Diana Alvarez

she/her

dianadebate@gmail.com

Please put me on the email chain.

I am excited to be your judge and I am here to listen to your arguments. As long as they not discriminate or exclude others, I will consider them whether you are reading a K-Aff or have 5 Disadvantages.

I am a former HS policy debater, I judged and coached before. I am familiar with the structure but not the current topic. Please explain your arguments well and remain respectful towards everyone.

For more specific questions, please email me or ask me before the round.

Framework is important to me. I would like to know through what lens I should evaluate your arguments. Why is your framework better than your opponent’s framework?

The Meadows School '15
University of Southern California '19

How to win in front of me:
--Explanation - usually, the team that explains their arguments (and how they interact with the other team's arguments) more will win. It's that simple.
--Ethos is extremely important - if it perceptually seems as though you are winning the debate, then you probably are. You can establish your ethos in many ways: cross ex, persuasion, good evidence, quality of arguments, well-researched strategies, close and detailed line-by-line etc
--Quality of debating is heavily influential on the quality of argument - if you debate a typically 'bad' argument extremely well, it is more persuasive to me; the opposite goes for a traditionally 'good' argument debated poorly.

Other things to note:
--Everything is debatable but speech times
--I am fine with any type of affirmative or negative argument, and will judge them all without bias.
--You can win zero risk of things fairly easily, whether it be a DA, solvency, etc. I don't necessarily always default to offense/defense, but sometimes it is a useful tool depending on the debate.
--An unanswered argument is only as important as the debaters make it - if the block drops a permutation and the 1ar doesn't mention it, there's no way I'll evaluate it. However, if the block drops a permutation that was well-explained, it's very very hard for them to win the argument that the permutation was made on.
--Taken from Scott: "the threshold for how good a response to an argument has to be is directly related to the quality of the initial argument" - if the 2ac says "we meet" and literally no other explanation, the block is justified saying "they don't meet". If the 1ar goes in depth on "we meet", I will 1. Be very skeptical allowing those arguments to fly in the debate and 2. Give the 2nr plenty of lee-way to answer the 1ar. All you have to do is explain your argument sufficiently when it is first made, and this problem won't arise. I will also reward the team that makes short, sufficient answers such as "they don't meet" with higher speaker points.

Specific Arguments:
--DAs - case specific >>>>>>>>>>> generic, although I recognize the need for generic disads sometimes. Not very convinced by "1% risk of a link means you vote neg" args, I'd rather have you be explaining the link in that time. Turns case is important. When debating disads on the affirmative, I think it's extremely important to have a strategy - if the 2ar is really really good on uniqueness, and spends like 3 minutes doing amazing explanation, it’s almost impossible for me to be convinced by negative 'try or die' arguments.
--Politics - I think it’s a pretty bad arg, but the negative wins a lot by out-teching the aff. Either be super smart when you’re aff or be technically sound.
--Counterplans - theory is really really important, because most counterplans are extremely theoretically illegitimate. In particular, the argument that 'counterplans that do/can result in the entirely of the plan are a voting issue' is very persuasive to me. I appreciate case specific pic's. Counterplans make zero sense against a team that doesn't defend a plan.
--T - big fan, explanation o/w evidence, but cards are important for definitional purposes. Limits isn't really an argument, because there are an infinite amount of cases under any theoretical topic - I think of limits as the key internal link to ground, which is a much more important impact. Since teams rarely do impact comparison when going for topicality, if you do even a little bit you'll probably win. Reasonability isn't a real argument.
--Kritiks - explanation is also very important. Usually, the team that talks about the aff more wins. Framework can be a reason that I shouldn't even look at the case, but it depends on how it is argued. Whether or not I have read the literature underlying your criticism should be irrelevant if explained well. Role of the ballot arguments are usually really self-serving, and I'll sympathize with affirmatives that do a good job of pointing this out.
--Theory - conditionality is good. I have no specific "threshold" for how many conditional advocacies are allowed/not allowed: having 2 that are completely inconsistent is probably worse than having 3 that are consistent. Every theory argument is a reason to reject the team unless I am told otherwise. A lot of times, 'claims' are made in theory debates without being complete arguments - be wary of this. Similar to what I said above about topicality, teams don't do a lot of impact comparison on theory, if you do a little you'll likely win.
--Framework - not really sure why teams are going for decision-making/education impacts on framework, fairness and predictability arguments are much more persuasive to me. Kritik teams will always have more game on the education front.
--No plan aff's - enjoy them, and open to listening to them. The more the aff is about the topic, the less of a threat framework should be.

Also, I have a lot of friends in debate. Making fun of them/references to them is always appreciated, and same with general humor.

Be happy! Debate is fun, and I enjoy judging almost as much as I enjoyed debating. Some degree of sarcasm/wittiness is okay, but general friendliness is appreciated.

Arcadia '16

I have low familiarity with the topic so please do your background explanations and spell out your acronyms.

Clarity is important and will reflect in speaks. I am not the best at flowing a blizzard of quick analytics so I would appreciate if you used emphasis and varied  your tone.

Specific things

Zero risk is possible, but teams often fail at explaining this and lose to "only a risk" arguments.

Counterplans -- Please slow down on CP texts. Condo is fine. I lean slightly aff on CP theory questions, such as consult and word PICs.

Kritiks -- I would like you to have specific link analysis and explain how aff/neg impacts weigh under your framework. I also want the neg to explain the alt thoroughly and how it interacts with the aff, instead of throwing random jargon at me. A good defense of the aff usually beats kritik first arguments; it's hard to exclude the aff impacts when they're supported by solid evidence. I won't vote for K tricks (self-fulfilling prophecy, floating pik, etc.) unless well developed in the block. 

K Affs -- I think many framework arguments such as “USFG/T/resolution is fascist” reflect a bad effort at meeting the resolution. Instead, the K aff should propose an interpretation of the res and try to win that the way aff interacts with the res is reasonable.

Topicality -- I would prefer if T was well-developed in the block before you go for it. Otherwise, it doesn’t seem like a real issue.

Make it clear throughout the rebuttals why you should win the debate. Make the ballot easy for me with things like well explained impact calc, etc! Easy to win T in front of me. Like arguments like T, cps, impact turns, DAs. Don't like k affs, theory, or kritiks. I'm ok with speed, but would prefer the speeches to be clear even if there are less arguments because this leads to better explanation.

Please include me in email chains , I prefer email chains if available if you use email the prep stops when your done prepping, If you are flashing prep stops when the flash drive leaves the computer.

 I am a college policy debater taking a year off this year. I run majority kritical and performance based arguments. But i am comfortable judging anything. I am a very flow oriented judge and I like a variety of arguments please dont be sexist or racist.

Novice and jv 

if you don’t finish your speech you forfeit the debate 

Hello, hello, and greetings! I hope you're doing well.

As fellow speech and debate enthusiasts, we share a unique connection within a devoted community. I deeply respect the dedication, time, and personal sacrifices you commit to excel in debate. I hold both the Donus D. Roberts Coaching Excellence Award and I am a first time Diamond Award coach. My journey in Policy Debate started in middle school, and today, I coach various debate teams, including the debate squad, moot court team, mock trial teams, and shark tank teams. This commitment has given me valuable insights into the demands of this activity. My background spans the financial world, law, and a strong passion for history. I have been actively involved in debate since 6th grade and coaching since 2012, maintaining my profound love for this distinctive pursuit. I've judge CX, PF, LD, BQ, Moot Court, Mock Trials, and High School Shark Tank Presentations. It's worth acknowledging that you've chosen to embrace a challenging endeavor that many may shy away from.

Nickname: My nickname is Judge Kinshasa, in a round, you can just call me "Judge".

Also, I am not responsible for your feelings. Win graciously, lose graciously. I have no problem giving feedback to ones coach, and my email is in the RFD for your coach to contact me for more information on my RFD. I'll use sharedocs on the NSDA platform so there's no need for any personal email to be exchanged among the rounds participants.

I don't disclose except in elimination rounds.

Let's dive into my judging philosophy by sharing how I look at the components of a debate:

1. Framework (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: A set of rules and principles that define the scope of the debate.

- What it is not: A case-specific argument or evidence.

2. Role of the Ballot (ROB):

- What it is: A statement explaining what the judge should prioritize when making their decision.

- What it is not: An argument against the opponent's case.

3. Plan (Affirmative):

- What it is: The proposed policy or action the affirmative team advocates for.

- What it is not: The entirety of the affirmative case; it's just one element.

4. Counterplan (Negative):

- What it is: An alternative proposal presented by the negative team.

- What it is not: A critique or disadvantage argument.

5. Topicality (Negative):

- What it is: An argument challenging the affirmative's compliance with the debate topic.

- What it is not: A critique of the affirmative's content.

6. Disadvantage (Negative):

- What it is: An argument showing the negative consequences of the affirmative's plan.

- What it is not: A counterplan or a critique.

7. Critique/Kritik (Negative):

- What it is: A critical analysis of the assumptions or ideology underlying the affirmative case.

- What it is not: A traditional argument based on evidence and impacts.

8. Cross-Examination (CX):

- What it is: A period during the debate where one team questions the other to gather information and make arguments.

- What it is not: A time for making speeches or presenting new arguments.

9. Rebuttal (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: Speeches aimed at refuting the opponent's arguments and reinforcing your own.

- What it is not: A time for introducing entirely new content.

10. Evidence/Contentions (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: Factual information and arguments that support your case.

- What it is not: Personal opinions or unsupported assertions.

11. Flowing (Judge's Role):

- What it is: Taking detailed notes of the debate to track arguments and make an informed decision.

- What it is not: Making decisions based on personal biases or emotions.

12. Time Limits:

- What it is: Strictly enforced limits for speeches and cross-examinations.

- What it is not: Flexible or arbitrary timekeeping.

13. Case Overview (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: A brief summary of your main arguments at the beginning of your speech.

- What it is not: A replacement for in-depth analysis.

14. Permutation (Affirmative):

- What it is: An argument that combines the affirmative and negative positions to demonstrate compatibility.

- What it is not: A standalone argument; it relies on other contentions.

15. Voting Issues (Judge's Decision):

- What it is: The key points or arguments the judge should consider when rendering a decision.

- What it is not: An exhaustive review of every argument made in the debate.

16. Cap-K (Capitalism Kritik) in Policy Debate:

- What it is: A critical argument challenging the fundamental assumptions and impacts of capitalism as a social and economic system.
- What it is not: A traditional policy argument focused on specific policy proposals or impacts.

17. Settler Colonialism in Policy Debate:

- What it is: An argument that critiques the historical and ongoing processes of colonization and displacement of Indigenous peoples.
- What it is not: A case-specific argument or a traditional policy debate contention.

As your judge, this represents my approach to evaluating debate rounds and how I assess arguments within them. The following offers further insight into my judging philosophy and perspective.

1. Communication Rule:

- Rule: No communication is allowed between teammates or judges during the debate round to maintain fairness and integrity.
- Consequences: Violating this rule results in immediate removal from the room; failure to comply leads to team disqualification.
- Purpose: Strict enforcement deters interference and ensures adherence to fair competition rules and guidelines.

2. Focus During Rounds: I take judging seriously and maintain a laser focus during rounds. No social media or phone distractions for me – I'm all about the debate!

3. Debate Strategy: Also, please look at the judge, not at your opponent. I appreciate well-structured arguments and expect respectful conduct. I don't favor profanity, yelling, or ad hominem attacks. I’ll give one warning, and if the violation continues, I’ll end the round, and have no issue conversing with your coach about the matter. If your strategy relies on divisive or disrespectful arguments, I'm not the right judge for you.

4. Role of the Aff: Remember, the Aff plan isn't the debater; you are. Address your opponents as "Neg" or "Aff" or “Opponent to maintain professionalism.

5. Counterplans and Solvency: I prefer Neg to run a Counterplan (CP) because attacking solvency without addressing the problem isn't convincing, and doesn’t make the CP a better option, and in essence the Neg says that their either isn’t a problem to solve, or the problem isn’t big enough to solve.

6. Flowing: I'm a meticulous judge who highly appreciates well-structured flow sheets as they enhance my ability to assess the round thoroughly. My preference is to manually record my notes on paper because typing on a laptop keyboard can be distracting for debaters. I actively encourage teams to maintain their own flow sheets, not only to enhance their skills but also because I might refer to them to ensure no critical arguments are overlooked.

7. Engagement: Engage with me, the judge, as you present your arguments. Spreading is fine, though I prefer you do not, but clear and effective communication is key. If you’re spreading to get as many arguments as possible in to trick your opponent to drop arguments, you’re just reading, not making an argument in support of your position. I don’t vote based on dropped arguments.

8. Questions in Cross-X: Meaningful questions are more valuable than questions for the sake of it. Avoid open-ended queries and be respectful.

9. Clash:

- Explanation: Clash is the central battleground in policy debate, where debaters engage in direct argumentative confrontation.
- Importance: Effective clash demonstrates your team's skill in challenging your opponent arguments, influencing my decision beyond exploiting dropped points. Please don't debate based on winning by dropped arguments, win the debate utilizing clash.
- Strategy: Strategically use clash by presenting strong arguments, addressing your opponent's contentions, and highlighting weaknesses. It showcases argumentative prowess and critical thinking.
- Outcome: Clash quality significantly impacts my decision, making it a crucial skill for winning policy debates.

10. Defense versus Offence: In policy debate, "defense" challenges the opponent's case, while "offense" advances the negative's position. Winning the debate requires strong defense to undermine the affirmative and effective offense to persuade me. Debaters balance these elements, adapting to my preferences for a strategic advantage.

11. Debating Off-Topic in Policy Debate:

- Warning: Stick to the resolution's scope for meaningful debates. If your strategy is to not debate the topic outside of a K-Aff, I'd advise that you stay on the resolution and or the topic.
- Issue: A problem arises when debaters go off-topic, using unrelated strategies and tactics.
- Concerns: This hinders the educational value of debates, straying from the critical analysis of policy proposals within the resolution.

12. Non-Voting Issues Clarification:

- To provide clarity, my primary focus in evaluating the debate is on the affirmative plan's capacity to effectively address the specific problem outlined in the resolution, rather than on the persuasive aspects of a speech. Therefore, arguments centered on topics such as "the blacks" "white supremacy," "whiteness", "anti-blackness," "anti-women," "anti-white," "anti-religion," "bias arguments," "oppressed communities," "marginalized communities," claims that "America is racist," or assertions that "everything is racist," including the use of racial slurs within a round, are not voting issues to me, essentially, they do not constitute decisive factors in my decision-making process. Racial slurs use din a round will result in a round being ended and a vote against the team that used it.

- For example, when examining the Fracking resolution for the 2022-2023 season, it was common, and understandable for debaters to discuss the impact of fracking on marginalized communities. While the affirmative plan may directly address the issue of fracking, it does not automatically prove how the plan will directly alleviate the marginalization of these communities. Essentially, fracking is banned, yet the marginalized community remained marginalized, and that is a great opportunity to show how the plan could improve the marginalized communities mentioned in the round. Otherwise, such arguments do not significantly influence my judgment in the debate.

It's essential to note that my perspective is not rooted in censorship yet know that what I listed are not voting issues. I vote on what's and desire to maintain relevance to the resolution's specific context. Behind the numbers are real people, treat them as such, not a prop used to win a round. If you require further clarification on this matter, please feel free to ask me before the round.

I don't like theory arguments as it's a theory, not a fact, and facts are what I vote on, not theory.

Essentially, it comes down to which solves the problem that the resolution addresses; the Aff Plan or the Status Quo.

13. Perm Do Both: "Perm Do Both" must be supported by a clear, persuasive explanation of how the affirmative plan and negative counterplan can work together effectively to solve the issue without conflicts. Mere mention of "Perm do both" without a well-reasoned narrative won't be enough. It should demonstrate how these actions complement each other and why this integrated approach is the best way to address the problem in the debate, presenting a compelling case for choosing both proposals over separate considerations.

14. Evidence and Warrants: In debate, assessing an author's credibility extends beyond qualifications. It's about ensuring their expertise aligns with the specific argument being made, as even experts can make unsupported claims. Debaters must evaluate qualifications, relevance, and argument consistency to ensure evidence is credible and directly supports the warrant. Showing how the author supports your teams position increases your chances of winning a round.

15. Falsifying information: Request: Debaters should refrain from fabricating information during a round, particularly when it involves inventing financial figures, historical facts, law, or other details. I'll know it.

16. Prep Time: I don't allow prep time for cross-X. If an tournament has stated to judges that there is an allotment of time for tech issues, that will be kept to the second.

17. Selling Your Position: Persuasion is key. Convince me; speed isn't everything.

18. Speakers' Points: I base these on coherent arguments, strong rebuttals, good clash, and respectful conduct.

20. A Respectful Environment: I maintain a respectful environment and expect respect from all participants. No profanity, ad hominem attacks, or disrespect is tolerated. I'll give one warning, if it continues, it's an automatic disqualification, and I'll convey the reason in my RFD, and with the disqualified team's coach.

21. No Direct Messaging During Rounds: If I suspect messaging, I'll ask to see your computer screen. Messaging during rounds is grounds for an immediate disqualification.

22. No Bias: I judge impartially.

23. Reason for Decision (RFD): I provide constructive feedback to help debaters improve. I’ll share what debaters did well, and what each debater should work on to improve as debaters. I've seen instances where my feedback was applied in subsequent rounds. Remember, I'm available for questions and discussions during the tournament, and it's a good idea to take notes during feedback sessions to make the most of them.

Thank you for the privilege of judging your round. I want to remind you that as debaters, you are an integral part of a truly exceptional and dedicated community. As we embark on this tournament together, let's keep in mind the essence of our shared purpose: to engage in meaningful and thought-provoking debates. So, let's make this tournament memorable and engaging for all involved because, at the end of the day, we are here to debate and celebrate the art of discourse. And best of luck to you in the future on your journey in speech and debate.

Thank you very kindly,

Mr. Dibinga - Chota

Backround: 6 years policy debate. Debated four years in highschool two years coaching. I'm okay with tag team, spreading, and i determine when prep time stops based on the debaters consensus.

Affs: I can deal with traditional affermatives pretty well seeing as it was the foundation for my debating just remember to extend well and impact everything clearly. As far as k affs are concerned I'll vote on them but am more skewed toward traditional policy options. 

Theory: I'll vote on theory if its dropped or the other team doesnt sufficiently answers it. As far as kicking just remember to answer all there offense before you drop it or I'll interpret the debate the way the other team framed it.

Cp/Da: I'm good with CP's/Da's and will vote on them if the neg proves there impacts are comparably worse then the aff and vise versa. At then end of the day there should always be an explanation as to why the CP's better or why the affs better.

Ks: Experienced with Ks and will vote on them if work is put into the link and impact story. There should also be work put into explaining how I should wiegh the impacts of the k versus those of the aff.

Other Stuff:

- I consider anlytics almost as much as cards in my decision.

- speaker points wise I think I'm fair and always average out what I think is best

-I enjoy rounds where there is a lot of back and forth between oppents concerning Impacts

- Lastly remember to always be respectful of everyone in the room.

Overview: I have 1 year of high school policy debate experience, I have 2 years of parliamentary, and 1 tournament of IPDA.

I don't mind a bit of spreading so long as you are clear. Tag team is ok with me. I expect the speaker to be ready at the end of every speech/Cross-X. I will not give prep time unless asked to do so. I will run the clock for prep time until speaker signals me that they are ready.

Traditional aff: I am used to this for of debate since this was the type of debate format used while I was in the debate team in high school. I will be able to understand arguments much more effectively in this format than others.

K aff: I have not encountered this type of debate yet so it will be tougher to win my vote for this format. However, I can still vote for the aff team so long as I am persuaded to vote aff by showing me the impacts of the arguments and must be clear that aff won.

T: This is to see if the aff is topical. I will vote for it if you do a good job with it. Make sure you are reading cards on T and not just speaking freely. Do not bother running T if it is to waste time. 

CP/DA: I have experience with this so I will vote for this if persuaded to do so. Neg must prove to me why their plan is better and aff must prove why their plan is better. Neg must also show why the CP is mutually exclusive.

Other Stuff: If you have any questions or need clarifications on how I judge, you may ask me before or after the round. I prefer quality arguments over quantity. However, I will weigh all arguments equally. I am fair with the speaker points. Remember to show both respect and kindness to other teams and try your best.

Capitalism sux

Clarity > speed. 

Overall, you do you. Debate is supposed to be fun, don't be rude. 

Know your evidence

Impact calc is nice, persuade me to vote for u

Please include me on email chains. Email: danigoodlv@gmail.com

pls read the whole thing!:)

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

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

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

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

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

peace & good education,

cheers!

she/they

put me on the chain - skylrharris917@gmail.com

Debated for Downtown Magnets High School for 2 years for the Los Angeles Metro Debate League (LAMDL) area from 2009-2011
Debating for California State University, Northridge from 2011 to 2015

**I have not had any ballots on the 2016 College Resolution so don't expect me to be quick on the uptake for acronyms**

email for email chain: Byron.lindo7@gmail.com

***Update for Cal Tournament 2017*** 

I won't have my laptop due to a student using it so I will be flowing on paper and I am considerably slower than I would be on my laptop. I'm not asking you to slow down the entire speech just that at some parts I would prefer clarity over speed like Plan or CP text and critical warrant comparison on arguments you are banking the debate on. It would help make the debate cleaner and your speaker points will reflect how much I appreciate it. I also would still like to be on any email chains just in case Evidence does need to be reviewed I can just do it on my Phone etc. but I rather not hold the tournament up by asking and having you dig through all the speech docs for a card I already know where it is at.

TL;DR: Run whatever you like but be sure to defend it. I dont really care for any argument over another but I do care about how well argumentation is carried out. Being borderline racist or a jerk is just grounds for low speaker points you won't lose. If you're aff just defend the plan and make sure no offense gets through. If you are neg just tell me why the aff cannot work for any number of reasons and win that, that argument outweighs case.  

Topicality/Vagueness/Plan Flaw/Whatever-SPEC - Love them all except for the SPEC arguments i really don't want to hear F-SPEC in the 2NR. When going for arguments like these especially for Topicality, explanation and comparison are your best weapons. On the T debate don't just tell me it's a voter tell me why it's a voter what education have you lost in debate or maybe why should fairness be a priori? 

Theory - Same as with T tell me the abuse or the conflict of interest and why should i vote on it or else i find myself erring neg on most CP theory 

DA- They're cool, really specific and warranted Disads are great to hear along with stuff like Pltx DA's i'm all ears just be sure to explain the link story, sufficiently extend it, and impact calculus on why it turns or outweighs case.

CP- Make sure i can at least hear the CP text cause its annoying to figure it out from Cx question, but yea do what you want make them competitive and explain why does it solve whatever.

K's - I like them when they're well explained, but i find more and more debates seem to skim through the ideologies. You need to be really clear explain the story well and tell me why the alt is a better choice and why the Aff is bad. I will often think your K is stupid when you run arguements like "(this) is the root cause of (that)" seriously no one thing is the root cause of an entire form of oppression or any impact for that matter. I'd prefer to hear the Aff specific action would justify these horrible impacts and the alt solves this. Also if i don't get (understand) the K at the end of the round cause you didn't articulate it well enough i will vote you down.

Performance - Same as K please explain clearly and on top of that you need to have s very good reasons why you're a performance if you're aff cause i strongly believe that the resolution should be up-holded unless you find some witty and interesting way to tell me it's not but at least talk about the topic somehow or at least tell my why the topic is bad and should be ignored, remember i'm open to any and all crazy arguments. I will warn performance Affs that if at any point you find yourself arguing that you should win because of your performance then know you are probably not winning my ballot. I find that winning because you're a performance is no different from a team reading fem k saying vote for us cause were feminist it's just not enough of a reason to vote on. I'd prefer you to tell me the arguments you make through the performance rather than voting on the performance itself.

K Aff's - Same as performance tell me why you don't defend the resolution and make it a good reason. Be clear, articulate your arguments, and tell me how you want me to evaluate the round. Neg should be on top of their game and run the general framework/t shell but let's get smarter here i would much prefer to hear their evidence and their authors argument just for you to point out the aff doesn't do that, if the aff calls for the destruction of capitalism and you point out one of their cards says we need to have a revolution for that and the aff doesn't do that then that sounds like a pretty effective argument to make.

Framework- Only cause i feel it's being brought up more and more, i need both teams to tell me how the debate should be frame in whatever way you want it to be framed give me standards reason to prefer and good luck don't get me wrong i love a good framework debate but until you tell me what your framework is, I am just gonna assume its Util Good.


Any question just ask before or after round or email me i'm always happy to help alexanderlindo25@yahoo.com

Donny Peters

20 years coaching. I have coached at Damien High School, Cal State Fullerton, Illinois State University, Ball State University, Wayne State University and West Virginia University. Most of my experience is in policy but I have also coached successful LD and PF teams.

After reading over paradigms for my entire adult life, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

For Water Protection: I am no longer coaching policy full time so I haven't done the type of topic research that I have in the past. I have worked on a few files and have judges a few debates but I do not have the kind of topic knowledge something engaged in coaching typically does.

For CJR: New Trier is my first official tournament judging this season, but I have done a ton of work on the topic, judged practice debates etc.

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counterplan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counterplans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Loyola: I have done significant research on the topic and I have judged a number of rounds for camps.

Debate how your choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

Overview: 7 years of policy debate. I debated four years during high school, and 3 at CSUF. I'm on my fourth year of coaching policy debate.

Clear speed is ok. Tag team is ok. Prep doesn’t stop until the flash drive leaves your computer.

I prefer for both teams to use arguments that they enjoy using since this always makes each debate round stand out. I make my decisions based on the quality of the arguments that are presented. This means that I do not mind you reading a lot of cards as long as you impact them and prove to me why you should win the debate round. 

Traditional aff: I'm good with this form of debating, I did this for most of my high school career so I will be able to understand your arguments effectively. Just remember to extend your arguments effectively through the debate round and I will consider this a good debate round.

K aff: I've primarily done this during my years at CSUF. I will vote for your aff as long as my flow shows that you are winning the debate round. Also remember to impact your arguments, and persuade me to vote for you. I will vote on it as long as you make the decision clear for me. Just uttering the words “role of the ballot” is not sufficient---why should the role of the ballot be what you have suggested it to be? Affs should also argue why the aff is sufficiently debatable (negs should argue to the contrary), not merely why the aff is important to discuss.

T---T is a question of should the aff be topical. If you aren't reading cards on T, then you're doing it wrong. I will vote on it if you do a good job on it, do not expect me to vote on T, if it's clear that you are using it only as a time skew. If you run T, make sure you also have a topical version of the affirmative.

Theory: I'll vote on it if convinced on your argument. Reject the arg not the team is generally sufficient to resolve most other theoretical objections. If this argument is not made, I'll defer to the other team's interp on what I should do with the suspect arg (ie, reject the team).

CP/DA's: I'm good with these and will vote on them if you persuade me to do so. Just make sure that it is competitive with the Affirmative and that you do prove to me why I should vote on it. This also applies to the affirmative team, persuade me as to why your affirmative is better.

K: I've used them a lot before so I'm familiar with the language used and will vote on it if convinced that I should do so. Make sure that you do impact calculus so that I can know whether to prefer the impacts of the aff or the K first. Also make sure that the Alternative and Links are explained throughout the debate round, this makes the round flow smoother.

Other Stuff: 

-ask me questions before the round or after if you need more clarification on my decision or args, etc.

-I value analytics as much as evidence as long as it is explained well enough, and if you make it obvious that it does answer the cards.

-I like rounds where there is quality over quantity, however I will weigh all arguments equally.

-I consider myself fair on the speaker points that I give, just perform at your best, and don't be over agressive towards the other teams.

-Respect me, your opponents, and the physical space you are debating in

Strikes:
Saint Francis High School
Peninsula

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

Here are my thoughts on debate:

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

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

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

Reject the argument not the team, except for conditionality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Style/Big Picture:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topicality:

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

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

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

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

Framework:

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

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

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

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

Case Debate

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

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

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

Disads

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

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

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

Counterplan Competition:

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

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

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

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

Critiques:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Performance (the other critique):

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

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

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

LD:

The most important thing to me is framework in LD rounds. Unless I have a foundation that allows me to vote for you, I simply cannot justify it. The most frustrating rounds to me are the ones that have two very different, very interesting V/VCs and someone just drops theirs. That doesn't mean that 1) you can't win without winning your framework, you just have to make the other person's framework fit your case or 2) that if you two have the same framework to keep arguing because you agree. There's no reason for it.

After I determine who wins framework, I weigh the KVIs off of that framework. Again, it would take a lot for me to vote for you if you don't have any KVIs in your last speech. Those are the main points you're trying to share, and they're an easy way to narrow down the debate in your favor. If I haven't determined a winner from just framework and the KVI points, then I'll go through and look at every argument throughout the debate and determine who wins each one. From there, I usually have a winner.

I was an LD debater in high school for four years, so I'm fine with a lot of the terminology. As for the philosophies you might be running, I'm aware of a lot of possibilities, but I'm only really well versed in a few, so please take time to explain exactly what you mean (especially if it's a lesser used philosopher or a lesser known theory). I did four years of policy at USC, and am now a policy coach, so don't feel like you need to slow down for me, but I do not think LD is a place for spreading. I understand being a naturally faster speaker (I lost my own fair share of rounds because I didn't realize I was speaking too fast), but you shouldn't try to win solely on outspeaking your opponent.

Otherwise, just ask me any questions before the round that you may have.

Policy:

Hey, so I'm much different than I was in the past for Policy. I competed at the college level in Policy for USC for four years, and I am now coaching my own team, and it's been a learning experience. Here are my thoughts on things generally:

Framework/Topicality - I'm a sucker for a good T debate. It has to be good, and it has to be true, because if I'm not buying that the Aff isn't topical then you aren't going to win. But I think that FW and T args have a solid and underappreciated place in policy debate, so if you can do it well then go for it.

KAffs - I will never come into a round with a pre-conceived notion of what you should do with your debate round; however, considering how I feel about Topicality, if you're hitting a good T/FW team, then it's probably going to be somewhat of an uphill battle. I will obviously be as neutral as I can be, but we're all human and we all have biases.

K - I'm much more lenient in my feelings on the K on Neg than on Aff just because of how I believe ground works in debate. One of my partners only went for the K, so I got pretty used to how those worked. If you're running some high-theory K, then you're going to have to really explain it to me. I didn't do policy in high school, so all of those highly-circulated backfiles never got to me. Otherwise, if done well, I can be convinced of most arguments.

CPs - I almost never run these, I don't think they're the most effective argument, but I won't never vote on them. To be honest, I think they make the Neg's job significantly harder, but also, like I said before, this is your debate round. If you do a lot more work, and you end up being really good at it, then obviously you get the win.

DAs - This is usually the first half to my policy strat, so I do have somewhat of a preference for it. Make sure the link story is there and make sure you explain your impacts. I want to know that you know what you're saying.

Case Negs - This is usually the second half to my policy strat, so I also do have somewhat of a preference for this. Same as above, make sure you explain exactly why something won't solve, isn't inherent, isn't significant, etc. I think Case Negs are also under-utilized and underappreciated by debaters.

I believe that's it. Honestly, if you run anything else, that means I have no idea what you're talking about, so like explain it to me.

I'm really big into impact calc too. Extra points to whoever to fully explain to me the impact scenarios of the round and who is winning and why. It makes my job easier if I can just write down your impacts and vote from there, and that usually means it's your ballot.

Yes, I do want to be on the email chain. This email is different than before: taliamariewalters@gmail.com

Otherwise, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me in person. I'm really not that intimidating, and I LOVE talking about myself, so questions are welcome!