF. You must be able to distill long boring philosophical cards read at hyper speed to an explanation that I can comprehend. I have no fear of saying I don’t understand what the hell you are saying and I will not vote for issues I don’t understand. I don’t have to impress anyone with my intelligence or lack of. If you make me read said cards with no explanation, I will guarantee that I will not understand the five-syllable (often foreign) philosophical words in the card and you will go down in flames. I do appreciate, if not require specific analysis on the link and impact to either the AFF. If you can make specific applications (in contrast to vote negative b/c the state is bad), I will be much more likely to vote for you.

PERFORMANCE-BASED ARGUMENTS AND KRITIK AFFIRMATIVES: No topical plan that starts with "The United States federal government should..." No win. This is non-negotiable. If your AFF does not contain a topical plan and the negative raises even a minimal framework objection, I will vote negative. Especially on a topic where the AFF can critique some vestige of US [INSERT TOPIC HERE] policy and then read a plan to increase/ban that thing, it is a LOW requirement that the affirmative finds a topical way to make its desired argument.

robbielevin515@gmail.com

I have never judged a round involving a personal advocacy aff that I enjoyed and I have almost always voted neg on framework in those rounds.

Please don't think "but he's never seen ME run MY personal advocacy aff!" and ignore this. Just tweak whatever performative nonsense you had planned to include the hypothetical implementation of a policy.

Favorite Argument: Cap K

Former LD debater, UDL coach of many years. Currently running the program at Jones College Prep in Chicago. Please don't use this as an end-all, be-all paradigm. I vote for which team won the flow. Do this by telling me what to vote on and why. I like any debate that is well-organized, well-played, and where I learn something from you. I enjoy strategy, warrants, explanations, clarity, a good overview or two, nicely parsed out procedurals on T/FW/theory, line-by-line, and clash with evidence. I can handle speed, but there's no sub for clarity. If you see me not flowing, that is a problem. I've been known to stop flowing if I have to figure out, with great difficulty, where I should be. I find myself increasingly on the email chain lately--can't quite explain why, maybe it's mostly interest--but don't feel like you're doing anything wrong if I ask. I am a fairly laid-back judge in round. I don't keep a running clock, but just don't abuse it. 

Conduct: 

Racist, sexist, homophobic, misgendered, transphobic, ableist evidence, arguments, or language will result in an automatic loss and little to no speaks from me. Cards about rape/sexual violence should definitely not be read if I am your judge. 

Ridiculous abuse arguments that reek of butthurt rather than actually legitimate arguments about the debate space or education. 

I'm an educator and a former debater. I take those roles seriously. I believe strongly that debate is a space for everyone. I don't take kindly to condescension, humiliation, or general rudeness because you've been lucky enough to have collectively more rounds, expensive camps, or experienced coaches. Humility gets you everywhere. Don't be a jerk. 

General Stuffs: 

Affs: 

I like everything. Performance? Great. Kritikal? Awesome. Project? Very cool. Policy? Of course.  I'd say, since I have an LD background, that I definitely lean towards the k side in terms of my preferences and I would consider myself to be an ethical decision maker, but that doesn't mean I don't wear a policy hat from time to time. 

I think both sides of the round need to clash with case as much as possible. I judge too many rounds where case gets lost and it makes me sad. 

CX: 

Either my most favorite part of the debate or my most dreaded. CX can be your most useful tool or a terrible slog. I love playfulness, sarcasm, and humor, but not to the point of humiliation. I tend to vote teams down on speaks if, in knowing that your opponent has less experienced than you, you are still a jerk. I give high speaks to teams who critically utilize their CX to advance a strategy. I like being able to anticipate where you're going in the round with the line of questioning you're putting forth.

Topicality: 

I tend to default to competing interps and/or reasonability. Not someone who tends to vote on T. However, I appreciate it as a procedural argument. I prefer T to be super clean and slllllooooooowww down. "We run a camp/core aff" is a pretty terminal aff defense in front of me. 

I will vote on dropped T as long as the impacts for this are reasonably explained. 

Kritiks:

Love Ks. Well, most. Not a huge fan of death and Baudrillard but I have voted for them in the past. 

I want to see that the teams running Ks in front of me can substantially explain the K lit to me in their own words. Aff must use FW/T to answer the K and hopefully do it well.  

Have a mechanism to your alt. Don't be vague or lazy. What does the alt DO? 

Links: tell a consistent story with your K and that is done through link analysis. I hate when teams just try to dazzle with a fancy K and then not spend the time on the overarching story. Vague, generic links make me sad. 

Explain perms. Parse it out. Substantiate it. 

Framework: 

Me likey. More debaters should focus on strong FW rounds. Tell me what my ballot should look like. Spend time in the rebuttals telling me how to sign! 

DAs/CPs: 

Fine, fine. Need strong impacts on DAs, and link link link. Prep good frontlines on aff. Love a good tix DA. Elections, I think, still underrated. Recency key. Tend to vote a lot on timeframe with DAs. 

PICs are fine as long as you substantiate the differences w/aff. There has to be lit behind it. Tend not to prefer most agent CPs unless the NBs are super duper worth it. Really not a fan of consult, but I'll vote on it if you really make me.I tend to view CPs as mainly just a test of competition. Just like with Ks, make the perm debate thorough. 

Rebuttals: 

I always find myself nitpicking the time allocation of rebuttals. Work with your partner to effectively split block and structure rebuttals.

Really hate laundry list impact calc. Hone in on your 1-2 strongest points. Process the debate. Argue and extend warrants, not tags.  

Email chain: bmnushkin@gmail.com

I have done no research on the topic and have been out of the activity for 6 years, assume I have no knowledge of acronyms on the topic.

Judge intervention is horrible - tech always determines what is true.

I am not a good judge for affirmatives without a plan.

As for going for the k on the negative, my biggest piece of advice is to go for unique offense. Your links to k things should be a predicative statement that doing the plan will cause something bad to happen. Links that aren't about the plan need to be resolved by the alt but not the perm.

Try to impress me with your understanding of the material, execution of the strategy, or stylistic ability and I will do my best to adjudicate.

My email is luthersnageldebate@gmail.com

Add me to the chain please.

I debated for Northside College Prep in High School. I read soft left affs my freshman and sophomore years, big stick policy affs with tons of impacts my junior year, and critical affs my senior year. I have defended deleuze, lacan, schopenhauer, bataille, edelman, preciado, baudrillard, etc. I am well versed in afropessimism as well as critical responses to afropessimism.

I'll vote for a sneaky CP if you win competition.

I'll vote on kritiks if I understand why the argument is a reason to vote for you.

The bar for giving you weight on the kritik is lower if the alt is more action-based. The less your alt does the more you need to win FW.

I love a good advantage CP with an interesting scenario.

I love smart arguments and care very little about having cards if the args are logical. A shitty card doesn't beat a good analytic.

You do not need offense on T, you can win terminal defense.

Don't talk loudly during opponent speeches.

Don't leave time on the clock, you can always make more arguments. You lose .5 speaks for every 30 seconds you leave on the clock.

Don't be an asshole.

Flow, and respond to your opponents' arguments and you should be good.

Otherwise have a good time and don't take this so seriously that you:

a) cry when a round doesn't go your way

b) get overly angry and aggressive in CX

Hi! My name is Trudy and I use she/her pronouns. I debated for 3 years as a 2A at Northside College Prep in Chicago from 2014 to 2017 (the oceans topic, the surveillance topic, and the China topic) and I currently attend Reed College.

I'm pretty open to any argument that you want to run. I'm largely a tech-over-truth judge, and I appreciate specificity and thorough comparison of evidence.

CPs: I'm ok with most counterplans as long as they are competitive and unless they are veeeeery blatantly abusive. Pretty much every 2NR my partner gave last year was on the Consult Japan Counterplan, so I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't give questionably fair counterplans a shot. That being said, I'm willing to vote a counterplan down on theory if you're winning the flow.

DAs: Either you link or you don't; I don't evaluate "risk".

T: I really like judging T debates.

Why you're really here:

Ks: I am open to any type of Ks. I'm pretty broadly familiar with most K lit from both my time in debate as well as my experience in college (both Continental and "identity") but don't assume I'll understand your argument by default. I judge off the flow. The one K I'll always vote against/go truth over tech for is anything to do with Nick Land/accelerationism. I don't think I'll be judging debates where he'll become relevant but I have seen him cited in debates before and I think he's a repugnant fascist. I'm willing to evaluate scholarship that draws from Nietzsche, Heidegger, Zizek, + other "problematic" K's if separation between idea and individual can be sufficiently argued but Nick Land has absolutely no place in humane debate.

K affs: I ran them, I'm open to them. Make sure it's tangentially related to the resolution.

Framework on the neg: When it comes to framework vs K affs, I am very flow-oriented. That being said, I'm skeptical of "fairness" being a stand-alone impact.

Decorum:

I appreciate humor. Crackin' jokes will reflect positively on your speaker points.

Be respectful of your opponents. I'm not a fan of ad hominems or being explicitly spiteful.

I'm currently a head coach at New Trier Township High School outside of Chicago, IL. I've been at New Trier since 2012. Prior to that I was the director of debate at Cathedral Preparatory School in Erie, PA. I debated at the University of Pittsburgh ('07) and at Cathedral Prep ('03).

Here are some defaults into the way I evaluate arguments. Obviously these are contingent upon the way that arguments are deployed in round. If you win that one of these notions should not be the standard for the debate, I will evaluate it in terms of your argumentation.

*I evaluate the round based on the flow. Technical line by line debating should be prioritized. That's not to say that I'm always a "tech over truth" judge. I'm willing to listen to reasonable extrapolations, smart debating, and bringing in some context. However, I don't think I can interpret exactly how an argument in one place should be applied to another portion of the flow/debate unless the debater does that for me. To me, that injects my understanding of how I would spin one argument to answer another and I don't want to do that.

*Offense/Defense - I'm not sure if I'm getting older or if the quality of evidence is getting worse, but I find myself less persuaded by the idea that there's "always a risk" of any argument. Just because a debater says something does not mean it is true. It is up to the other team to prove that. However, if an argument is claimed to be supported by evidence and the cards do not say what the tags claim or the evidence is terrible, I'm willing to vote on no risk to that argument. Evidence needs to have warrants that support tags/claims.

*I prefer tags that are complete sentences. The proliferation of one word tags makes with massive card text (often without underlining) reduces the academic integrity of the activity.

*Evidence should be highlighted to include warrants for claims. I am more likely to vote on a few cards that have high quality warrants and explained well than I am to vote on several cards that have been highlighted down to the point that an argument cannot be discerned in the evidence.

* Teams are getting away with some real scholarly shenanigans on evidence. I've seen cards that run 6-7 pages long and they are highlighted down to a few sentences. I think it is up to the debaters to exploit this, but I'm less and less impressed by the overall scholarship in the activity.

*Arguments require claims and warrants. A claim without warrant is unlikely to be persuasive.

* A note on plan texts: start defending things. I find that most plans are extraordinarily vague and meaningless. They are "resolutional phrase by X." There's no plan text basis for the fiat claims AFF teams are making. All of the sudden, that becomes some wild extrapolation on how the plan is implemented, what a Court decision would look like, that it is done through some random memo, etc. all in an effort to avoid offense. I've just grown a little tired of it. I'm not saying change your plan because of me, you need to do what you need to do to win the round, but the overall acceptance of plans that do not say anything of substance is trend a frown upon.

*Performance/Non-traditional Affirmative -

I can still be persuaded to vote for an AFF that doesn't defend the topic, but it's become much harder for me. I find myself being increasingly on the side of defending the resolution.

My old paradigm read as follows: I would prefer that the debate is connected to the resolution. My ultimate preference would be for the Affirmative to defend a topical plan action that attempts to resolve a problem with the status quo. I think that this provides an opportunity for students to create harms that are tied to traditional internal link chains or critical argumentation. Teams should feel free to read critical advantages, but I would prefer that they access them through a topical plan action. For example, reading an Affirmative that finds a specific example of where structural violence (based on racism, sexism, heteronormativity, classism, etc.) is being perpetuated and seeks to remedy that can easily win my ballot. Debaters could then argue that the way that we make decisions about what should or should not be done should prioritize their impacts over the negative's. This can facilitate kritiks of DA impacts, decision calculus arguments, obligations to reject certain forms of violence, etc.

Teams who choose not to defend a topical plan action should be very clear in explaining what their advocacy is. The negative should be able to isolate a stasis point in the 1AC so that clash can occur in the debate. This advocacy should be germane to the resolution.

I am not wedded traditional forms of evidence. I feel that teams can use non-traditional forms of evidence as warrants explaining why a particular action should be taken. An Affirmative that prefers to use personal narratives, music, etc. to explain a harm occurring in the status quo and then uses that evidence to justify a remedy would be more than welcome. I tend to have a problem with Affirmative's that stop short of answering the question, "what should we do?" How a team plans to access that is entirely up to them.

*Kritik debates - I like kritik debates provided they are relevant to the Affirmative. Kritiks that are divorced from the 1AC have a harder time winning my ballot. While I do not want to box in the negative's kritik options, examples of kritiks that I would feel no qualms voting for might include criticisms of international relations, economics, state action, harms representations, or power relations. I am less persuaded by criticisms that operate on the margins of the Affirmative's advocacy. I would prefer links based off of the Affirmative plan. Kritiks that I find myself voting against most often include Deleuze, Baudrillard, Bataille, etc.

*Theory - Generally theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team. The exception is conditionality. I find myself less persuaded by conditionality bad debates if there are 2 or less advocacies in the round. That is not to say I haven't voted for the AFF in those debates. I am willing to vote on theory if it is well explained and impacted, but that does not happen often, so I end up defaulting negative. Avoid blips and theory blocks read at an incomprehensible rate.

*CP's CP's that result in the plan (consult, recommendations, etc.) bore me. I would much rather hear an agent CP, PIC, Advantage CP, etc. than a CP that competes off of "certainty" or "immediacy."

*Case - I'd like to see more of it. This goes for negative teams debating against nontraditional Affirmatives as well. You should engage the case as much as possible.

Other things
*If your strategy is extinction good or death good, genocide good, racism good, patriarchy good, etc. please do all of us as favor and strike me. These arguments strike me as being inappropriate for student environments. Imagine a world where a debater's relative recently passed away and that student is confronted with "death good" for 8 minutes of the 1AC. Imagine a family who fled slaughter in another part of the world and came to the United States, only to listen to genocide good. These are things I wouldn't allow in my classroom and I would not permit them in a debate round either. Since I can't actually prevent people from reading them, my only recourse is to use my ballot.

Introduction-

My name is Marcus Williams and i'm a senior at the University of Kentucky.

My email is marcusvwilliams.ii@gmail.com . You can email me with any questions you have. If you do email chains you can also add me to it before the round.

General -

I really enjoy debate and I think it should be a fun activity that everyone should be comfortable doing. With that being said, I am open to all arguments that teams make. I have NOT done any debating or research on this years high school/middle school topic, but that doesn't mean I am clueless to how things work. It just means you need more explanation.

Disads -

Do impact and framing work. I prefer specificity when it comes to link arguments. Generic link arguments can get it done with nuance, but I am lenient to aff no link arguments if they press your very general evidence.

Topicality -

Topicality should be treated as a disad, meaning that you should do similar impact calc. Violations should be aff specific. T debates can be kinda confusing if you are just repeating your arguments without answering the other teams, so make sure to do comparative work.

Counterplans -

Generic counterplans are fine. Ensure you isolate all 1AC internal links early on and how you resolve them in advance.

Theory -

I am persuaded by a lot of aff theory arguments however, I find I vote neg a lot more in theory debates because of a lack of impact comparison and technical drops. going for one liner theory arguments are fine if their dropped, but they have to be clearly communicated and substantiated with an impact.

Kritiks -

let em rip

university of chicago '22

new trier '18

put me on the email chain - natalie.c.ye@gmail.com

general things:

-I don't debate in college, and I have not done much research on the topic, so don't expect me to automatically understand all of the jargon, but I am familiar with some of the arguments through general study of IR topics in hs/college

-be respectful, especially to your partner

-argument = claim + warrant + implications

-tech>truth

-if you don't explain your evidence, I won't evaluate it

da:

-love them!!

-specific links are very important

-impact calculus is good, but so are coherent internal link chains

cp:

-not a big fan of process/consult/delay cps

-pics are great when they're specific to the aff

-condo is usually good

k:

-the neg team should defend an alt--I'm not a big fan of neg teams having shifty, incoherent alts, and if I don't understand what the alt specifically does, I will not vote for it

-aff-specific ks or adapting the k to specifically address the aff are always better than the generic "neolib/cap bad" ks

-I don't really understand pomo/high theory ks, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for them if you thoroughly explain any terms/buzzwords

-I'm not the biggest fan of large overviews, and I would much prefer you to answer arguments on the flow rather than saying, "that was in the overview"

t:

-I default to competing interps

-the aff team should defend resolutional action

-planless affs will most likely face an uphill battle for me regarding t/fw --but I will vote for you if you provide a compelling reason for me otherwise

-impact calculus here is also just as important as it is on a da

case:

-attacking internal links > impact defense card dump

GBN '18

Northwestern University '22 (do not debate here)

email: matthewzhang48@gmail.com

- no real preference between policy vs k arguments but k teams have a slightly higher bar to meet in terms of explaining their arguments given my policy background. with that being said, run what you want and i promise i will do my best to follow

- slow down on theory/t arguments

- tech over truth to an extent. truer arguments are inherently easier to win so keep that in mind throughout the round when making strategic decisions. also, a dropped argument is not a true argument until you sufficiently explain the impact of the dropped argument in the context of the flow/round. however, i will not let my personal thoughts about the world wholly influence my decision-making unless you run something dumb and objectively morally corrupt like death good or racism good

- perm do both, perm do the plan and non-mutually exclusive parts of alt, etc. are not persuasive arguments unless you explain exactly how those perms are implemented by both the usfg and the cp/k actor during the 2ac

- cp theory arguments should not be in the 2ac unless some really egregious in-round violation happened - odds are there are much more persuasive arguments you can make that actually engage with the substance of the cp

- i evaluate rounds very similarly to how kevin mcccaffery's paradigm describes his approach (specifically the stuff under the first two sub-headings) so i'd look there if you want more detail

- admittedly not the best at flowing so if you think of yourself as a fast spreader then you should probably slow down a little bit

- please be nice to each other and try to have fun !!