Umich Law 2024

U of I 2021

Debated 4 years of policy at GBN (2013-2017)

hbuzil2@illinois.edu ----->email me with q's or for the email chain

TLDR: Be fun to judge. I'll vote on anything that's explained well. This will be my first time judging at a college tournament. I love a good da + case debate (it's my fav). Read Charlie Foster's paradigm, it's great.

TOP LEVEL STUFF:

I'll vote for pretty much any argument, especially the more I understand it. I was a 2n, if that tells you anything. I really really really like when arguments are articulated well and explained without too many buzzwords. Clarity>speed for speaks.

Disads:

Love 'em. Explain them well and I'll love them even more.

Counterplans:

I love them as well, especially when they are specific to the aff/advs. I'm good with any counterplans as a starting point but aff can obviously convince me otherwise.

K's:

Not my favorite, mostly because I have trouble understanding them. Just make sure if you go for this or are defending against it you explain your arguments very well and avoid buzzwords.

T:

Love it, but probably not the best thing to go for on this topic, as I haven't judged on it yet. If you do go for it or are defending against it make sure to really explain the violation and impacts.

Non-traditional affs:

Do what you think is best. Again, I'm not well versed in K lit and I never went against a lot of non-traditional affs. As long as you make me understand what you're arguing and why you should win, I'll have no trouble voting for you.

Speaker Points:

Clear road maps, sign posting, and contextualizing your argument to the overall debate are always good.

BE FUNNY. DON'T BE MEAN. DON'T STEAL PREP. I like good cross-ex, especially when it's applied to later speeches. I like nuanced arguments that are well explained throughout the debate.

Korean-American born and raised in Iowa

Current Student at The University of Iowa with a double major in Psychology and English and Creative Writing

Iowa City West High School Alum

cho3104026@gmail.com -- put me on email chain pls

Quick Overview

This is my first year judging at the collegiate level.

I will always try my best to understand your arguments and figure out how everything works.

I'm down to vote for any argument

Unfortunately, I was never the best with the technical side of debate. I was always a big picture person who favored truth over tech. Thus, I probably need more explanation than the average judge when it comes to T and Framework debates.

I like to read evidence whenever I can, but I'll value my flow and what's being said over whatever I read in your evidence.

I have a solid foundational understanding of most critical arguments in debate, but I wont be too familiar with any topic specific evidence about anti-trust laws.

I'm not great when it comes to Theory debates. IE: Condo Bad, Vague Alts Bad, etc. I'm willing to vote for them, but there needs to be substantial proof of in round abuse and an impact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enjoy yourselves and debate well--

email chain/email for comments: drewgartner1@gmail.com

Debate background:

Iowa City High: '11-'15
University of Iowa: '15

Coaching: Iowa City High '15-'18. '21- present

Important disclaimer: I have done nearly 0 research on this topic, and will likely not understand your acronyms without explanation. Please do not assume that I have a shared knowledge of the topic, and take time to explain things.

Important Disclaimer Addendum: My comfortability with full mega-speed has lowered, especially in the realm of analytics. I would like your analytics to be slower, so I can really get it all down. Taking a few year break from debate really impacted my full spread comprehension.

I debated Policy all through high school and did some college policy as well. I mainly work with novices, now. Topic specific acronyms, let me know what they mean I won't know. Don't start your speeches full speed, start at 80% and work up to full speed.

I think most debates can/should be decided without reading evidence. This means it is the debaters' burden to tell me what the evidence says, and the implication of the evidence. This also means that I reward story telling/writing my ballot. I have no sympathy for debaters who ask about "well, what about this evidence that says x" after I give a decision. I will not be embarrassed to vote against an argument that I feel i do not understand. It is your job to tell me about that evidence and why it matters, not my job to read it and implicate it on the debate.

General Philosophy: I come from a team where our primary focus was "traditional policy debate" meaning we liked to read heg, environment affs, et.c. Our main neg strat was the DA and a CP, and that is the type of debate I prefer. I did do a lot of cap debating, and a fair amount of security debating, too. My knowledge of critical theory is very limited and I probably require a huge amount of work on the more "out there" ks to vote for you. That being said, I do believe a dropped argument is a true argument. I will vote on dropped arguments if they are dropped and explained. As a caveat, debaters tend to have bad flows and claim everything was dropped, when the reality is that they probably did not. Please do not use the term "functionally conceded" in front of me, that term makes no sense. Either they have dropped something or they have not.

Specifics:

Disadvantages- Probably my favorite part of debate is the top level interactions with case and good DA O/Ws and Case O/Ws and turns debates. These are probably where the majority of my decision calculus comes from. Obviously, you need to win risk/chance of your disadvantage being true, but good impact calc and turns debates are very convincing.

Counter Plans- there tend to be a lot of cheating counter plans, and as a 2a I am probably sympathetic to reasonable theory arguments and perm do the counterplan. That being said, most counter plan theory should be a reason to reject the argument, it will be extremely difficult to win that it should be a reason to reject the team

Ks- like I said above, i am mostly versed in cap and security. If you want to read too much beyond basic Ks, I am most likely not your type of judge. Floating PIKs are probably bad, don't let the negative get away with them.

"non traditional debate/ performance"- also not very versed in it. I am more than likely not the type of judge for this, but i will not reject any arguments out right. I am pretty sympathetic to FW arguments. However, if you are a "non traditional team" and you get stuck with me as a judge, don't lose faith, I can be persuaded. I enjoy critical affirmatives that actually engage the topic, not just reject debate outright, and plan texts are preferable.

T- I don't know much about this topic, so all the topic specifics should be slower and well explained. I think that most debaters try to go too fast in their final rebuttals on T, which leads to a lot of judgement calls. To remedy this, go slower in your final rebuttal, and you will be rewarded.

Theory- Most things are reasons to reject the argument not the team. I will probably not vote on dropped perm theory, even if you claimed it was a reason to reject the team.

Speech Docs/ Email chains

I would prefer if all debates were done with email chain. Please add me to the email chain at drewgartner1@gmail.com
I can tell when you are wasting time and/or stealing prep. DON'T. it's annoying, wastes everybody's time, and will undoubtedly lose you speaker points. technical issues do happen, yes, but they should be resolved quickly and efficiently. I would prefer every speech to start as nearly as immediately after prep or CX as possible. We don't want to be the last round done.

Speaker Points

It's very easy to impress me, using technical skill and clarity.
I am okay with speed, but will yell clear once or twice before the speaks begin to get docked. Nobody likes kids who are fast but incoherent, going slower is in your best interest.
Being nice/reducing all hostility is very preferable. If you have made it this far and are still reading, I will likely increase speaker points if you work "jambalaya of awesomeness" into one of your speeches, especially if you are original and make me laugh rather than just saying it to say it. I have a relatively low threshold for docking speaks due to hostility. Being assertive and being aggressive are much different, know the difference. I probably will not say anything if you are being overly rude/rude at all, but it will significantly hurt your speaker points, but will not affect the decision calculus.

If I am judging you at a tournament with preferences, then you should strike me if you do not agree with all of the following:

-I am an educator first. If anything happens in the debate that I deem would not be okay in a high school classroom, I will stop the debate and vote against the team that engaged in the inappropriate behavior.

-The affirmative should defend a topical plan and defend the implementation of the plan.

-Affirmative plans these days are too vague. You only get to fiat what your plan says, not what it could mean or what you want it to mean. If you clarify your plan in cross-x, the negative can use that clarification to setup counterplan competition.

-The negative should prove why the plan causes something bad to happen, not why it justifies something bad. In other words - most of your Kritks are probably just FYIs.

-I evaluate debate in large part based on the line-by-line. If you cannot flow, I am not a good judge for you. If you cannot specifically answer the other team's arguments and apply your arguments to them and instead just read pre-scripted blocks, I am not a good judge for you.

-Debate is a communicative activity. I don't follow a card document. I listen to what you say. I will only read evidence if I cannot resolve something in the debate based on how it was debated.

-For something to count as an argument it must be complete and explained. I also must be able to understand what you are saying.

-My lifetime speaker point average range is probably lower than what you are used to.

-If you are visibly sick during the debate, I reserve the right to forfeit you and leave.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Henderson%2C+Travis

Email Chain: Geodb8 AT gmail dot com

[…]

Debated in the New York Urban Debate League (Bronx Law) 2008-2014 and the University of Iowa 2014-2019.

Summer Lab leader: 1x ECLI, 1x DDI, 2x NYUDL, 3x Cal Berk, 1x GDI.

Argument assistant: West H.S., McQueen H.S., Lane Tech H.S., and most recently, CSU Long Beach.

General thoughts:

I vote for the team that did the better debating. I default to first weighing the impact calc debate and focus almost exclusively on the flow to determine what arguments to evaluate. I do not like judge intervention and prefer you all successfully determine the best metric to evaluating the debate.

Speaker points:

While speed is completely fine, please do not sacrifice clarity to “get through a card,” it translate to poor spreading and muddles the rest of the speech. Remember to follow your roadmap, allocate time, sign post, and commit to line-by-line refutation. Refrain from disorganization, shadow extensions, and poor rhetorical skills. While all Cross examinations are open, consider they are as important to your speaks as constructives and rebuttals.

Affirmatives:

Whether or not you read a plan is less important than winning offense against a competing strategy, procedural violation, or DA. In short, win that the aff is a good idea/performance/policy implementation.

a) K/Performance AFF’s

I think 1ACs should be tangibly related to the resolution. 1ACs are research projects and yearly resolutions are the result of a research paper written and voted for by the community. Effectively your AFF is a response to community consensus and their underlying assumptions.

K’s

Critiques are arguments based on philosophical inquiries. If you do not know or understand the philosophy you are advancing it will likely show throughout the debate and can negatively effect speaker points. More importantly, I will not fill in gaps for inaccurate or poor-quality arguments. Remember I focus on what’s happening/the flow.

That aside, I am very familiar with philosophies across numerous cannons.

CP’s

Neg has the burden to prove mutual exclusivity, a CP without a net benefit is just another plan and plan plan debate isnt a thing, the permutation will probably win every time.

a) Method debates

While I am sympathetic to “no-perms,” the negative must prove a link greater than omission. The best Counter methods are stylistically, theoretically or methodologically different than the 1AC then generate offense based on those differences.

Procedurals

a) T/FW

Topicality is a debate about words, the (mis)use of them and their importance. T’s appendage, Framework is a heuristic for debate, a vision for how competitors should engage the activity. While the words topicality and framework are used interchangeably a good debater will identity what they are being called to answer/defend so to make more convincing arguments.

i) Framework specific

Limits is an internal link to a terminal impact; K aff counter interpretations should be bound by the resolution; ontology/epistemology arguments are responsive to FW; I usually vote for FW on TVAs, ground, and procedural fairness.

b) Theory

Easiest debates to decide. Difficult debates to execute. Do not go for theory if you aren’t informed of the meticulous refutation you must accomplish to get the ballot. Believe it or not, there was once a time people went for theory their entire final rebuttal. Conversely, ask whether those few seconds amounts to a W or just defense to prevent the other team from winning on theory.

c) Ethics violations:

These are acts or words done by a competitor that deserves ending the debate. Preferably the tournament organizers resolve the alleged issue. This includes card clipping.

Card clipping claims STOP the debate. Note: I am always either following a speaker on my own pc or listening for the last word they say in each card.However, a card clipping violation requires the claimant provides evidence otherwise I will be stuck piecing together what I believe happened as opposed to whatI know happened.

A more subtle way of committing an ethical violation is stealing prep.

I use to steal prep. Only in the sense that I put my plastic podium, laptop, flow, and sent out the email chain after prepping. But the intentional stealing of prep, actively writing materials, organizing speech docs or speaking to your partner is not fair and excessive prep stealing will result in considerable speaker point deductions.

DAs

Quick observation —the community has elected to have these debates in various parts of the flow as opposed to just a DA page. Linear DAs are on an all time high and overlooking these random DAs may cause a card to turn into a viable strat.

DA proper —I subconsciously rely on an offense/defense paradigm on every flow and can follow internal link chains so I am game for traditional DA debates.

En fin

I start deciding who won by organizing my flow in order of importance, I read evidence if contested or heavily relied on, I weigh your arguments against each other and confirm lines can be drawn between speeches so to discern new arguments.

Lastly, I’m usually flowing cross examination. Explain your arguments well, ask good questions and above all, be respectful.

—————————

Notes:

- James Roland an outstanding educator in the activity gave a lecture at the first camp I attended on being a successful Policy Debater: https://puttingthekindebate.wordpress.com/tag/james-rowland/

- Top 5 debate movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EacYl00YzZ0

Updated 11/16/16

I am the head debate coach at Sioux Falls Lincoln High School.


Policy Paradigm
I approach the round as a policy maker. I am open to most arguments as long as you tell me how they function in the round. The 2NR and 2AR should help me write my ballot. Give me impact calculus and weigh arguments for me.

Argumentation - Extension of a tag is not necessarily an extension of an argument. I want explicit warrants and analysis. You should be telling me why to prefer your argument/evidence over your opponents. I am not a fan of having to call for evidence because you are supposed to be doing the debating, not me.

Theory - I am not a fan of running theory just for the sake of running an argument. There should be some clear abuse or violation for why you are running theory. Theory arguments are metadebates and should be clearly treated as such; Arguments should have clear links and impacts.  

Kritiks - I have a background in communication theory. So if you are trying to argue that the discourse represented by my ballot decision matters, then I need to understand the clear implications of how me circling a decision on a piece of paper has any impacts beyond the round. So, be sure you help me understand the actual role of the ballot and the role of other people in the room to your overall advocacy. I put a lot of pressure on the K to truly prove how they impact beyond the round. Debate on face is a process of hypotheticals because congress will not actually do the plan. So if you are going to tell me that the K matters because it has real world implications, you better be able to prove it.

SPEED - I should be blunt and just say I do not like speed. With the introduction of computers many debaters have abandoned even the façade of clarity in their speaking. Debaters seem to forget that I do not have the case in front of me as they are reading. So I cannot read as you are speaking, which means I cannot understand the arguments at the speed you are presenting them. Without times of clear and slowed down explanation, I am not sure how I am expected to consider the arguments. If you are going to speed, you better have a plan for when you will slow down the explanation. Cross-x is a pretty good time for this. I do not yell clear. At some point you should look up to see if I am flowing. If I cannot process what you are saying then I may have to put my own interpretation onto the evidence. I do not like doing this, so if I can vote somewhere else on the flow, I will and you may not be happy with my interpretation versus yours.

Speaking and presentation - If you care at all about your speaker points, then you will not speed read, you will not do tag-team cross-x, and you will not be shouting out to your partner through their whole speech (A few indications that they should move on from an argument are ok.) For me, speaker points are given based on your speaking style and ability, not your ability to parrot your partner. I only flow what is said by the person who is supposed to be giving the speech. Part of your speaker points also reflect your strategy in the round. If you are not making strategic choices, then you are not a strong speaker. Don't read 5 more impact scenarios, when all they have done is attacked the link level of the debate. Make sure you are reading the right type fo theory for the arguments in the round. 



LD Paradigm
Understand that the following are my preferences, at the same time I am willing to admit that I do come from a more traditional style circuit. So I will always evaluate the round in front of me. I will not do work for the debaters. Where ever I can vote with the least amount of intervention is where I will make my decision.
Argumentation � You need to explain your arguments to me and how they interact with the rest of the round. Just because you extend something does not mean you win the round. All it means is I have a nice line across my paper, you must tell me why that matters. I will take clearly extended warrants where debate is happening versus a blippy �extend A it was dropped� with no analysis at all.

Framework - I realize that there are times when I just have to judge the round in front of me. I have a preference for Value/Criterion structure, but if you run a different framework choice, there needs to be a clear explanation and warrant to the new framework. In the end this will guide how I evaluate the rest of the round. Arguments need to be connected back to the F/W. If an argument does not really fit or work within the winning F/W, then it is not really evaluated in the round unless you tell me why it still functions.
Value Debate - I am not a fan of the trend to ignore the value debate and pretend it does not matter. I think a good solid value with justifications for the value can be very strategic in a round. I want to hear some warrant for your value choice beyond simple, "Resolution says moral so Value is Morality, or Resolution says (any derivative of justice) so value is Justice.� Also I have a hard time with Morality as a value. This requires that we assume we know what is good and moral, which is the whole point of the debate. What all this means is that I will prefer values that are clearly linked to the resolution beyond simple word similarities and also values that actually help us weigh what is good or bad.
Theory/ A priori � Do not avoid debate and clash. I am not the biggest fan of theory or A priori�s because they are usually just attempts to really clashing with your opponent. With theory you must show some abuse on the flow. I have a high threshold for both of these arguments, which means if you want me to vote on it, you better devote some time to it. Do not just extend it, spend 30 sec on why you win, and then expect me to vote.
(FOR BLAKE TOURNAMENT)  I am not a fan of theory as a way to get an easy win on the new topic. Everyone has had the same limited prep with it, so do not try to use some small interpretation of the resolution to try and claim abuse on your opponents case. If the interpretation under question has some sort of logical connection then I will accept it. On the flip-side, if you have some really hyper specific interpretation of one word, so are therefore claiming you can create one small scenario in which to affirm or negate, also not going to be too happy and then theory will become easier to win.
Delivery style  I still believe in this activity as a communication based activity. Not treating it as such will impact your speaker points. I would like you to stand, be respectful, and be intelligent. The only time your style will impact the actual decision is with speed.

SPEED  Most debaters have become very adept at speaking clearly and quickly, unfortunately, while I may be able to hear every word you say, I cannot usually process them. At some point, if there are warrants I need to evaluate or arguments that are so important you want me to vote on them, they need to be explained just a little slower then you read your case. Cross-x is usually a great time to get this done, so at least slow down there to explain yourself. I do not yell clear. At some point you should look up to see if I am flowing. If I cannot process what you are saying then I may have to put my own interpretation onto the evidence. I do not like doing this so if I can vote somewhere else on the flow I will or you may not be happy with my interpretation versus yours.

Liberty University '04-'08
Policy Debate Coach @ Theodore Roosevelt High School `14-`18

contact me via email at cpmccool at gmail dot com

Hello debaters, coaches, or other judges interested in my judge philosophy. I feel that the debate round is a unique environment where almost any argument can be utilized so long as it is justifiable. I say "almost any" because some arguments are highly suspect like "racism good" or "torture good". What I mean by "justifiable" is that the argument made, to me, becomes more persuasive when coupled with good evidence. What follows are my preferences on theory, Topicality, CPs, Kritiks/Performance, and Style.

Theory
I do not consider my mind to be tabula-rasa (i.e., blank slate). To me, the most persuasive theory arguments contain a claim, some support, and an impact. Just saying "voting issue" does not make it so - I need to be convinced that voting for your interpretation is justifiable, which means that I can cogently explain to the opposing team why they were deficient and should lose the round.

Topicality
See my comments on Theory. I like it when Neg can show that the Aff's interpretation is bad for debate. Like many other judges, I am annoyed by messy T debates. The side that clashes the most, organizes the T debate, and shows why their interpretation is better for debate will most likely win my ballot.

CPs
I am a huge fan of creative and competitive CPs. If Neg can give a couple of reasons why the CP solves better/faster than the Aff, I feel more comfortable finding that the net-benefit outweighs case. The perm is a test of competitiveness. I will not consider the perm a legitimate policy option unless there is some good evidence read to support it as such.

Kritiks/Performance
I think that Aff should have a written plan text, but does not necessarily have to advocate for the USFG. Aff, if you think that USFG is bad, be ready to defend the theory onslaught by the Neg. I prefer the policy making framework, but understand the value of the K and Performance debate. The key for me is justification. Make sure you clash with opposing and show why voting for you is net-beneficial for debate.

Style
I do have some preferences regarding style that you should consider in order to obtain one or two extra speaker points from me: 1) Clarity outweighs speed - it's ok to spread your opponent, just make sure you pick the arguments you are winning and go for them in the rebuttals 2) I lean negative - I believe that Aff must thoroughly defend the plan. My standard is that it should be more probable than not that the plan is a good idea in order to vote Aff. 3) Civility and charm go further for me than pretension and hate. Being classy and focusing on the arguments and generally making everyone feel good during round are skills that are valuable and actually useful in the real world. 4) Have fun and enjoy this amazing sport! Energy can be communicated through your arguments and when it does, it makes me want to listen.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language.

General: Please respect me by not using graphic descriptions of violence or abuse in your argumentation - if you have a question about this I’m willing to talk to you before round. I will not vote for what I feel are morally repugnant arguments like “racism good,” “torture good,” or “death good.” Do not take me or my ballot hostage. Do not argue for a double loss or a double win.

Speed: I’d prefer you go slowly. Fewer cards often means more skill in argumentation.

LD and PF
I approach LD and PF rounds through the lens of policy debate. So LD or PF specific jargon, abbreviations, and tricks likely will not resonate with me. I want clear impacts and impact analysis. I do not like paraphrasing and I want clash. Lots of clash. I feel like at the end of a lot of rounds I've not be told how to weigh the two teams' impacts. So lots of clash is only good with lots of impact weighing. In LD, I generally do not know or understand your kritiks. So take the time to explain to me how your kritik interacts with your opponent’s case.

Policy Debate
I think policy debate is about whether or not the aff's plan/advocacy should happen.

Kritiks : I think that Affs should have a written advocacy statement, but they do not necessarily have to advocate for the USFG. I prefer the policy making framework, but do have an appreciation for performance debate. Despite working for the NSDA, I think there are a lot of problems with debate as an activity/community. If you choose to kritik the institution of competitive debate, I appreciate arguments that are solutions-oriented.

Theory+ Topicality : I was a 2A so I have a residual aff bias when it comes to theory. For me to vote on T it must be proven that the aff’s interpretation is flawed and that abuse has happened in round. I have a hard time weighing different standards for theory and T - you need to do that work for me on the negative, if you don’t I will likely presume aff on T.

My Background
I work at the National Speech & Debate Association as the Leadership and Education Specialist. I have a theatre teaching degree, a master's in performance studies, and a master's degree in teaching English Language Learners. I am married to my former college teammate, Chase McCool, but we don't always agree on debate-things, so don't assume!

Glenbrook North- he/him

If you are visibly sick, I reserve the right to forfeit you and leave.

spipkin at gmail. Please set up the chain at least five minutes before start time. I don't check my email very often when I'm not at tournaments.

1. Flow and respond to what the other team says in order.

2. You almost certainly are going too fast for how clear you are.

3. Kritiks on the neg: Probably a bad idea in front of me.

4. K affs: You definitely want to strike me.

5. No inserting anything into the debate besides like charts or graphics (things that can't be read aloud). You don't need to re-read the plan and counterplan text, and you can say perm specific planks, but if you are reading a more complicated perm than that, you should read the text. The litmus test is "insert the perm text."

6. I generally flow cross-x but won't guarantee I'll pay attention to questions after cross-x time is up. I also don't think the other team has to indefinitely answer substantive questions once cx time is over.

7.Plans: If you say you fiat deficit spending in CX, you don't get to say PTIV on T taxes. If you say normal means is probably deficit spending but it could be taxes, you get to say PTIV but you also risk the neg winning you are taxes for a DA or CP. Fiat is limited to the text of what you have in the plan. Implementation specification beyond the text requires evidence and can be contested by the neg.

8. Highlighting should form a coherent sentence. If it's word salad, I'm not going to waste my time trying to parse the meaning.

9. I like counterplans that are germane to the topic. Most of the process counterplans I've seen this year are not that They either can't solve the net benefit or they're not competitive or both.

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

Updated March 2022 for championship season -- congratulations yall!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jon sharp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also - just ask.

yes please include me on email chain- warrensprouse@gmail.com

Please turn on your cameras when you are speaking if at all possible.

Remember to weigh claims and warrants within your evidence; I am much more likely to vote on well-explained arguments than taglines, even if those arguments do not necessarily have evidence to back them up. If you can do both- awesome.

Do not be rude or disrespectful to your opponents or your partner.

Tell me in the last rebuttals how to weigh your arguments and how to compare your impacts with the other team’s.

If you read cards that are not in the novice packet and were given to you by your varsity debaters, that is cheating and I will yell at you.

Name: Chris Stinson
Affiliation: Minneapolis South
Pronouns: he/him/his

c_r_stinson@yahoo.com

My Background:

I debated in High School for Rapid City Central in South Dakota in the late 90s
I debated in College for Concordia in Moorhead Minnesota in the early 2000s
I started coaching in college and have actively coached ever since
I judge more than 50 rounds on any given topic

What you need to know:

I’m trying to be fully present in debates. When I was younger I allowed myself to be distracted by how my teams were doing, social media, etc. I don't think that's fair for you so I'm doing my best to break my bad habits.

I will try to judge the round without inserting my personal biases. Again, I want to be fair and honor the work that you've put into the activity.

I’m trying to keep up with point inflation. I know a lot of coaches my age are trying to hold the line. I don't think that's fair to you. My scale is at the bottom.

I think that for most debates that should be enough. Of course, you’re not doing your prefs for the easy debates. Below are some additional things that you should know about me in close debates.

My (self reported) bias:

I'm very liberal in real life. I've made my living fighting, full time, for racial, economic, and queer justice. I identify as gay. Capitalism, racism, patriarchy (including hetero and cis patriarchy), agism, ablism, and christian hegemony form an interlocking system of oppression that benefits very few, the primary feature of which is it's ability to divide us against one another. Most people would describe me as a K judge.

I also believe the state can be reformed and that those reforms can be transformational. I had the great honor to work on campaigns to win the freedom to marry, combat bullying, and allow transgender high school students to participate in school activities as their full authentic selves. I cried tears of joy when those policies were implemented. The Paul Wellstone quote, "politics is not just about power and money games, politics can be about the improvement of people's lives, about lessening human suffering in our world and bringing about more peace and more justice," pretty much sums up why I do politics.

I'm the education lobbyist for a lefty labor union (SEIU) in Minnesota.

What you probably want to know:

Comparisons: I will give more weight to warrants that were in 2NR and 2AR than to warrants that I only read in evidence after the debate.

Theory: In my default framework I evaluate theory/framework first, followed by discourse followed by traditional policy making impacts. I'm not locked into this framework but "theory is a gateway issue" and "discourse shapes reality" seem true so that's where I start.

Evidence: I read less than I used to and a lot less than other judges but I still want to be on the email chain.

Prep: Don't steal it. Prep time ends when you save the speech doc. I also expect your partner to stop prepping. I have no interest in policing your bathroom behavior.

Perm Double Bind / Perm All Other Instances: I have not yet heard a debater explain these arguments in a way that is persuasive to me. "Do the Plan and the non competitive parts of the Alt" doesn't make sense to me as a test of competition, since it simply asserts that there are parts of the Alt that don't compete with the Plan. If you want me to evaluate the perms as an advocacy that I can vote for at the end of the debate I will need you to invest time describing the world of the perm.

Bad debates are always bad so do what you like, what you're good at, and have fun.

I'm happy to answer more specific questions. Just ask.

The scale I intend to use (lifted from jonahfeldman on the CEDA forums):
29.5 - 30: One of the greatest debate speeches I have ever seen
29 - 29.4: Should be one of the top 5 speakers at the tournament
28.7- 28.9: Should be one of the top 15 speakers, but not top 5.
28.4 - 28.6: Should be in the top 25 speakers. Should clear if 5-3 and elims start at octos.
28 - 28.3: Good, but needs improvement. Should not get a speaker award. Should clear if 5-3 and elims start at doubles
27.5 - 27.9: Some things that were good, but also some areas of major improvement needed.
27 - 27.4: Areas of major improvement needed
Below 27: Was offensive/rude/dangerous. Needs to be told after the round what they did that caused a large drop in speaker points.

*Updated November 2023*

CONTACT INFORMATION

Email: thurt11@gmail.com

LD NOTE

I've been in debate for fifteen years as a competitor, judge, and coach. In that time, I've almost exclusively done policy debate (I think I've judged <10 LD rounds ever). That's to say, judging LD at the Glenbrooks will be a bit different for me.

I don't think you'll need to dramatically adjust how you debate. In fact, I'd prefer to judge you in your best style/approach/form. Relatedly, I don't think I'm particularly ideological, and I'm like not a bus driver or parent who has been dropped into the judge pool. That said, be aware of my still-developing topic knowledge, norms of LD, and theory. I will do my best to resolve the debate before me. That said, folks should know that I'll likely have many idiosyncracies of someone who has basically always been in policy debate.

PF NOTE

Much of what is said about LD is true here too. Some thoughts on evidence that I stole from Greg Achten:

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

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION

I debated for four years at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Go Packers/Brewers/Bucks! In college, I debated for four years at Michigan State University, earning three first-round bids and a semifinals appearance at the NDT.

Currently, I work on the non-debate side of Michigan State, doing education data analysis, program evaluation, and professional development. On the side, I coach for Georgetown University. I still love debate, but it is no longer my day job. Given that, I'm not a content expert on this topic like some of your other judges might be.

More generally, any given debate can get in-depth quickly, so you should be careful with acronyms/intricacies if you think that your strategy is really innovative or requires a deep understanding of your specific mechanism. Teams sometimes get so deep in the weeds researching their business that they forget to provide a basic explanation for the argument's context/history/background. Instead, they jump into the most advanced part of the topic. If something is creative, that's an issue because it's likely the judge's first time hearing it.

Everyone says it and almost no one means it, but I think that you should debate what you care about/what interests you/what you're good at doing. In other words, put me in the "big-tent" camp. All of the stuff below is too long and shouldn't impact your debating (maybe besides the meta issues section). It really is just my thoughts (vs. a standard), and is only included to offer insight into how I see debate.

META ISSUES/ABBREVIATED PHILOSOPHY/STRIKE CARD ESSENTIAL

1. Assuming equal debating (HUGE assumption), I'm *really* bad for the K on the neg/as planless aff. I find myself constantly struggling with questions in decision-time like: Does the neg ACTUALLY have a link to the plan's MECHANISM or even their SPECIFIC representations? What is the alternative? How does that advocacy change the extremely sweeping and entrenched problems identified in the 1NC/2NC impact evidence? If it's so effective, why doesn't it overcome the links to the plan? If the alt is just about scholarship/ethics/some -ology, how does that compare to material suffering outlined by the 1AC? This year, some of these biases are accentuated by the "disarm" and negative state action planks of the topic. On the affirmative, I think there are many creative ways to critically defend the idea of ending nuclear weapons (especially by the "United States" rather than the "United States federal government"). On the negative, I have hitherto been unimpressed with the Ks of "disarm" (like the ACTUAL "We end the nukes and dismantle them because they risk horrific US first use/nukes are bad" disarm) I've seen.

In the end, when I vote negative for Ks or affirmative for planless affs, it's generally because the losing team dropped a techy ballot like ethics first, serial policy failure, or "we're a PIK." Do you, don't overadapt, and feel confident that I approach every debate with the intention of deciding the question of "who did the better debating?" REGARDLESS of the subject of the debate. Relatedly, know that I'm excited to have the chance to evaluate your arguments (even if it's really late and I'd rather not be judging at all in the abstract) basically no matter what you say. Instead, I would take my above biases as things to keep an eye out for from your opponents/come up with novel responses to/overcover/etc.

2. College debate made me more oriented to tech than truth. In my experience as a debater and judge, ignorance of tech resulted in a callous dismissal of arguments as “bad” and increased judge intervention to determine what is “correct” instead of what was debated in the round and executed more effectively. That said, truth is a huge bonus, and being on the right side makes your task of being technically proficient easier because you can let logic/evidence speak a little for you.

3. I care about evidence quality - to an extent. Debate is a communicative activity, and I'm not going to re-read broad swaths of evidence to ensure that your opponents read a card on all their claims. To be clear, I do think that part of my role in judging is comparing evidence *when it's contested and through the lens with which it was challenged.* Put concretely, if your 2NR says "all their evidence is trash and doesn't say anything" or is silent on evidence comparison, I'm not gonna be doing you any favors and looking at the speech doc. I'm certainly not going to be reading un-underlined text in 1AC/1NC cards without explicit direction of what I'm looking for. Instead, if you're like "Their no prolif cards are all before Kishida and only talk about means vs. motive," I'm happy to read a pile of cards, looking to assess their quality on those two grounds. If that sounds time-consuming for your final rebuttals, it is. You should create time by condensing the debate down to the core issues/places of evidentiary disagreement.

4. Every round could use more calculus and comparisons. The most obvious example of this thesis is with impact calc, but I think there is a laundry list of other examples like considering relative risk, quality of evidence, and author qualifications. As a format, any of these comparisons should have a reason why your argument is preferable, a reason why that frame is important, and a reason why your opponent’s argument is poor/viewed through a poor lens. In the context of impact calc, this framework means saying that your impact outweighs on timeframe, that timeframe is important, and that while your opponent’s impact might have a large magnitude, I should ignore that frame of decision-making. Engaging your opponents’ arguments on a deeper level and resolving debates is the easiest way to get good points. Beyond that, making a decision is functionally comparing each team’s stance/evidence quality/technical ability on a few nexus questions, so if you’re doing this work for me you will probably like my decision a lot more.

5. I hold debaters to a high standard for making an argument. Any claim should be supported with a warrant, evidence, and impact on my decision. Use early speeches to get ahead on important questions. For instance, I won’t dismiss something like “Perm do Both,” but I think the argument would be bolstered by a reason why the perm is preferable in the 2AC (i.e. how it interacts with the net benefits) instead of saving those arguments for the 1AR/2AR. By the way, you should consider this point my way out in post-rounds where you're like "but I said X...It was right here!" For me, if something is important enough to win/lose a debate, you should spend a significant amount of time there, connect, and make sure your claim is *completely* and *thoughtfully* warranted.

6. All debates have technical mistakes, but not all technical mistakes are equal or irreversible. Given those assumptions, the best rebuttals recognize flaws and make “even if” statements/explain why losing an argument does not mean they lose the debate. I think debaters fold too often on mistakes. Just because you dropped a theory argument doesn’t mean you cannot cross-apply an argument from another theory argument, politics, or T to win.

7. I'm a bad judge for yes/no arguments like "presumption," "links to the net benefit absolutely," or "zero risk of X." I think the best debaters work in the grey areas.

8. Things people don't do enough:

a) Start with the title for their 1NC off case positions (i.e. first off states)

b) Give links labels (i.e. our "docket crowdout link" or "our bipart link")

c) Explain what their plan actually does - For instance (in college), what nuclear forces do you disarm? Who does it? What is the mechanism? I've decided that if the aff is vague to an egregious extent, I'll be super easy on the negative with DA links and CP competition. Aff vagueness is also a link to circumvention and explains why fiat doesn't solve definitional non-compliance. I will say, I'd rather lacking aff clarity (e.g. when aff's include resolutional language in their plan and say "plan text in a vacuum") be resolved by PICs/topic DAs than by T. I don't think that the negative gets to fully define the plan or have some weird positional competition vision for T even if I think 2As frequently dance around what they do. Punish affs for ambiguity and lazy plan writing for the purposes of T on substance!

d) Call out new arguments - I don't have sympathy if you *wish* you said no impact in the 2AC. There are times that I wish it existed, but there isn't and can't be a 3AC. I will say that for mostly pragmatic reasons, I'm not to the point of reviewing every new 1AR argument. I'll protect the 2NR for the 2AR, but you have to do the work before that.

9. Random (likely to change) topic thoughts:

a) Both sides are likely to get to some risk of Russia and/or China nuke war. The best 2Ns/2As will dehomogenize these impacts based on scenarios for escalation and their internal links.

b) Be careful your UQ CP doesn't overwhelm the link to your DA. Sometimes the neg goes a bit too far. I do love a good UQ CP though!

c) This is a rare topic where I'm less interested in process stuff! Who would've thought?

d) Debated equally, I'm 60/40 that we should include NFU subsets and "disarm" actions that fall short of "elimination/abolition." I get the evidence is good. I'd just abstractly rather have these arguments as affs than PICs/would prefer a bit more than the smallest topic since single payer.

GENERIC DISPOSITIONS

Planless affirmatives – The affirmative would ideally have a plan that defends action by the United States (least important). The affirmative should have a direct tie to the topic. In the context of the college resolution, this means you would have a defense of decreasing nukes/their role (pretty important). The affirmative MUST defend the implementation of said "plan" - whatever it is (MOST important). While I will NOT immediately vote negative on T or “Framework” as a procedural issue, if you don’t defend instrumental implementation of a topical plan *rooted in the resolutional question*, you will be in a tough spot. I’m especially good for T/Framework if the affirmative dodges case turns and debates over the question if nukes are good or bad. In particular, I am persuaded by arguments about why these affirmatives are unpredictable, under-limit the topic, and create a bad heuristic for problem-solving. Short version is that you can do you and there is always a chance I’ll vote for you, but I’m probably not an ordinal one for teams that don’t want to engage the resolutional question.

I do want to say that at tournaments with relaxed prefs, I will do my absolute best to keep an open mind about these assumptions. That shouldn't be read as "Thur says he's open to our planless aff - let's move him up to push down 'policy' people." It should be read as if I come up at one of these tournaments, you might as well do what you're most comfortable with/what you've practiced the most instead of over-adapting.

Critiques—Honestly, just read the first point in the "meta issues" section. I understand neolib/deterrence/security pretty well because they were a big part of my major. If you want to push against my confusion on the K (as a concept), you need to have specific links to the plan’s actions, authors, or representations. Again, trying to be honest, if you're itching to say Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze, death good, etc., I'm not your guy. On framework, the affirmative will almost surely be able to weigh their 1AC (unless they totally airball), and I'm pretty hesitant to place reps/scholarship/epistemology before material reality. One other thing - substitute out buzzwords and tags for explanation. Merely saying "libidinal economy" or "structural antagonism" without some evidence and explanation isn't a win condition.

In terms of being affirmative against these arguments, I think that too often teams lose sight of the easy ballots and/or tricks. The 1AR and 2AR need to “un-checklist” those arguments. In terms of disproving the critique, I think I’m pretty good for alternative fails/case outweighs or the permutation with a defense of pragmatism or reformism. Of those 2 - I'm best for "your alt does nothing...we have an aff..."

Case- I’m a huge fan. With that, I think that it’s very helpful for the neg (obviously?). I believe that no matter what argument you plan to go for, (excluding T/theory) case should be in some part of the 2nr. In the context of the critique, you can use case arguments to prove that the threats of the 1AC are flawed or constructed, that there are alternative causes to the affirmative that only the alternative solves, or that the impacts of the affirmative are miniscule and the K outweighs. For CPs, even if you lose a solvency deficit, you can still win because the net benefit outweighs the defended affirmative. Going for case defense to the advantage that you think the CP solves the least forces me to drop you twice as I have to decide the CP doesn’t solve AND that the case impact outweighs your net-benefit. That seems like a pretty good spot to be in.

CP- My favorite ones are specific to the 1AC with case turns as net benefits. Aside from that, I think that I am more inclined than most to vote aff on the perm when there is a trivial/mitigated net benefit vs. a smallish solvency deficit, but in the end I would hope you would tell me what to value first. I had a big section written up on theory, and I decided it's too round-dependent to list out. I still think that more than 2 conditional positions is SUPER risky, functional > textual competition, competition is dictated by mandates and not outcomes (i.e. CPs that are designed to spur follow-on are very strategic), judge kick is good, consult/condition/delay/threaten generally suck, and interpretations matter A LOT.

Topicality- People have started flagging violations based on things not in the plan (solvency lines, advocate considerations, aff tags, 2ac arguments, etc.). This is a bad way to understand T debates. The affirmative defines the plan, positional competition is bad, plan text in a vacuum makes sense, and the way to beat teams that include resolutional language in the plan is on PICs not T.

I default to reasonability, but I can be convinced that Competing Interpretations is a decent model. The negative does not need actual abuse, but they do need to win why their potential abuse is likely as opposed to just theoretical. That is, I'll be less persuaded by a 25-item case list than a really good explanation of a few devastating new affirmatives they allow. If I were to pick only one standard to go for, it would be predictable limits. They shape all pre-round research that guides in-round clash and ensure that debates are dialogues instead of monologues. Finally, as a framing point, I generally think bigger topics = better.

SPEAKER POINTS

They're totally broken...

I'll try to follow the below scale based on where points have been somewhat recently.

29.4 to 29.7 – Speaker Award - 1 to 10

29.2 to 29.3 – Speaker Award - 11 to 25

28.9 to 29.1 – Should break/Have a chance

28.4 to 28.8 – Outside chance at breaking to .500

28 to 28.3 – Not breaking, sub-.500

27 to 27.9 – Keep working

Below 26 – Something said/done warranting a post-round conversation with coaches

I have probably put off this long enough. I am a former debater at Iowa City West High School, I debated from 2012-2016. I have been judging since 2016 and have judged a varying extent on each topic since I stopped competing.

My argumentation style was flexible but my roots are in more policy based argumentation and that is what I keep up to date with as a result of following the news. That being said, I am versed in many styles of kritikal argumentation and have read or defended against most. With that noted, if you believe that I am not familiar or just to be safe, make sure to always explain your argumentation on a deeper level than just tag lines. Often historical examples are the best way to break down a kritik that explains to me an objective event to look at.

I am fine with whatever type of affirmative you would like to read. I am not familiar with the 2020-21 topic as I am not actively coaching so make sure to explain to me any acronyms or more specific topic information that I may be lacking. If you are reading a K aff again I believe historical examples are a compelling way to communicate your defense against framework.

I dislike voting on theory but I am willing to do so if it is impacted out to me correctly. I'd say among all types of argumentation this is the one I would like to vote on the least.

Topicality: If you choose to go for this in your 2NR I would like a well impacted and explained narrative for why the affirmative is 1. not topical 2. what this means in terms of the round/ground lost 3. why this is bad for debate. Just make sure you aren't just extending a ton of cards instead of making argumentation, those should be your groundwork in T arguments. Your 2NR should not consist of you rereading your blocks from the 1nc or from the neg block.

I feel as though I have covered the most important things relating to me as a judge. If you have any further questions feel free to reach out to me at colin-waldron at uiowa.edu

Last Updated
Sep 26, 2017

Background
Second year at the University of Chicago
Qualified to TOC (2015, 2016)
Won IHSSA State Tournament (2015, 2016)
Email: adam.zabner@gmail.com (please include me on the chain)

Disclaimer: I have done no research on the immigration topic. While I'll certainly do my best to keep up, I might need a bit more explanation from you than other judges. Try to avoid using acronyms before you have explained them.

General Philosophy: I would like to do as little work as possible to decide your debate. Rebuttals that I can copy paste onto my ballot will be rewarded with both speaker points and the ballot. If you fail to pick and choose your best arguments and wrap up the debate, I will be unhappy. It is your burden to explain your arguments to me, and while I will do my best to comprehend you, I will not be embarrassed to vote against arguments that I don't understand by the end of the debate.

Specifics:

Disadvantages- Probably my favorite part of debate is the top level interactions with case and good DA O/Ws and Case O/Ws and turns debates. These are probably where the majority of my decision calculus comes from. Obviously, you need to win risk/chance of your disadvantage being true, but good impact calc and turns debates are very convincing.

Counter Plans- My favorite neg strategies include well crafted, specific counterplans. As the aff, it is important to explain clearly the differences between the aff and the cp starting from the 2ac. I think that the aff gets to provide the plan text and nothing more ie. if the neg is able to characterize the plan in a certain way (with definitions or topic literature), I will be unsympathetic to aff teams that try and wish it away without in depth arguments. there tend to be a lot of cheating counter plans, and as a 2a I am probably sympathetic to reasonable theory arguments and perm do the counterplan. That being said, most counterplan theory should be a reason to reject the argument, it will be extremely difficult to win that it should be a reason to reject the team

Ks- The more time you spend talking about the aff, the more likely I am to vote for your k. I love being introduced to new ideas, and am willing to vote for any argument that is well explained but I am not as well versed in this literature as I am in other negative strategies.

"non traditional debate/ performance"- also not very versed in it. I am more than likely not the type of judge for this, but i will not reject any arguments out right. I think of debate as a game.

T- I don't know much about this topic, so all the topic specifics should be slower and well explained. I think that most debaters try to go too fast in their final rebuttals on T, which leads to a lot of judgement calls. To remedy this, go slower in your final rebuttal, and you will be rewarded.

Speaker Points

The more you engage with the arguments and evidence presented by the other team, the more speaker points you will receive.
I am okay with speed, but will yell clear once or twice before the speaks begin to get docked. Nobody likes kids who are fast but incoherent, going slower is in your best interest.
Being nice/reducing all hostility is very preferable. I have a relatively low threshold for docking speaks due to hostility. Being assertive and being aggressive are much different, know the difference. I probably will not say anything if you are being overly rude/rude at all and it won't affect the decision calculus, but it will significantly hurt your speaker points.