Hello,

I've been in debate as a whole for about 8 years. Last debated in '20 (just before rona lol) . I've coached various formats of debate (Policy, LD, Parli, Public Forum) along with being a participant in those formats also. Here's my view: Debate is a space to challenge ideologies and come to the best way of making a change. That may look like a plan text that has an econ and heg or, it's an advocacy that talks about discourse in the debate space. I'm here for you as an educator so tell me where and how to vote. Impact Magnitude in the later speeches will help you and me a lot.

Add me on the Email doc:3offncase@gmail.com

Here's my view on certain arguments:

T and Framework and theory in general: I'll listen and adjudicate the round based on the information that you frame my ballot.

Counterplans: Gotta prove the Mutual Exclusivity of said CP. Not really a preference or style choice on this.

D/A's: Uniqueness has got to be relatively recent or the debate is gonna be a tough one to win. If paired with a C/P you must prove how you avoid said D/A or perm is gonna be super cheezy here. Again don't let that stop you from running it in front of me.

K's: I'm good with whatever you desire to run but if its some super high level (D&G or around that lit base) stuff you gotta explain what that means. Also, please be sure to know your author's lit bases here. Perm debates against K's have to prove the accessibility of the Perm along with the net benefits of the perm. Also, Impact Framing the K is gonna make your job along with mine a lot easier.

K Aff's: You do you. Tell me where to frame the ballot and how to view any performances within the round. You do you. Solvency is gonna be the point of clash along with framing.

Update for '21: My internet at my house is absolute garbage so PLEASE: start at 80% speed, I'm always ready for your speech and I'll give a reaction in zoom if I'm not.

college prep '18, georgetown '22 (although i'm not debating)

put me on the chain: allisonecho@gmail.com

top level:

have fun & respect your opponents. truth is contingently determined by tech. dropped arguments are true IF they’re clearly extended and warranted in the debate. i haven't judged many rounds on this topic yet, so don't assume i'll immediately know all the jargon/acronyms.

specifics

T: my own opinions on which affs are t aren’t important—especially since i'm not as familiar with the topic as you. i evaluate this like a da--impact out your offense and explain how it interacts with theirs beyond saying the buzzwords.

DA/CP's: obviously specific links and overviews that are contextualized to the aff are preferable (do more turns case than just at the impact level if you can). cheaty counterplans are fine if theory is executed well

K: they're good when they're contextualized to the aff. a link is an argument that disproves the desirability of the plan, and links of omission/state links aren't persuasive. the neg should defend the alt, explain why it solves the link(s) and have a good explanation of it, too. i'm good with generic k's (i.e. cap and security) and dislike high theory. identity debating is interesting to me, but it's not my wheelhouse so please explain your thesis claims.

i have a high threshold for framing the aff out of the debate—this is their main piece of offense, and they likely get to weigh the 1ac unless you're really ahead on the tech.

Framework v K Affs: i’ll try to be objective, but i can’t pretend i don’t have predispositions—my personal belief is that debate is a game, and that procedural fairness is something valuable that should be preserved. if you choose not to read a plan, you should try to at least be in the direction of the resolution, have a stable advocacy and a solid explanation of why presenting your arguments in the debate space is important. "debate is a site for survival strategies" arguments aren't persuasive to me—i don't think that a model of debate where judges reject/affirm individuals is a good one, nor one the neg should have to refute.

Theory: i'm not a fan of theory cheap-shots, but if the other team mishandles them i'll vote on them. generally, i think conditionality is good, and that most condo interps are arbitrary. however, egregious conditional offcase (5+) or contradictory ones will make me more sympathetic to a condo 2ar.

General: Graduated from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2021 with a double-major in computer science and anthropology and now work as a product manager in the tech industry.

My email is amoghden@gmail.com - please add me to the email chain and/or reach out with any questions!

Debate Background: 4 years of circuit policy debate at Milpitas High School (2013-17). 3 years of NPDA Parliamentary and NFA-LD at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2018-21).

During my time in college, I coached a handful of high school policy/LD teams and worked as a lab leader (leading labs focused on K arguments) at the University of Texas National Institute of Forensics. Since I graduated and started working, I have been completely removed from debate.

GENERAL VIEWS:

DISCLAIMER: This paradigm was originally written for policy debate but is pretty consistent with how I evaluate ANY style of debate. Let's be real, every debate event seems to slowly adopts new "progressive" norms that make it closer and closer to policy anyway.

Debate is a game. It is influenced by (and often a microcosm of) the social, political, cultural, and libidinal constitution of what we might call the "real world", but is ultimately an argumentative testing ground for ideas.

The only thing I know to be "true" as a judge is that I have been tasked to listen, evaluate, and arrive at a decision based on the presentation and clash of ideas. The scope / nature / telos of those ideas, how I interpret and evaluate argumentation, and what influences my decision-making is entirely up for contestation. I can be compelled to vote for anything regardless of its simplicity, complexity, or absurdity without any preconceived biases as long as it is not racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc.

My personal debate career and involvement as a coach was primarily invested into kritikal styles of advocacy, but I do not have any fixed stylistic biases. I will not have a problem understanding and evaluating traditional arguments, but this is an area of research in debate that I did not have too much personal investment in. My policy debate background means I generally won't have a problem flowing speed.

I really do NOT care about trivial debate etiquette. Dress however you want. As long as you're not compromising the safety or access of people, say whatever you want, however you want. Call people out on their BS.

WHAT I LOOK FOR IN (GOOD) DEBATES:

- Tech > truth (but I will only evaluate arguments that I understand).

- Organization, specificity, evidence comparison and argument interaction are key to amazing debates.

- Write my ballot for me - judge instruction is the mark of a well executed rebuttal speech. Frame every part of the debate: tell me how I should be viewing and evaluating arguments and why. Leaving it up to me (or your opponents) to make assumptions or connect the dots to influence my decision may not bode well for you.

- The debate is NOT determined by evidence in a vacuum; it's up to YOU to explain (or spin) warrants, regardless of how amazing (or unfortunately terrible) your cards may be.

- Cross-x is an underutilized art. Destroy your opponents with precise and impactful questions. Be one step ahead. Be witty!

SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS:

TRADITIONAL/POLICY AFFS:

I may not be intimately familiar with topic-specific political processes or terminology, so be sure to explain things and be precise. I would much rather you read one or two well-developed and strategic contentions than several mediocre ones.

I believe that the art of nuanced technical debate is dying, but I'm hoping you prove me wrong. I've noticed a troubling trend of terrible evidence, mediocre internal link explanations, and extensions without substance in the traditional rounds I've had the opportunity to judge. Put in the effort to explain and contextually apply the arguments made in your evidence. Question the merits of bad evidence. Spend the time to frame and impact out your arguments in detail.

Well developed weighing mechanism / impact framing arguments will go a long way with me. I don't presume to know what is good and what is bad - it's up to you to tell me and justify why things are important and what my ballot ought to prioritize.

Because the traditional affirmatives I judge usually end up being versus the K, here's some specific thoughts on those debates:

- Defend your affirmative. Pivoting to spike out of offense is not as strategic as you think. Avoid resorting to vague permutations and/or shifty link defense.

- Utilize and apply your affirmative. Take the time to make specific link/impact turn arguments.

- Engage the criticism. Failing to answer the negative's theory of power is usually an instant recipe for a loss.

- I have a high standard for perm articulation from the affirmative, and link/alt explanation from the negative. Do NOT let lazy K teams get away with bad link analysis or incoherent explanations of their theory.

- Substantive 2AC framework arguments are more likely to influence my decision than whiny procedural stuff.

KRITIKAL AFFS:

I have debated against, affirmed, written, and judged a wide variety of K-Aff arguments and fully encourage you to experiment, push the boundaries of literature and debate as an activity, and ultimately use this space to advocate for things of interest or importance to you. If you're looking for an idea of literature bases with which I am most familiar, check the "Kritiks" section of my paradigm.

I will NOT uncritically vote for you because I like your choice or style of argumentation. Although kritikal affirmatives enable potentially valuable breaks in the traditional form/content of debate and the resolution, I believe that there is a level of investment with the literature and knowledge about debate as an activity necessary to successfully challenge the ideological protocols of the game itself and/or operationalize the game as a site of critical contestation.

Take the time to make smart and offensive application of your Aff's criticism, and explain the unique friction between your methodology and the Neg's argumentation. Supplement your blocks and cards with smart in-round analysis and contextual application of your theory. Going beyond the jargon and providing concrete examples in support of your theory of power and/or methodological strategy will typically go a long way.

KRITIKS:

Successful kritik debating at a minimum requires intimate familiarity with the literature, and clarity and depth in explanation. The best kritik debates happen when you generate unique links to the affirmative and are able to build intricate link-stories by strategically referencing specific warrants, lines, or moments in your opponents performance, argumentation, and evidence and tying it back to your theory of power. Going beyond the jargon and providing concrete examples in support of your theory of power and/or methodological strategy will typically go a long way. I will reward you generously with speaks if you are well versed in your literature and are able to demonstrate your knowledge by making smart and strategic analytic claims and arguments in your speeches and cross-x.

I believe form precedes and determines content: I often begin my decision-making in kritik debates by asking what the telos (or perhaps a lack thereof) of this debate is, and what interpretational lens I ought to use to understand and assess what content means in relation to the presentation of the affirmative and alternative.

I have a general understanding of most criticisms read in debate, but my personal knowledge and interest lies in criticisms pertaining to identity politics and structural positionality. Most of the scholarship I've engaged with as a former debater and coach pertains to various branches of theory speaking to Anti-blackness, South Asian identity, Settler Colonialism, Feminism, Queer/Quare/Kuaerness, and Disability. Although I'm not AS well-read up on the edgy and often unintelligible works of old white dudes, I've judged or been personally involved in a fair share of those debates too and much of the scholarship I engaged with as a debater had its ideological roots in the works of Lacan, Heidegger, Marx, Deleuze, and Baudrillard among others. If YOU understand your criticism and YOU do the work to explain and contextualize your offense, you'll probably be fine.

DISADS/COUNTER-PLANS:

The more specific and less generic your strategy is, the happier I will be. I have no pre-defined standard for what makes a CP legitimate or abusive. Absent theory arguments, I will evaluate and happily vote on any DA and/or CP strategy without any predispositions.

I may not be intimately familiar with topic-specific political processes or terminology, so be sure to explain things and be precise.

TOPICALITY/THEORY:

The path to a ballot in these debates (on either side) is to do real comparative work on the level of interpretations and standards. Dive into the nitty-gritty analysis: what type of norms do we want to set in this activity/topic? Why? Why does it matter if the violation is true? What is the threshold to meet your interpretation?

Unlike many judges, I don't mind frivolous theory arguments. This is YOUR debate. If you want to make the debate about some trivial procedural question and you do it well, I'll happily vote on it. If you see strategic value in wasting your opponent's time with frivolous theory, more power to you. Likewise, if you make a well-developed argument that frivolous theory is bad, I'll happily vote on that too.

I think innovative or unconventional topicality and theory arguments (on either side) can make for very interesting discussions about the norms of the activity: arguments about identity, body politics, performativity, agency, boredom, death, simulation, educational models etc.

Impact analysis is CRITICAL to winning T/Theory debates:

Fairness is NOT an intrinsic good. What does fairness mean? Fairness for whom? Why is fairness something we ought to preserve in debate? What is fairness an internal link to?

Education is also NOT an intrinsic good. Why should the telos of debate be to produce education? Why does your model of debate have the ability to produce "good" kinds of education? Why are the specific skills we gain from your model good, and how do we operationalize them?

FRAMEWORK (VS. K-AFFS):

I spent my entire debate career arguing against Framework, but I think there's a lot of merit to these debates (on both sides).

What does your interpretation and model of debate look like in context of the affirmative's criticism? What types of norms and rules do we want to set for the activity? You probably have to win that the affirmative's theory about the way power operates (at least within the debate space) is bad AND/OR fundamentally not testable.

Impact analysis is CRITICAL to winning framework debates:

Fairness is NOT an intrinsic good. What does fairness mean? Fairness for whom? Why is fairness something we ought to preserve in debate? What is fairness an internal link to?

Education is also NOT an intrinsic good. Why should the telos of debate be to produce education? Why does your model of debate have the ability to produce "good" kinds of education? Why are the specific skills we gain from your model good, and how do we operationalize them?

READ THIS --- if I catch you stealing prep during a debate, you have two options. Either (a) You have your speaker points capped at a 27 or (b) I start shaving your prep down in 30 second intervals, depending on the severity of the violation. I don't care if you're a novice or on track to win the freakin' NDT.

things that count as prep: compiling speech docs, writing arguments, talking to your partner, asking the other team what cards they read

things that don't count: emailing/flashing (as long as it's short), drinking water, walking to the stand

if you're reading this before a debate, don't. Go prep. You've got a better chance of winning the K in front me than you do completely switching up your strategy.

If you're deciding whether or not to pref me, here are some common questions that you might want answered.

who? Former Cal debater, current applied math and physics double major at Berkeley. I work in a dark matter search lab.

topic knowledge? Not a ton. Stanford will be the first tournament I've judged on this topic, so your acronyms will be foreign to me.

kritiks? Admittedly an uphill battle. I think of them like a disad with a counterplan that rarely does anything. That being said, I'd be pretty excited to hear something innovative that questions assumptions the aff has made and contextually explains why those assumptions mean the aff loses from a substance perspective (a la Cal NR). This seems unlikely for some reason though.

counterplans? The neg probably gets infinite condo. You can probably kick planks. 2NC counterplans and counterplan amendments are probably fine. It's probably not an opporutnity cost if no actor could do both.

politics DA?. yes but it's probably dumb. You should probably also go for a counterplan.

speed? Oftentimes the slower team makes the smarter arguments by understanding where to prioritize their time. If I can't hear you I'll tell you.

t? Yes. If T is the 2NR, then T is the 2NR.

TLDR:

You do you, I don't have any conscious biases towards any arguments. If you have explained well why you're winning, I'll vote for you. Also I don't know anything about the education topic, so please avoid using jargon and acronyms without first explaining them.

About Me:

Dougherty Valley '17, Harvard '21. Debated throughout high school mainly in policy (1A/2N) and dabbled in other events (LD and Parli). Went mainly for K's on Aff and Neg, but I have read plan texts and gone for traditional neg strategies. In any case don't try to adapt to me, I'd much prefer to see you do what you're good at.

Feel free to ask me if there's any other info you want to know about me or my paradigm that isn't here.

General:

• Put me on the email chain: andyfanaf@gmail.com. I only do this to flow authors (I'm bad, I know) and will only read cards if there's a dispute over the content
• Sending a speech isn't prep unless it gets excessive
• I'm not the fastest flow, and I will also try to flow the warrants of your cards/arguments. This means that you should slow down on analytics and signpost/emphasize important arguments and transitions.
• Clarity Matters, I will call clear up to 5 times before giving up
• Saying blatantly offensive things and personal attacks will result in lower speaks, and I will try to vote against you
• Tech > Truth (Usually) but since they're pretty intertwined you should just do both.
• Zero risk is real (hard to attain but exists)
• Things I like: LBL, comparative analysis, explanation, organization, daring strategies
• Things I don't like: Going for unexplained blips, long overviews followed up with lots of "I did this work in the overview", being unnecessarily aggressive.

Non-Traditional AFF's and Framework:

AFF: Would prefer that it's in the direction of the resolution, but even what that means is up for debate. Just make sure you actually defend something and explain why that is a reason for me to vote for you. Against FW you should also explain why your vision of debate is better than theirs.

NEG: I'm chill with both procedural and substantive standards, just make sure you connect them with your interpretation of debate. TVA's are very useful to have. There should be some sort of answers to the case, they don't have to be carded. Like with the AFF you have to explain why your vision of debate is the best.

Disadvantages:

NEG: Specificity is great, generics are also great if contextualized and explained. I value turns case arguments and comparative analysis highly.

AFF: I love smart and nuanced analytical arguments against DA's. Mitigating the DA chain and leveraging the AFF will make my decision much easier. Again, comparative analysis.

Counterplans:

NEG: Again, specificity is great, but generics will also work if they're contextualized well. I also find it easier to vote neg if there's some sort of solvency advocate or good explanation of why the CP is uniquely great. Other than that it's again just comparative analysis.

AFF: Perms and theory (Most CP's are up for debate) are useful when applicable. Also it's helpful to attack the CP from multiple angles. Besides that it just comes down to comparative worlds.

Kritiks:

NEG: I'm familiar with identity and more low theory K's, but am willing to listen to high theory, pomo authors. In either case you should still hold yourselves to a high threshold of explanation. I see framework as a very useful tool to hedge back against the case. I'm willing to vote on K tricks, but they should be at least somewhat fleshed out in the block. At the end of the day just make sure to have clear link, impact, and alt analysis/explanation so I know why I should vote neg.

AFF: Like with the NEG, framework is useful and you should use it. Any perms in the 2AC should have some explanation if you want them to be a viable strategy later on. Offense is definitely more persuasive here than defense, and really just explain to me why the plan is still a good idea and better than the K.

Topicality:

I don't have too much experience with T, and as such I also don't have any real inclinations here. Just make sure to slow down in these debates and explain why I should be voting for your interpretation/standards.

Theory:

Most theory is frivolous to me unless you have a convincing abuse story (Why is their word PIC so bad?). Here in-round abuse is more persuasive than potential abuse. On condo: 1 K and 1 CP is probably fine, more than that warrants a condo debate. If you do want to go for it, the stuff on T applies here. Slow down, tell me why I should vote for your interpretation of debate.

Case:

NEG: Very helpful to help leverage your other offense, especially if you have independent turns on case. Comparative analysis is the winner here.

AFF: Winning case is usually important for the rest of the your positions, so make sure your evidence and analysis are both great. That's really all I have to say.

LD Note:

I evaluate LD more or less in the same way I evaluate policy, just win that your impacts are more important than whatever the other side is saying. What this does mean is that I probably have a higher threshold for theory than most judges, so be warned if that is your A strategy.

PF Note:

I will also evaluate PF the same way I evaluate policy, so weighing and explanation will probably matter more to me than your usual PF judge. Besides that just prove to me why I should prefer your impacts over your opponents and you should be good.

A quick guide to getting good speaker points:

-get to the point, and be clear about it
-"extinction" or "nuclear war" is not a tag
-a well explained, logical, argument trumps an unexplained argument merely extended by it's "card name"
-Ks need alts- i have a low threshold for voting aff when the neg is kicking their alt and going for a framework argument 
-cross x is a speech-i figure it in as a substantial factor in speaker points


Here is an explanation of how I evaluate debates at a meta-level:

While I think there is value in the offense/defense framework for evaluation, for me to vote on offense there has to be substantive risk. Second, quality trumps quantity.

Also, "extinction" is not a tag line. I don't even like tag lines like "causes nuclear war." I need complete sentences, with claims and warrants.

Where does the evidence come from? there are not enough debaters talking about the quality of research their opponents are quoting.

Get to the point. On any given controversy in debate, there are relatively few arguments at play. Get to the core issues quickly. Point out the central logical/argumentative problems with a given position. I am much more compelled by a speaker’s ability to take the 2-3 core problems with their opponent’s position and use those fallacies to answer all of the other team’s advances. It shows you have a grip on the central issue and you understand how that issue is inescapable regardless of your opponent’s answer

Calling for cards: I will do this, but I don’t like to read every card in the debate. If you opponent is making well explained arguments you should be very wary of just saying “extend our smith evidence”.

Theory/topicality:

Arbitrary interpretations are one of the worst trends in debate right now. If your interpretation of debate theory is wholly arbitrary and made up it doesn’t seem very useful for me to uphold it as some new norm and reject the other team.

Conditionality is good, it would take a very decisive aff victory with a very tangible impact (in policy debate). 

While I'm fine with conditionality, I am persuaded by other theoretical objections (multi actor fiat, uniform fiat without a solvency advocate, etc). I also think that a theory argument that combines objections (conditional multi actor CPs) could be a reason to reject the team.

My personal belief is that the negative can only fiat the agent of the resolution, and that competition based off the ‘certainty’ of the plan (consult/conditions) is not productive. This does NOT mean I have an incredibly low threshold in voting aff on agent/actor cps bad, but it does make my threshold lower than most. To win these theory debates on the aff, see above point about cutting to the core 2-3 issues.

On topicality-you need tangible impacts. You’re asking me to drop a team because they made debate too unfair for you. “limits good” is not an impact. “They unlimit the topic by justifying x types of affs that we cannot hope to prepare for” is an impact. There must be a very coherent connection between neg interpretation, violations, and standards in the 2nr.

Counterplans: I spoke above about my theoretical beliefs on counterplans. I think counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive. I am sometimes persuaded that purely functional competition (normal means/process counterplans) should probably not be evaluated. If you’re aff and theory-savvy, don’t be afraid to go for theoretical reasons the process cp goes away.

Floating Pics/Word PICs- I’m great for the aff on these. I believe that every position has theoretical reasons behind it related to education and competitive equity. The aff counterinterpretation of “you can run your K/word K as a K without the CP part” generally solves every pedagogical benefit of those positions-this means the aff just needs to win that competitively these positions are bad for the aff, and it outweighs any ‘educational benefit’ to word/floating pics. I'm persuaded by those arguments, making it an uphill battle for the neg if the aff can explain tangible impacts to the competitive disadvantage the PIC puts them in.

Politics:

The story must matchup. I will vote on such non-offensive arguments like: your uq and link evidence don’t assume the same group of politicians, you have no internal link, passage of that bill is inevitable, Trump has no PC etc. Of course I don’t vote on these in isolation-once again, refer back to my meta-approach to debate-you need to explain why that core defensive argument trumps everything else the neg is saying.


Ks:

I’m generally not compelled by framework as a voter against a Neg K-I think all Ks have a gateway/framing issue that is much easier and more logical for the aff to attack. For example, if the neg reads an epistemology K you are much more likely to win reading a card that says “consequences outweigh epistemology” or “epistemology focus bad” than you are to win that the other team is cheating because of their K. Focus on answering the gateway issue so that you can leverage your aff against the K and get the decision calculus of the debate back in your favor. Subsequently for the neg the issue of ‘framing’ is also very important.

That being said, I don't like Ks that are just framework arguments. Ks should have alternatives that actually resolve link arguments. I'm not going to weigh a K impact against the aff if the K can't resolve it.

In the 2ac, don’t make a bunch of perms you have no hope of winning unless they are conceded. Perm do the alt is not a perm. Make 1 or 2 permutations and EXPLAIN IN THE 2AC how the permutation overcomes neg links/risks of the impact.


Ks are a great example of the “there are only 2-3 arguments” theory I subscribe to. If you’re debating a 1 off team, it’s much better for me if you don’t read 40 cards in the 2ac with as many different caveats as possible. Instead, read a good number of argument but take the time to explain them. What part of the K do they refute? How do these arguments change the calculus of the round? When you do this I put much more pressure on the neg block to get in depth with their explanations, which I find usually helps the aff.

K affs:

T > Framework. Given that most impact turns to T come from pedagogical reasons, you need to prove that your interpretation provides space for the ‘good education’ the aff thinks is key to stop genocide/war/racism/turkeys. Topical version of your aff is compelling, as well as giving other examples of topical action that prove the aff could have accepted the parameters of the resolution and gained the same educational benefits. Then it’s just a matter of proving that competitively the K aff hurts the neg. Also, prove how your competitive equity impacts implicate their education impacts.

Case debate:

These are great. Impact defense is kinda meh unless it's real specific. Solvency and internal link answers are where it's at. Make alt causes great again!

Disadvantages:

It’s all about probability-magnitude is ok but only when you’re discussing it in terms of “our impact causes yours”. Extinction outweighs is trite because by the end of the debate all impacts are extinction or nuclear wars that easily result in another impact in the debate that has been claimed as extinction (nuke war hurts the environment, aff said that causes extinction). Probability is key. Establishing risk is where it’s at. A higher risk trumps a higher magnitude in most instances.

Cross Examination: it’s a speech, I grade it like a speech. Be funny if you can. Base the cross x on core issues in the debate, and base it on quality of evidence and establishing risk/threshold for various arguments.

TLDR VERSION

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

Remote Debates:

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

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

Please send docs to: samhaleyhill@gmail.com

Speed? - Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FULL VERSION

Biography

Years Judging: 16
Years Debated: 4

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

Tech Over Truth - This is not dogma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Try to be nice.

Judge Disclosure - I do it.

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

Speed - Go ahead, but be clear

I can flow any rate of delivery.

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

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

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

Line By Line - Please and Thank You

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

Framework - Can't we all just get along?

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

Conditionality - Yeah, sure, whatever

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

T - I am different from the folks at Michigan

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

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

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

Open Cross Ex - Yeah

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

Disclosure theory

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

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

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

New Affs

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

--Background --

In my four years debating at Skyline High School (a school associated with the Bay Area Urban Debate League), I competed on the local and national circuit where I received multiple bids, invited to compete at various round robins, qualified to the TOC twice, and had the opportunity to compete at the National Urban Debate League Championship Tournament all four years of debating. At the National Urban Debate League Championships, I've won Top Speaker award twice and in 2017, was titled at the NAUDL Champion Team. Once I graduated high school in 2017, I went on to debate on the University of California, Berkeley's Policy Debate team for one year before moving from the debate space.

-- Disclaimer --

I am a firm believer that debate is what people in the community make of it. The best debates for me to judge and watch are ones where each team is utilizing and perfecting their craft which in turn means - you do you.

Update for NAUDL 2022: I have not judged a debate round since 2018 but I am very familiar with spreading, flowing and policy debate in general. That being said, I am a judge that is not a stickler for line-by-line but I do appreciate it but if you tell me where on my flow you want me to put the arguments, I definitely favor that and will likely boost speaking points :)

Please add me on the email chain: christine.harris@berkeley.edu

-- Specifics --

Ks - this is a debate is most familiar with. I would consider myself a critical debater all around as that is the only form of debating I did during my years competing - particularly critical race theory arguments. I was most comfortable with performance affs and anti-blackness kritiks.

Neg - I expect that there is a coherent link story and an explanation of the alternative.

Aff - utilize the permutation and don't forget the aff.

With that being said, if you're not comfortable running a k, don't run a k in front of me just to win the round. I'd prefer a good policy round than a awkward k round where no one knows what's going on tbh.

DAs - good link stories and strong impact calc is the way to go for me in weighing the da v. the aff

CPs - prove the competitiveness of the cp and make sure there is a coherent net benefit.

FW/T - refer to the disclaimer. debate is a game and these debates are just a question of what debate should be. i usually like education as a persuasive impact v. fairness as one. win why your interpretation is better for debate.

Theory - tbh,im not a big fan of theory. i hold a high threshold of a team persuading me that theory is a prior question but with this, you do you - but slow down so i get all your analytics for them.

-- How I Judge --

I am a fan of tech > truth as a framing of how I should evaluate a round. However, the team does have to persuade me in why that conceded argument is a winning argument in the context of the debate. Don't make me do the work for you please.

The only thing I have left to add is be clear, be loud, and be confident.

-- Misc. --

Also, don't be that person that makes ignorant, sexist, homophobic, etc. arguments just to win a round or have a response to a particular argument, just think it through, forreal forreal, it won't end well for you in front of me.

Any other specific questions you have, just ask me before the round. I'll be happy to answer.

Damien High School 2013-2014 through 2016-2017

I want to be on the email chain; Pocketbox or a variant is also fine.

ajherbelin@gmail.com

Overview:

Clarity and efficiency are more important than speed, but speed is obviously encouraged if it does not interfere with your ability to communicate. I will say clear if I cannot comfortably flow you.

I have spent at least a year debating as both a 2A and a 2N.

I do not have any major predispositions for or against any set of arguments. Although I did not read a plan for most of my Junior year and I actually enjoy most K debates,  me going to Damien basically balances that out.

The 2NR and 2AR should "write my ballot for me" by explaining to me how I resolve the important elements of a debate. Liberally use "even if" statements so that your decision-framing remains persuasive when you inevitably suffer losses on the line-by-line.

Spin beats evidence: spin will win hands-down almost every time. Uncontested explanation or reframing of key questions can overcome a significant evidence deficit. That being said, if one team makes evidence quality an issue or there is an ongoing debate over the context or quality of evidence, I will read the evidence myself to answer yes/no questions.

TECH BEATS TRUTH: Yes, we all know the Idso's are almost certainly hacks and that CO2 is almost certainly bad, that doesn't mean these arguments are not winnable. Similarly, tired old generics such as T-QPQ and T-uncondo are as good as their execution.

This is stolen from Matt McFadden and Tyler Peltekci but it accurately describes my thoughts on the matter: 1) truth outweighing tech is paradoxical because you must technically win that truth is more important and 2) if truth outweighs tech, truthfully contemporary policy debate is a technical game. That being said, true arguments are generally easier to technically win.

Critical Affirmatives:

This is an umbrella term that includes every affirmative that does not defend the material consequences of a hypothetical, topical federal government action as of the 1AC. I read two during my junior year and am fine with them, but you must be able to explain your solvency mechanism and explain why you need to read this as an aff in policy debate. However, if you can prove that you do something without relying on the educational illusion of fiat, then your affirmative becomes your most powerful weapon against framework/critiques. 

When answering framework, I feel it is better to use your aff as an impact turn rather than relying on generic cards and turns like "identifying with state bad", "role-playing bad," etc. These arguments will still work if executed, but I would rather see aff teams prove to me that the 1AC matters.

Framework:

While this need not be the A-strat, I think framework should be in almost every 1NC versus a critical affirmative. Negative teams should try to dodge most of the negative's impact turns and internal link-turn the offense that sticks (i.e. macropolitics is good, identity politics is bad for fostering change, state-centered/policy-oriented education solves their offense, etc). Generally, going for the TVA + defense of debate + defense of plan-centered education is preferable against identity affs. Against K affs like Baudrillard of Bataille criticize things like utility and hyperreality, the negative should win that debate is a game, playing the game is good, and that they ruin the game. Fairness can be an impact against debate bad affs provided that the negative can, on some level, defend debate.

Critiques:

I'm fine with basically every generic critique (security, cap/neolib, anthro, etc.) but high theory debates (in order of increasing confusion) such as Bataille, Lacan, Puare, Deleuze and Guattari, etc.) will require increasingly more explanation for me to understand/vote for them. I think the link story is the most important element of any critical strategy and winning "links turn the aff" is often the most persuasive route for cap/security teams to take.

Framework: This is usually not a big deal, I default to "weigh the aff but evaluate the negative's criticism" unless one team is significantly ahead. If the negative is ahead, go for it.

FYI: Floating PIK's are probably cheating, but if they are articulated in the cross-ex of the 1NC and clearly extended in the block, the affirmative should have both substantive and theoretical responses to them.

K's vs K Affs:

Winning root cause is not the same thing as winning a link, but if there is a strong link to your particular -ism then the critique becomes a very potent strategy. However, I think most K affs can easily win Permutation: do both in the absence of a very well-articulated link. My favorite K against K-affs is capitalism/neoliberalism, but if you can competently go for something like psychoanalysis or an identity argument, go for it.

Disadvantages:

I love them. Case-specific disads in particular are always appreciated. Alliance DA's, Deterrence/Appeasement DA's, and whatever flavor of politics you want to read are also fine, although I urge teams to explain how the aff turns the DA/the DA turns the aff at both the internal link level and the impact level.

Impact Turns:

Well-executed impact turn debates are a treat. My personal favorite impact turns are: Heg good --> collapse = transition wars (especially against K affs that directly say Heg bad), CO2 good, and cap good (I am probably more willing to vote on a well-explained overview effect argument than most people, especially if you have updated evidence, as it has a soft spot in my heart and I feel the argument is often unfairly dismissed by certain judges).

Counterplans:

If the CP is a techy process counterplan with a complicated mechanism that is dubiously competitive, a clear explanation of its nuts-and-bolts is a must for the 2NC. Other than that, I have no problems with counterplans. However, many net benefits are contrived to an egregious extent than other disads and affirmative teams should exploit this.

Whether or not PIC's, consult, condition, or international CP's are "cheating" depends on the specificity of the solvency advocate and the negative's ability to get away with theoretical murder.

Topicality:

In general, I default to competing interpretations, because debates about what the topic should look like are probably important. As with counterplans, highly technical interpretations and definitions should be crystallized during the block.

Extra-T and effects-T could be voting issues if they are severely mishandled by the 2AC, but when the topic is economic/diplomatic engagement I think both are inevitable to some extent. That being said, if the negative is prepared to out-tech or otherwise out-debate the affirmative on these questions, go for it.

Theory:

Theory arguments (with the exception of condo) are only reasons to reject the argument. The rare exceptions to this rule involve initially well-developed, well-articulated theory arguments that are conceded or functionally conceded by the other team. Also, my threshold for 2AC answers to blipply 1NC theory arguments like disclosure theory, solvency advocates, and plan flaws are very low. I hope this goes without saying, but I would always prefer the final rebuttals to focus on substance rather than theory.

Notes:

I am a huge Seinfeld fan and may be *unconsciously* motivated to give an extra one-tenth of a speaker point to debaters that sneak in a reference or two during their speeches or cross-examination.

TLDR/Sparknoted version:

Tech outweighs truth, explanation, spin, and execution matter more than the specific arguments you go for. I am almost certainly comfortable evaluating whatever you say. Seinfeld jokes are good.

I don't believe there are rules in debate regarding which arguments you may or may not read. I'm more acquainted with policy arguments, so I probably have a high threshold on the K.

I'll listen to everything and adjudicate the round based on the arguments presented in the round. Please be kind and courteous to your opponents.

bzzzzzz

Have fun!

Hi! I'm new to judging but not new to debate. I have debated for four years at Oakland Technical High school. 

I prefer debates that have a clear argument throughout the entire process. I prefer 2-3 offcase and sliming down to one rather than starting with 5. I like when debaters apply the warrants of their arguments to their analytics, it helps build your credibility to me.  I'm not a fan of Time skew strategies because it wastes my precious paper :). And it's a little unfair. 

I'm fine with Profanity, but keep the expletives to a minimum. I do believe in keeping the debate mostly professional, but a swear word to drive your point home once or twice will go unpunished. Don't swear too much or I'll have to doc speaks. Also swearing at someone or being generally rude will drop your speaks big time and make me not want to vote for you. Be nice to people. 

Heres how I feel about specific arguments:

T- Topicality debates are only interesting or compelling if the negative can prove that 1) the aff is actually untopical under their definition 2) Their has been actual strategic loss due to the aff's "untopical aff" (i.e. legitimate ground loss etc.) 3) of they prove why their interpretation of the resolution is better. Don't run T unless you are considering going for it in the 2NR, and I will deduct a little bit of speaker points if it is clear that it was a time skew argument. A good way to avoid that situation is if you include T in the block. 

Kritiks- I am a fan of Kritik's. I will vote for them, you just have to explain the alt, how it works, and why it is better than the aff. Not a fan of "reject the aff" alts, but will still vote if the Neg is convincing. Also clearly explaining your link story helps you a lot. I do think debate is a game and that fairness is important, so kritiks of Fiat will fall short with me unless the aff really mishandles it. 

K AFFs- Explain why critiquing the resolution as the affirmative is uniquely key. 

Theory- Boring. Please don't run theory unless the aff is really being abusive. If you can show me how they are being abusive I will vote for theory. 

Anything thats not here assume I'm fine with it because It's my fault for not informing you. 

Thanks for reading my paradigm!

CKM '18

Berkeley '22

Assistant coach at Immaculate Heart. She/her. annabellelong@berkeley.edu

I’ve heard/debated it all and will listen to/vote on anything, provided you do it well. Specific argument preferences are below, but none of these preferences should significantly change what you read or how you debate in front of me. If you win the debate, I will vote for you.

Ks: I’ll vote for them. I'm familiar with most commonly read Ks. I think good K teams do more than just read the same shell and 2NC overview every round, and I’ll appreciate it and find it easier to vote for you if you have contextual links to the plan/impacts. It will be difficult to convince me that debate is bad.

K vs K: the area where I’m least familiar. I'm not super comfortable evaluating these rounds. You will have a hard time convincing me that the perm doesn't solve.

Counterplans: On condo: it’s good. On kicking planks: you can do it. On 2NC counterplans: they are good. None of these preferences mean I can't be convinced otherwise, but if debating on the question is equal, that is how I will typically lean.

Disads: I really care about evidence quality – if any card you’re planning to read has frankensteined a sentence out of words from three different paragraphs, it’s probably a bad disad, and I won’t be a fan. Zero risk is definitely a thing.

Framework: yes. Plans = good, debate = good, topic education = good. I’ll vote on fairness. I think portable skills are real and that movements-style framework can be strategic. I am not the best judge for you if you read a k aff, but I certainly won't auto vote neg on framework. Always tech over truth.

LD: I strongly dislike and do not feel comfortable judging theory/tricks debating, I love policy-style arguments, and am not fond of judging traditional LD philosophy debates (convincing me util is wrong/not the best way to make governmental decisions will be difficult). It will be nearly impossible to win an RVI in front of me. You should not pref me if you frequently go for theory or tricks. I will functionally judge the debate as if it is a 1v1 policy round (with the exception of maybe being more sympathetic to condo).

Misc.:

It is often in your best interest to go slower than your top speed. I do not flow off the doc and will not vote for arguments that I do not have on my flow.

Record your speeches locally in the event of a technical issue.

I am not timing your speech or your prep time.

Molly Martin - they/them - mollyam22@gmail.com

Email chain: Always. Please don't use PocketBox or Speech Drop. (Subject Line: Tournament - Round - Aff vs Neg)

Graduate student at the University of Pittsburgh. Debated for C.K. McClatchy (14-18) and Gonzaga University (18-22). Mostly read and went for policy affs in college but my research involves critical literature. Regardless of the style of argument you want to make, I care more about an interesting strategy and well-executed decision-making in rebuttals than what type of strategy you choose.

TLDR:

I kind of have one foot out the door with policy debate, so more in-depth explanation will help me keep up with how norms have cemented over the first semester (especially on T debates).

Prioritize clarity over speed. Please avoid starting your speech at max speed - work up to that speed. Slow down more for me on analytics, topicality, theory, and case overviews; annunciation is important.

Tech over truth, for the most part - still gotta tell me why things matter. For example, you need to tell me why dropped arguments matter in my decision-making process.

I look for judge instruction, direct clash, evidence comparison throughout a debate, extension of and reference to warrants (beyond the tag), and clear impact analysis/calculus/comparison to help me decide a debate.

While defense is important (and wins championships), I find that rebuttals that sound or are too defensive miss the boat for me in controlling the debate.

I believe that debaters should want to control the perception of their arguments as much as possible so that judges should not have to read evidence after the debate, and that debaters should attempt to write as much of the judge's ballot as possible. While I will read cards needed, my preference is to vote off your explanations of the evidence over the author's - just don't rely on the card doc to do work for you.

Pet peeves: top-heavy overviews, not timing yourselves, stealing prep, excessive CX interruptions, rudeness to your opponents, teammates, or me. I think respect should be shown from the moment you meet your opponent to the end of the decision.

Content:

Case debate -- do it. The best 1NCs on case have analytics that indict affirmative evidence/solvency claims AND evidence. Follow a consistent format/formula to extend your evidence.

Off-case arguments: Links should directly implicate the affirmative or be contextual to the aff, whether it's on a DA or a kritik. I like 2NC/1NRs with multiple diversified links to the aff, use CX moments, and 2NRs that make choices that best tell the full story of the plan and why it is a bad idea.

Affirmative teams should actively use the aff in responding to off-case positions. I find that high-school debates I judge that go for the kritik often do not talk about the aff nearly as much as you should. Links should be predicated on some consequence to the plan, whether it be epistemic or direct.

Turns case arguments are especially important in front of me. I want to know how impacts in debate interact.

The best extension of kritiks use examples. What can your theory or thesis be applied to?

Explain, in detail, your permutations. The 2AR is too late to start that. I find it helpful when include info about net benefits to the permutation.

K Affs: I like debates with at least a tangential tie to the resolution, but I will still evaluate affs that don't. I do think not being in the direction of the topic makes negative arguments about limits more compelling. Have reasons why your project is key to resolving specific impacts. What does solvency mean to your project and what role does debate have in it?

Framework: I prefer debates over clash and predictable limits or skills and deliberation over debates about fairness. explanation will matter if you're doing down the fairness route.
Use framework as a mechanism to engage with the aff - how can your interpretation speak to and enable debates about what the affirmative is discussing? Have examples of what debate looks like under your topic.

Theory:

I hated judge kick as a debater - I encourage all aff teams to make no judge kick arguments. My preference is that the negative mentions if I can judge kick or not in the block and in the 2NR - I feel it is judge intervention otherwise.

If you are winning theory and you are winning substance, go for substance. If you go for theory do not make me evaluate anything on/about the case.

I will evaluate theory as is debated in the round, and will put aside any preferences I have. Conditionality is not my favorite argument, but will vote on it if debated well/if it is dropped.

Slow down on your theory blocks. A good final rebuttal will break away from pre-written blocks to explain how their interpretation resolves their opponent's offense.

Please feel free to reach out with questions before the round if there is something I didn't include. Happy to talk about debating in college for any high school teams I judge.

2N, Junior at College Prep

General:

1. I will listen to anything as long as you explain it well, and will try my best to be objective when evaluating the debate. That being said, don’t abuse it—if you say blatantly offensive things/attack the other team it will affect your speaker points. I might drop you too.

2. Dropped arguments that have been clearly extended and warranted throughout the debate are true. However, if the other team drops an argument, make sure you impact out why it’s important in the context of the debate. I won’t do that work for you.

3. Try to contextualize your arguments as much as possible even if you are reading generics.

4. Clarity and analysis are really important. Prioritize good arguments over speed.

5. Engage the nuances of the case. Lots of teams like to just spit out impact defense, but I find that this part of debate is often underutilized. Impact turns are good, and a good case debate will get you better speaks.

T: It’s good. I appreciate a good, techy, and nuanced T debate. My own opinions on which affs are T on this topic aren’t important. If you win that an aff isn’t topical and you clearly extend an impact to that, I’ll vote for you. 

DA: I love disads! Make sure you contextualize the links to the aff and have specific analysis on the overview.

CP: Counterplans are good. Case specific counterplans and PICs are even better. Even you are reading a generic process CP, making it specific to the aff will help you both win the solvency deficit debates and the theoretical legitimacy of your counterplan. Since I’ve spent the majority of my debate career as a 2N, I’m pre-disposed to lean negative on counterplan theory. You should have a defense of all facets of your aff. That being said, if the other team mishandles theory, I’ll vote on it.

K: I like K’s when they’re specific and contextualized to the aff. PLEASE DO THIS!!! Make sure you explain the thesis of your K instead of just using buzzwords. I am not a fan of long K overviews. If you are making a ROB claim, do more than just arbitrarily picking one—I won’t find that persuasive.

K Affs: I enjoy K aff debates, but you need to have a concrete defense of how you are connected to the resolution. The closer you are to the resolution, the more compelling your framework arguments will be. Also have a good defense of your method, and why you’ve chosen to use the debate space for your epistemological project. Otherwise, I’ll probably err negative on framework.

Theory: My views on theory against counterplans are above. When it comes to conditionality, I lean neg up to two conditional worlds. If there are 3 or more conditional worlds OR if you can explain contradictions between their positions and why that makes debate harder, this debate becomes a lot more compelling. Do more than just read blocks back and forth. If you do that I will be sad.

ABOUT ME

I am currently a senior at Milpitas High School (CA) and have been debating for three years as the 2a/1n. Feel free to e-mail me at beamcpalacio@gmail.com about any questions that you have about the round and to add me to the e-mail chain. If there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible for any of y'all, please hit me up and be sure to tell me before round. Most importantly, I love dropbox and memes, so feel free to dropbox me some lol  

TL;DR

Please do what you do best! Despite my bias for certain types of arguments, I will leave my biases outside of the door when I am judging you. You have the discretion to run whatever you want, so long as it isn't problematic (racist, homophobic, ableist, sexist, etc.). I can be persuaded to vote for anything as long as it is debated well and you understand what you are saying!  Please be organized and speak clearly, because I will not flow what I can't hear. Pls have fun and enjoy what you're doing--debate  is stressful and I want you all to have a good time while you're in round bc we all devote a lot of time into this activity. Don't be an asshole, but also do be a little bit of an asshole because watching condescending cross-x's are hilarious and I like to be entertained. 

SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS

POLICY AFFS: I've read a policy aff once or twice in my life, but that doesn't mean I understand all of the nuances that go with policy affs. I mostly read soft left or K affs, so I am not the best judge for you, but I will understand what is going on. This doesn't mean you shouldn't read a policy aff in front of me. Do what you do best!! A good policy vs policy round is always fun to watch. That being said, I love love love interesting and creative policy affs. Framing in the 1ac against K oriented teams (while they are annoying to hit) are super strategic and I will give you mental bonus points.

K AFFS: If you do it, do it well! I love K affs and find them to be a very valuable and necessary part of debate, especially as a break from traditional policy affs that we hear every single weekend. If you run a K aff, I do believe that tech is necessary. Techy truth is my fave. If you're reading this and you don't run a K aff but feel it's necessary to do it in front of me, pls don't be that person. I am most common with identity kritiks, but if you want to read any postmodern theory in front of me, feel free to. I'm not the best with postmodern theory, but I understand a good amount  of it and will probably understand what is going on in the round so long as you explain yourself well. 

If you include a role of the ballot or role of the judge, do not just throw it up in the air and leave it on the flow--tell me why the role of the ballot/judge is necessary and why I should follow your framework vs. their's. 

CASE: Lol what is a case argument (i'm kidding i swear). Honestly, most debates I have debated, watched, or judged have underutilized the case debate, but I think it is one of the most important parts of the entire debate. If the neg drops your case and you are aff, weigh that against them. I think a good amount of aff teams are preoccupied with answering cards from blocks that they forget to utilize their case against the neg (including me). Pls don't drop case. 

KRITIKS: *heart eyes emoji*

That being said, a lot of people run K's to be cool, edgy, and to confuse their opponents, but often don't understand what they are reading. I love kritiks and love the literature that I get to read because of debate, so a lot of people who invest their time into debate really care about the K's that they read. Do not be that person who reads a K to be edgy or cool. Explain your alternative well and explain how it functions in the debate round. I love super nuanced K debates and I will love you if you know every single detail about your author's literature. 

I know more about identity K's, but read postmodern theory if that's what you do best. Please make sure to explain all of your jargon to me, because I will not vote on something that I don't understand the meaning of. Chances are, if  I don't understand what's going on, neither do you. Do not throw words out into the debate space and use meaningless jargon that no one knows about--because honestly, does Baudrillard even know what he was saying? Postmodern theory is interesting and I love reading it, but if I don't know how it functions within the debate space. I will not vote for you. 

DISADS: I've read like 2 DA's in my life. I am not the most versed with DA's, but I do think interesting and argument specific DA's are amazing and cool and I will probably praise you for being creative and edgy, but that doesn't mean I'll vote for you. You do you, though. 

COUNTERPLANS: If you're that team that runs creative counterplans that solves for the aff, then do it. Counter-advocacies and counter-methods against K affs are great. I don't like generic counterplans off of openev, and if you do this as a timesuck I will not be happy and you have better places to allocate your time to. 

THEORY: Meh. 

FRAMEWORK: Framework is a great strat and if you run it, weigh it well against the aff and tell my why they are being abusive by not reading a plan text. I find good framework debates very enjoyable and like watching these rounds when done well. I am usually on the other side of the framework debate, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for you. I am meh about generic framework arguments like decision-making skills, especially if you just read your team's pre-written blocks against K affs. Unless you have a better strat to a postmodern aff, you should probably be reading framework because you are probably right. If have no bias for or against framework and can be persuaded either way. 

SPEAKS: I am a speaker points fairy and believe that speaker points really affect how people feel after the round--and I want you all to be happy regardless of what happens! That being said, I will definitely give you low speaks if you are 1) problematic, 2) incoherent, and 3) unorganized. If you can make me laugh during the round at any time by referencing a meme or something, I will give you extra speaks and talk about you to all of my friends. If you look at me and are cool and edgy and go straight off of the flow, I will swoon and love you if it is done well. Assholes are rude, but I think it's entertaining when someone is kind of condescending during cross-x. That being said, do not br unnecessarily rude!!!! DO NOT!

important general stuff

I debated policy for 4 years at Oakland Tech and I coached for a year or two after that. I know nothing about the topic. Explain topic-specific terms and jargon or I will probably not understand your argument. I flow on paper. Add me to the email chain: seanpark1000@gmail.com

I read Ks in high school and I'm a philosophy PhD student but if you see me on your ballot please don't change your arguments for me. I have very little ideological attachment to stylistic disputes in policy debate at this point, and I prefer argumentative quality over content. In general I will vote for anything if you can articulate a reason for me to do so. Please tell me how to resolve the debate. I'd like to intervene as little as possible, but without instruction and in case of an argumentative impasse I will default to comparing evidence.

Clarity is very important and I'll say something if I can't hear you. Clearly demarcate cards and arguments.

Blatant racism, transphobia, etc. gets an auto loss.

specifics

K: I'm probably familiar with your basic theory. I don't care about type of link or if you have an advocacy/alt/framework, just make it clear why I should vote for you. No strong bias for/against any kind of K.

T or Framework: I'll vote either way on framework vs Ks. I am swayed by specificity. Game arguments about fairness or education arguments about skills are both fine.

Policy arguments: Totally fine and I like well researched policy, but I'm not keeping up with every politics DA and I likely know little or no topic jargon.

Theory: Please don't read a very blippy shell and expect me to pick up all your standards. Warrant voters or don't bother saying it's a voter.

misc

I am a bit jaded and I think most arguments don't make sense.

My vote means you win the game. If I'm ever judging a debate with real stakes to the ballot something has gone horribly wrong. I'm still open to arguments about what kind of debate is best overall.

Being needlessly rude to your opponents loses speaker points, e.g. "cross-x was embarrassing."

It annoys me when debaters carelessly dismiss entire areas of literature. E.g. generically claiming that all postmodernism is useless, all identity arguments are pessimistic, all framework is right-wing, etc.

ck mcclatchy '18 // harvard '22

put me on the email chain: elyse.d.pham@gmail.com

tldr: debated for four years at ckm and have been coaching/judging on the natl circuit for the past two. as a 2n in hs, my 2nrs were just as often a counterplan/disad as they were afropessimism. barring anything racist, sexist, or otherwise abhorrent, i don't care all that much what you do, as long as you can do it and explain it well; very few of my predispositions are so rigid that they cannot be swayed by superior debating. i only evaluate warrants that are highlighted/read, and spin is good but must have reasonable basis in the ev. tech > truth.

specific thoughts:

critical affs: admittedly, i'm a better judge for teams that defend a topical plan. inclined to believe that debate is a) a game and b) one that produces valuable skills intrinsic to the structure of competition and predictable resolutional stasis point. i should not, and cannot, decide debates based on the individual identity of debaters; by this, i mean that there is a line between identity as a justification for/informing arguments, and identity itself as the primary reason for the ballot. do the former if you want, not down for the latter. i won't evaluate anything that happened outside the debate i'm judging. framework is just another argument; please do not treat it as incredibly deep.

-- if you're aff: i need substantial thesis explanation and one or two pieces of clearly isolated offense that frame the 2ar. your best bet vs fwk is impact turning any reason that a limited model of debate (or debate as it currently exists at all) might be good, bc i will be skeptical that your counterinterp actually places a meaningful limit on the topic.

-- if you're neg: i am good for both procedural and skills-based (note: not "institutional engagement" or "topic education") impacts to fwk but find that the former's often better vs high theory affs and the latter's better vs identity affs. fairness is probably an impact but that's not a given. willing to vote on presumption.

the k: obviously explain well w/o jargon. specificity to the aff will get both teams much farther than totalizing metaphysical claims about the world, the state, whatever. inclined to believe that extinction is bad, suffering is bad, structures are contingent, material progress is worthwhile, and the aff gets to weigh the fiated consequences of the plan text. at the same time, reps/scholarship probably matter. both teams need to invest heavily in the fwk debate bc it determines what links and impacts i evaluate (i.e. if no links are to the plan text, and no impacts are directly or uniquely caused by the plan, the aff winning fwk likely means the whole k goes away). the alt debate is often neglected and i'm left not really knowing what the alt does, but also not knowing why i can't just believe the neg's assertion that it solves stuff. don't leave this up to me.

counterplans: cheat as much as you want, just be good at the theory/competition debates. if you can outtech the aff on an egregiously cheating counterplan i will be entertained. prefer when the aff goes for "counterplan is not competitive" rather than "counterplan is theoretically illegitimate." condo is likely good when debated evenly. i don't default to judgekick.

topicality: most interps on the arms topic are silly and arbitrary (i.e. portella for t-subs), but if you outtech the aff you win. "plan in a vaccuum" is convincing -- the effect of plan might be an increase in arms sales, but that doesn't mean the plan isn't topical. limits only matter insofar as they are predictable/grounded in the lit. finding myself more and more convinced by reasonability, granted that the aff proves a marginal difference between the interps and explains why substance crowdout, race to the bottom, etc internal link turn the neg's impacts.

disads: zero risk is a thing. smart analytics > card dumps.

Experience: I debated for 4 years at Notre Dame in CA (2011-2015); University of San Francisco (BA in Psychology); JD from UC Davis School of Law (2022). Previously taught 4 classic week labs at University of Michigan Debate Camp.

Update for 2024 TOC: Currently am an attorney and I judge here and there. I judged a few rounds at Long Beach this year, but have not judged rounds since then.

tldr: I'll judge anything but I like policy debates more. Just make warranted arguments and tell me how I should vote and why.

Newest thoughts:

- steal prep and I'm docking points

- don't make your opponent send you a marked doc for just 1-2 marked cards - that is something you should be tracking - I notice this is something teams do and then they just use the time to keep prepping their next speeches

General Notes:

1. I am definitely very, very flow oriented. I flow on paper and care a lot about structure. That being said, to have a full argument you need to make a claim, warrant, and impact. If those things aren't there, I'd rather not do the work for you and reward the team that did.

2. Other than that, you do you. I'm down to listen to anything you want to talk about if you can defend it well.

3. I'm super easy to read. If I'm making faces, it's probably because I am confused or can't understand what you're saying. If I'm nodding, that is generally a good thing.

4. Be good people. There's nothing I hate more than people being unnecessarily rude.

5. There is always a risk of something, but a low risk is almost no risk in my mind when compared to something with a high risk.

6. I'll always prioritize good explanation of things over bad cards. If you don't explain things well and I have to read your evidence and your evidence sucks, you're in a tough spot. That being said, I would rather not call for cards, but if you think that there is a card that I simply need to read, then say so in your speech.

7. Tasteful jokes/puns are always accepted. They can be about anything/anyone (ie Jacob Goldschlag) as long as its funny :)

Topicality: I love topicality debates because they're techy and force debaters to really explain what they are talking about in terms of impacts. That being said, 2nr's/2ar's really need to focus on the impact debate and explain to me why education is an impact or why I should prefer a limited topic over an unlimited one. Reasonability is debatable. I was a 2n in high school and I lean towards a more limited topic, but I'm very easily persuaded otherwise.

K Aff's: I am very convinced by most framework arguments on the negative side. I think that K aff's need to be closer to the resolution than not and I do not think that many of them are. However, this does not mean that I will not vote for a K aff; I just have had trouble understanding the proliferation of Baudrillard and Bataille affs, so if you are aff, you will definitely need to be doing a higher level of experience. I think Cap K's versus these aff's can be very persuasive, but I also think Framework makes a lot of sense if the aff isn't topical. That being said, do you and make smart args. I'm not the most literate in a lot of high-theory literature, so if you want to play that game in front of me, do it BUT explain your theories and I'll catch on quick.Framework: I think that "traditional" framework debates fall prey to a big exclusion DA from the aff. I think we should be able to talk about K affs and that they should be included in the topic - HOWEVER I believe that K aff's do need to prove that they are topical in some way. I lean more towards the neg in framework debates because I do think that many K aff's have little to do with the topic, but there have been so many times when K aff's actually engage the topic in a great way. That being said, on the aff be closer to the resolution and on the neg, explain how your interpretation and model of debate interacts with the aff. Most teams forget that the aff will always try to weigh their impacts against framework, which sucks because it is hard to resolve real world impacts versus theoretical arguments about fairness and education.

Theory: I will most likely lean neg on most theory questions unless a CP is simply very, very abusive, but even those can be defended sometimes :)

Disads: I love disads, specifically the politics DA. Prioritize impact work! Despite my love for DA's, most of them are dumb and you can easily convince me that they are dumb even using analytics and indicting the neg's evidence. However, I still love DA's and wish I got to go for them more in high school. Good politics debates make me happy.

Counterplans: Everything is debatable in terms of theory, so do you. If a CP is very abusive, hopefully the aff says so. If the aff concedes planks of your CP, you should make sure you say that. I think all CP's need a solvency advocate, otherwise it will be hard for the neg to win solvency and potentially theory.

Kritiks: I really like the K when the link debate is specific and I can articulate a SPECIFIC link and reasons why the aff is bad. Fair warning - I am not the most literate in high-theory arguments. This doesn't mean I won't listen to your Baudrillard K's, but it means that I have a very high threshold for SPECIFIC links and also simple explaination of the argument since I will most likely be confused until you explain yourself. The neolib k was my baby in high school and I think it answers everything. Security was Notre Dame's main thing when I was there so go for that too. Teams need to explain what I need to prioritize first, whether that is epistemology, reps, framework, or whatever, just make sure you say so! I don't like overviews and I am a big believe in putting your link and impact work where it makes sense on the line by line because it will always make sense somewhere.

Last edited 1/30/2021.

2020 Important Notice:

I graduated from Notre Dame High School in 2017 and have been 3 years entirely removed from debate. During my senior year at ND my partner Mikaela Appleby and I qualified to the TOC with 7 bids. Therefore, I while I know about debate structure and what constitutes a fully formed argument, I know little about this year's topic. So with that being said, make sure to extra-explain concepts or acronyms that are specific to this year's topic.

I've judged roughly about 25 rounds on this topic so far in the year.

My virtual debating policies:

You do not need to turn on your webcam! It is entirely up to you and I understand why some people my refrain for various reasons.

Technology never works when we need it to, I understand that. That being said, you should be taking active steps to ensure the speed and reliability of your computer when debating. That means:

-Completely shutting down and restarting your computer every now and then. If it's been a week since you last did this, that's why it's really slow.

-Having a lot of tabs open is a HUGE drain on your computer's speed. ESPECIALLY, if you're running google chrome. Close out of as many tabs as you can. If you have an older computer, I would recommend switching to a different browser like firefox (not sure if it's NSDA Campus compatible, you should check) as it is less demanding on the hardware of your computer.

-If you have a little extra money, invest in an ethernet cord if your computer has the ability to take one. A wired connection is infinitely more reliable than a wireless one.

IMPORTANT - due to the nature of virtual debate including lag spikes, or moments of being unable to hear the person speaking, I am far far less likely to vote on quick 5 second theory arguments that go completely dropped. I'm willing to blame the drop on poor video/audio quality. If you'd still like to run arguments like aspec or fiat bad yada yada, devote at least 10 seconds into it and have the analytics in the speech doc.

If you are a first year debater:

If you are a first year debater, read the arguments you are most comfortable with, regardless of what anything else in this paradigm says.

Above all else I want you to talk about what you know the most! I want to see good, clear arguments.

An argument is a claim, followed by an explanation of the claim, followed by some data to back it up.

You should try your best to stay organized, responding to your opponents' arguments in a "line-by-line" fashion.

Have fun! And if you have any questions before the round please don't be afraid to ask me.

Ethics things:

I love the activity and if you're in it I think you're doing something valuable with your time. Which, means that you should do your best to include everybody in the community and be a good person overall. If you start being a jerk during the debate, and it gets excessive, I will step in and I will drop your speaks. Be polite y'all, it isn't too difficult!

I will not vote on "death good", I urge you to consider the effects of the argument in a high school environment where you are blissfully unaware of the mental health of other students in the activity.

General:

You do you as long as you can explain it.

Tech > Truth

When it comes to topic areas I know the most about, those would be heg, climate, the security k, and Agamben. I have no idea how relevant those are this year, but if you're able to go for any of these arguments those are my favorite debates to judge!

Nontraditional affs:

I am sympathetic to framework generally speaking and believe that debate at it's core is a game with little out-of-round "real world" impact, but:

At the least aff's should defend some form of the resolution, and have an advocacy statement (not necessarily the usfg). Affs that make broad statements about bad stuff happening without a mechanism or explanation for resolving the bad stuff are generally bland debates and leave the neg with no non-offensive ground.

That being said don't be scared of reading your usual k aff, I will happily vote on it as long as you explain it to me. The most work you will need to do is explaining to me why my ballot actually means something.

Non-usfg k affs don't usually get to perm the k unless they explain to me why they do.

Case debate:

Love it. It's underused unfortunately, so if you do a great job at getting into the "nitty-gritty" details of what the aff actually does and how it does or does not solve, I will reward you with speaker points accordingly.

It is possible to win a zero risk of the aff and I will vote on presumption if the case debate is good enough.

Topicality/Theory:

Meh....I'm not a fan of it, I just don't find theoretical debates very interesting. I do however, understand the value of them. This means that if you have the ability to win on substance, you should probably just go for substance.

Slow down for the love of all that is holy when reading your theory blocks, because like most people, my hand can only write so fast.

Condo is good in moderation - the neg should probably get 1 k and one 1 cp, anything more than that leaves me open to condo bad being an acceptable argument...But it doesn't mean I'll vote on it unless the "abuse" seems clear.

The quality of process/consult/conditions cp's is determined by how good the ev is. If anything I lean more neg than aff on these due to being a 2n.

Framework:

I lean neg on this question.

Explain to me what abuse has occurred, and why it has become impossible or unfair to be neg.

The argument should not be focused on the "content" of the 1ac, but rather that the way in which that their mechanism for doing so isn't T, and thats what makes it impossible to debate them.

Fairness is an impact.

Debate is probably a game.

Disads:

I love me some evidence comparison. The less reading of your evidence I have to do after the round, the better. Tell me what your ev says and why it's better than what their ev says.

Counterplans:

These are great, I love them.

Solvency advocates are important, if the aff sufficiently points out that the neg doesn't really have one, the cp goes away easily.

Kritiks:

Kritiks I like are: Security, Agamben, Foucault, legalism, cap, consumption, and university. Which, isn't a very extensive or diverse list really. I have my niche of k's that I like, if you read one of those you can assume I have a bit of knowledge about it and can change how you argue about it accordingly. If its not on this list, I may have heard it, and if I have, my understanding of it will be on a very shallow level. So please be sure to give good explanations particularly in cx as to what the k actually means.

Links should be specific. You should explain why what the aff has done is uniquely bad and causes X impact to occur. I have a high threshold for the link debate.

The alt should mean something. Its the weakest part of the debate which I know from experience, so invest time into telling me what it means to vote neg, what the world of the alternative looks like, and how it resolves the impact to the 1ac and the k.

Good Luck and have fun!

(If you're stressing out: http://i.imgur.com/KZf5kWZ.gifv)

Note - this was probably a terrible paradigm and you might still have a question about the way I view debate. Please feel free to ask me before the round starts. Alternatively, if after the debate you have further questions give them to your coach and have your coach reach out to me.

J.D.C.

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019 and then coached policy and congress at Success Academy from 2019-2023. I currently coach LD and policy at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men in New Orleans.

Email - hannah.s.stafford@gmail.com - if its and LD round please also add: DTA.lddocs@gmail.com

--

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you. I really am open to any style or form of argumentation.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech.

I'm currently a student at UC Berkeley and an assistant coach at Sonoma Academy. I debated policy two years in high school and cleared at several national tournaments, so I almost know things. That said, I have been out of the game for a while so...

I will not shake your hands bc germs are real, but it's not personal I promise.

If possible, I'd prefer an email chain to flashing. most times, flash drives take forever to use and drag debates out for too long.

I don't have super strong argument preferences, i.e. I won't reject anything immediately (except for blatantly racist/sexist/transphobic nonsense). That said, I probably do have higher and lower thresholds for certain arguments, which I'll try to lay out here.

Meta-Stuff:

Every argument should be a viable 2NR/2AR option, don't read clearly throwaway arguments just to waste time. you might as well just shorten your speech.

BE INCLUSIVE. if your opponents ask for pronouns, content warnings etc. you should provide them.

I default to offense/defense paradigm to start with, but I can be persuaded otherwise, just make the argument

I believe that my role as a judge is to evaluate the desirability of the affirmative. Take that as you will.

DO THE STUFF YOU'RE GOOD AT!!! Please don't read arguments you don't know just b/c you think they'll make me happy. they won't, and I want to watch you do you, not you do me (weird phrasing but its late and you get it).

Style - you do you. I'm a big fan of jokes, and the will make me pay attention to you more. If you aren't funny though, don't try too hard :)

Signpost/be clear when you transition between cards, I don't want to look at the doc unless I need to read evidence.

I like nature, so make some tree jokes and teach me something new about this planet and I'll be stoked.

I'm fine with speed, but please be clear and limit spitting bc GERMS and it is distraction.

Specific Args:

Counterplans - They pretty cool. I love CP texts that are specified to specific parts of the aff and thing that original CPs (not the states CP) are severely underutilized.

Disads - no reason I wouldn't like them. they go well with counterplans. I don't think zero risk is a thing, but I do think it's easy to win a much larger risk of the aff.

Kritiks - I'm down. I'm well versed in most literature, but that means I also expect you to be well versed in it. And I will notice and evaluate sloppy explanations. That said, I have preferences: Baudrillard and his cohorts are frustrating and offensive, and I'd rather not listen to these debates. If you are going to read high theory, I'll have a similar threshold for explanation. The higher the theory, the higher the threshold. you also should answer questions in CX. MAKE THE DEBATE ACCESSIBLE. Winning debates by being an asshole is not cool and will be reflected in your speaker points.

!!!I do not think that performance in JV debate is a good thing. When executed properly, performance debates are some of the most interesting and important arguments that take place in this community, that being said, in JV debate that execution is not there, and it almost always devolves into some form of name calling or other disaster. I do not care if you are an amazing performance debater, in a JV pool, the chances are low that your opponents are similarly qualified, and I really really don't want to judge a debate that devolves into calling an antiblackness team white supremacist (it's happened and negatively affects the community).

T - default to competing interpretations, but will go either way. Don't read throwaway T arguments. Impact it out. Why does fairness matter?!!

Policy Affs- I'm down. I think that you should be ready to beat the advantage counterplan, and be reasonably topical. solvency advocates are a must - you should have a person that says we should do the plan and have NUANCED WARRANTS.

Non-Traditional Affs - I went to the UTNIF, so I'm familiar with the lit. That said, I have preferences: Baudrillard and his cohorts are frustrating and I'd rather not listen to these debates. Other than that, updating K-aff uniqueness (trump makes state x) is a really persuasive argument, and something I'd love to judge. That being said, I have a very high threshold for pomo nonsense because I tend to think that stuff exists, and really do think that you should have a concrete advocacy statement.

a few arguments I think require more nuance-

I don't understand why debate as a home, or a survival strategy requires you to win ballots. Losing is probably the most valuable thing debate can do for you, because it's loss that educates you and hones your skills. I never felt like I was no longer part of the debate community after going 2-3 at Fullerton.

you must be able to beat the Topical Version- I think that a TVA, even just being able to access your literature takes out almost all of your offense against framework. you should try to provide reasons that topical action (under the neg interpretation) specifically excludes your lit base.

NEG TEAMS - I'll appreciate you a whole lot if you just go for case turns. A lot of times, these affs don't make sense, and you can probably think of a cool way to turn them. obviously don't do it if it isn't a winning strategy though.

Framework - It's always good to know when theoretical or substantive strategies are strategic. Other than that, you should have a TVA, and offense against the counter interpretation.

Pet peeves:

please please please don't ask the other team "what cards did you read". Flow the speech, not the speech doc :)

explain. your. solvency. If I don't know how your aff solves the impacts at the end of the debate, I'll be comfortable voting neg on presumption, and uncomfortable weighing aff offense against framework or literally any other argument, because I don't know if the aff solves. on the flipside, if I do know how and what your aff solves, I will be impressed and very happy with you/very willing to leverage the aff as a reason framework is bad.

speaks -

>29.5 you should win this tournament, I'll probably tell my friends about you

29-29.4 - deep elims, you should do well at this tournament

28.5-28.9 - good, needing some improvement but should probably break

28-28.4 - average

27.5-27.9 - decent, but with some big rhetorical or strategic mistakes

27-27.4 - needing serious improvement

<26.9 you made me sad or said something evil

0 you clipped cards (this comes with an emphatic L)

If you show me that you've posted the relevant documents (1NC opensource, new offense) on the wiki after the debate, I'll give you a .2 speaker point boost because opensourcing is good and should be encouraged. If you don't know how, ask me and I'll help you set up a wiki.

Harker 2013-2017 (debated policy all 4 years, 2A for the last 3 years). Currently a senior at Rice University (not debating).

Updated before ASU 2021 to gear my paradigm more towards LD now that I rarely judge policy.

please put me on the email chain - molly dot wancewicz at gmail dot com

Online Debate:

I'll say clear once if I can't hear you but not beyond that because I don't want to miss even more of what you're saying. Record all of your speeches locally - if there's some kind of error/issue I will listen to the recording but will not allow you to re-give or re-do your speech. It would be excellent if you could have your camera on during the entire debate (at least CX and prep!) but I know everyone has different situations so if you can't/don't, I won't hold it against you. Please no prep stealing or other shenanigans that take advantage of online debate.

Arguments:

I think LD = short policy.

Theory - I have a higher threshold than most judges for voting on theory. I am not interested in hearing you throw out a bunch of random theory shells and see what sticks. There needs to be significant in-round abuse for me to vote on theory. Not wanting to engage with the aff is not the same thing as abuse. My threshold for abuse is probably slightly lower for cheating counterplans like consult, add-a-condition, object fiat, etc. I will literally never vote on an RVI.

Phil - I am not a good judge for a phil debate. I evaluate debates using the offense-defense paradigm, so I will be a much more effective judge if you read your argument as a kritik with an alt, or even as a DA, rather than as a traditionally-structured NC. At bare minimum you need to explain how your NC means that I should evaluate the debate and its offensive implications but I will be unhappy.

Framework - I default to util unless told otherwise.

Negative Strategy - Splitting the 2NR is almost never a good idea. Will definitely affect speaker points.

DAs and Case - I will be really really happy if this is the debate I'm judging :) Everything is fair game - politics and spinoffs, elections, topic-specific DAs, etc. Technical case vs. DA debates are great and proficiency here will have a significant positive impact on speaker points. I have a higher threshold on voting for neg arguments that aren't contextualized to the aff.

Nontopical affs - I will admit that I'm neg-leaning in the nontopical aff (k aff) vs. topicality (framework) debates. I find topical version of the aff arguments very persuasive. Fairness is a less compelling topicality/framework argument to me, but I would still vote on it as a net benefit to the TVA. I think k affs need to have an advocacy of some sort and be related to the topic.

Kritiks - I am reasonably familiar with the basics (security, cap, colonialism, etc) and a lot of identity arguments. I am much less familiar with high theory/postmodern stuff. Regardless of the author, though, contextualization to the aff is extremely important to me in the kritik debate - at the very least, the 1NC should include one specific link card. I find generic kritiks that aren't contextualized very unpersuasive. I think most k alts are implausible/prohibitively vague and/or don't solve the link - I find CX pressing the plausibility and details of the alt really effective. In addition, I am often very willing to vote on case outweighs and/or case solves the K given that these arguments are well-explained in the 2AR.

Counterplans - Need to have a solvency advocate. I like specific counterplans and I think DA+CP is a great 2nr, but I'm not a fan of cheating CPs (see theory) and I'm pretty aff-leaning on the theory question for these.

Topicality (vs policy affs) - I’m willing to vote on T. Even if your violation is bad, I’ll vote on tech in the T debate (within reason obviously)

Don't be rude - If you're mean to your opponent or partner (if applicable) your speaker points will reflect that.

If I happen to be judging PF:

Impact comparison is really important at the end of the debate - please don't make me do it for you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argument preferences:

I am cool with critiques on the aff and neg.

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

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

I am cool with policy arguments.

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

Speaks:

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

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

Contact info

mail all speech documents to: headofthewood@gmail.com

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

Debated at CPS and Dartmouth

Add me to the email chain: vickyvix1123@gmail.com

I've read both policy stuff and k stuff

Be nice and have fun :)