Alta Silver and Black Invitational
2017 — Sandy, UT/US
LD Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Debaters should state their arguments and framework clearly, and present their evidence and counter-evidence in a clear and logical manner.
When I was a High School student at Mountain View H.S. in Orem Utah. I participated in Policy Debate. After graduating, I then went on and was accepted on the University of Utah's debate team and competed in the NDT Circuit for a year. After graduation, I volunteered several times to judge high school debate tournaments as an alumnus for MVHS. Much later I became involved with debate again with Skyridge High School as the assistant coach.
I love a good policy debate! I have come to appreciate and respect Public Forum. I also have a fondness for Lincoln Douglas as I was initially a Philosophy and Political Science major at the UofU before moving into Computer Science. I will judge Individual Events, but I feel inadequate at times in this area.
Speed of speaking is not an issue for me. I will flow the entire round save perhaps the rebuttal speeches. I do request that the speaker is able to face the judges and also have their mouth be visible. I am somewhat hard of hearing and having a visual indicator of speech helps me understand better. Clarity should not be sacrificed for speed. If you cannot speak clearly at high speed you should slow down. I will not penalize teams who speak more slowly and thus are required to group arguments. The most persuasive argument should win regardless of speed of delivery.
I try to be a Tabula Rasa style judge and leave my personal political leanings outside of the room. I will vote for arguments that I find distasteful if I believe that they have been presented clearly and persuasively and the alternate team has not defended well against them. I count myself as a politically moderate independent.
I will vote for Topicality arguments if they are presented well. I will vote for a Kritik. I will vote for a Counterplan. I would prefer to have clash though and see a good policy debate. I do not mind tag team cross examination. Please be respectful of one another.
I prefer to disclose and give oral critiques if I am allowed to by the tournament organizer.
Best of luck to the competitors and participants! My goal is to help spread debate and critical thinking. Even if I vote against your team, I hope that you have a positive experience.
For email chain exchanges please use email@example.com
I'm a coach focusing primarily on PF and LD. My preference is on a traditional style of LD with strong connections of contentions to your V/C. My ballot will normally go to whoever can show they best link up to the winning value in the round (hint: try to show me why you can achieve both).I'm ok with a fair amount of speed (8/10), but if you want your tag lines to make my flow keep them short or slow down a bit for them.
There is not a huge progressive focus on our circuit, so I'm not overly experienced with progressive LD styles, but I've judged a fair amount of CX and am not entirely closed off to the idea of progressive strategies. I'm not overly familiar with a lot of the theory arguments that are being run, so don't expect me to grasp your advanced esoteric theory arguments without explaining them well (please share cases with me if possible). Additionally, if you a re running CPs be sure you can prove uniqueness, or if running Ks they are not absurd. I want reasonable arguments, and the less reasonable they are, the easier they are to be taken down.
Yes I want to be on the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org. Pronouns are he/him.
My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.
I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and a state champion in Original Oratory while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.
Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.
• • • • • • • •
I am a high school English teacher: I teach AP English Language and Composition. Debate functions as an exceptional foundation for multiple, lifelong communicative capacities/realms. I value organization, solid understanding of one’s case, appropriate citation of relevant sources, and concise refutation of opposition. Regarding delivery, any speed is acceptable.
With an appreciation for the effort required in case preparation, I encourage debaters to deliver their cases with the same amount of gusto with which they prepared their cases. I acknowledge debate's intrinsic educational value; accordingly, I simultaneously judge and cheer as competitors engage in this fruitful, beneficial educational exercise.
A tabula rasa judge cloud is a lovely place to dream; however, a judge with a completely clean slate --void of previous experience and knowledge-- lacks benefit for all involved. Thus, I will do my best to safely tuck away any personal bias(es) as my function is to judge your debate skills, abilities, and effectiveness.
I am a new judge. Not familiar with what most debaters might consider "normal terms", so avoid most technical jargon. Ks, theory, topicality are all fine with me as long as you can explain them clearly without making the round messy. I can handle a moderately brisk pace of speaking, but please don't spread. Like it should be, I evaluate on what happens in the round without bias as much as I can. Clear weighing throughout all speeches is key to winning my ballot. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask prior to the round.
I am a first time judge. I competed in both Congress and Policy during high-school. I value clear, well delivered and well-warranted arguments.
Coach at Kent Denver School and Rutgers University-Newark. HS Policy, NDT/CEDA, NPTE/NPDA Competitor.
> Please include me on email chains - email@example.com <
TL;DR - I like judge instruction. I'll vote for or against K 1ACs based on Framework. Clash of Civilization debates are the majority of rounds I watch. I vote frequently on dropped technical arguments, and will think more favorably of you if you play to your outs. The ballot is yours, your speaker points are mine. Your speech overview should be my RFD. Tell me what is important, why you win that, and why winning it means you get the ballot.
Note to coaches and debaters - I give my RFDs in list order on how I end up deciding the round, in order of how I resolved them. Because of this, I also upload my RFD word for word with the online ballot. I keep a pretty good record of rounds I've judged, so if anyone has any questions about any decision I've made on Tabroom please feel free to reach out at my email above.
1. Tech > Truth
The game of debate is lost if I intervene and weigh what I know to be "True." The ability to spin positions and make answers that fit within your side of the debate depend on a critic being objective to the content. That being said, arguments that are based in truth are typically more persuasive in the long run.
I'm very vigilant about intervening and will not make "logical conclusions" on arguments if you don't do the work to make them so. If you believe that the negative has the right to a "judge kick" if you're losing the counterplan and instead vote on the status quo in the 2NR, you need to make that explicitly clear in your speech.
More and more I've made decisions on evidence quality and the spin behind it. I like to reward knowledgeable debaters for doing research and in the event of a disputable, clashing claim I tend to default to card quality and spin.
I follow along in the speech doc when evidence is being read and make my own marks on what evidence and highlighting was read in the round.
Most rounds I judge involve Framework. While I do like these debates please ensure they're clashing and not primarily block reading. If there are multiple theoretical frameworks (ex. RotB, RotJ, FW Interp) please tell me how to sort through them and if they interact. I tend to default to policy-making and evaluating consequences unless instructed otherwise.
For theory violations - I usually need more than "they did this thing and it was bad; that's a voter" for me to sign my ballot, unless it was cold conceded. If you're going for it in the 2NR/2AR, I'd say a good rule of thumb for "adequate time spent" is around 2:00, but I would almost prefer it be the whole 5:00.
In the event that both teams have multiple theoretical arguments and refuse to clash with each other, I try to resolve as much of the framework as I can on both sides. (Example - "The judge should be an anti-ethical decision maker" and "the affirmative should have to defend a topical plan" are not inherently contradicting claims until proven otherwise.)
Winning framework is not the same as winning the debate. It's possible for one team to win framework and the other to win in it.
Procedural Fairness can be both an impact and an internal link. I believe it's important to make debate as accessible of a place as possible, which means fairness can be both a justification as well as a result of good debate practices.
3. Debate is Story Telling
I'm fond of good overviews - round vision, and understanding how to write a singular winning ballot at the end, is something I tend to reward. To some extent, telling any argument as a chain of events with a result is the same process that we use when telling stories. Being able to implicate your argument as a clash of stories can be helpful for everyone involved.
I do not want to feel like I have to intervene to make a good decision. I will not vote on an argument that was not said or implied by one of the debaters in round. I feel best about the rounds where the overview was similar to my RFD.
4. Critical Arguments
I am familiar with most critical literature and it's history in debate. I also do a lot of topic specific research and love politics debates. Regardless of what it is, I prefer if arguments are specific, strategic, and well executed. Do not be afraid of pulling out your "off-the-wall" positions - I'll listen and vote on just about anything.
As a critic and someone who enjoys the activity, I would like to see your best strategy that you've prepared based on your opponent, rather than what you think I would like. Make the correct decision about what to read based on your opponent's weaknesses and your strengths.
Debate that includes narration, personal experience, or autobiographical accounts is fine. I've voted for it frequently in the past.
Don't hesitate to email me or ask my opinions on framework before the round if it's a concern of yours.
5. Speaker Points
I believe that the ballot is yours, but your speaker points are mine. If you won the arguments required to win the debate round, you will receive the ballot from me regardless of my personal opinion on execution or quality. Speaker points are a way for judges to reward good speaking and argumentation, and dissuade poor practice and technique. Here are some things that I tend to reward debaters for:
- Debate Sense. When you show you understand the central points in the debate. Phrases like "they completely dropped this page" only to respond to line by line for 3 minutes annoy me. If you're behind and think you're going to lose, your speaker points will be higher if you acknowledge what you're behind on and execute your "shot" at winning.
- Clarity and organization. Numbered flows, references to authors or tags on cards, and word economy are valued highly. I also like it when you know the internals and warrants of your arguments/evidence.
- Judge instruction. I know it sounds redundant at this point, but you can quite literally just look at me and say "Nate, I know we're behind but you're about to vote on this link turn."
I will disclose speaker points after the round if you ask me. The highest speaker points I've ever given out is a 29.7. A 28.5 is my standard for a serviceable speech, while a 27.5 is the bare minimum needed to continue the debate. My average for the last 3 seasons was around a 28.7-28.8.
While I am a "mommy judge" I have learned from my two debating high schoolers, one policy debater the other PF, to follow flow and be comfortable with speed. I appreciate well organized thought and strong rebuttals. I work hard to take notes so I can keep up with the arguments in order to form my win/lose decision.
When it comes to K debate vs. traditional LD, I am not well-versed in kritikal arguments, theory, or progressive LD. However, I do not think this matters. I will vote on the strength of sound data, well organized thoughtful argument, and critical rebuttal of the opposing case, not what argument resonates with me. Long story short, tech over truth. Run whatever you want, you do you. But if I look lost, I probably am, and you should take a little bit of CX or speech time to explain your arguments. You will always be able to judge where I'm following and what I like based on my facial expressions; I am not very good at playing poker.
Like I said, I'm good with speed, but please make sure you are clear. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow your arguments, which makes me a lot less likely to vote for you.
No matter what, please be polite to your teammates and competitors.
I'm pretty simple and will keep this brief. I probably won't cover your specific arguments, so ask me your question in-round or beforehand by email/Facebook.
Updated for Alta 2017 (LD)
I tend to be more at home with progressive debate, but you do you. I'll follow along. Be kind to your opponents. I won't time you, mostly out of consideration for the fact that I have never once not failed at signaling time.
My paradigm when judging LD and judging policy are very similar, and I do not believe there are significant differences in how the two events should be judged.
Because it's always asked, I am comfortable with your Ks, on either side. Be familiar with your literature, though.
Unless you say otherwise, I will default to competing interpretations. I am not a fan of hypothetical harms.
I forgot to update this, so apologies in advance if it caused any issues.
I mostly did LD throughout high-school, and a bit of a mix between progressive and traditional. So, with that in mind, here's generally how my paradigm boils down.
I don't really care much about what you run between kritiks, DAs, etc, so don't be afraid to read those in front of me, but understand that I likely haven't read the literature you're reading, or may not understand hyper-specific jargon, so it is in your interest to guess that I don't know what you're talking about and give an understandable statement as to what it all means. I care more about how you tell me to vote than anything; make the round about what you want to discuss (hint: this makes it easier for judges to make a decision, which prevent situations where debaters get pissed at the judge. It's harder than it looks!)
In regards to speed: I can handle a decent amount, but the main problem is that clarity is often disregarded by debaters. If it's really bad I'll call clear a couple times, so please just make it good from the beginning. Also, keep in mind that since I graduated I've barely even thought about debate (because I'm finally free!) so it is probably in your best interest to not go at your max speed. I'd like to be included in email chains so I can follow along, but don't take me reading your case as an excuse to sacrifice clarity: firstname.lastname@example.org
Furthermore, I'm not versed basically at all in the over-the-top technical stuff. I don't even know exactly what examples to give as I never even had a round with stuff like that, so unless you can succinctly explain what it means in your speech, you should probably avoid it.
Aside from all that, here are just a few preferences:
1. Be relatively nice. There's a difference between assertion and aggression, and the former is always better.
2. You can sit or stand, I don't really mind, but know that standing is better for airflow, forces your blood to stay pumping (which is good for your brain, quite basically), and makes it easier for me to hear you.
3. PLEASE give clear signposting and tags. Simply saying the order at the start isn't enough if you never again indicate where you are on the flow, and speeding through tags will get me lost quite quickly. In addition to slowing down, change the tone of your voice a little when switching between flows, reading tags, or emphasizing certain points.
4. Try your best to have fun. I know this is a typical statement from younger judges, but it's really painful to see other debaters get too stressed out, as I've been in many of those situations. Realize that debate isn't everything: it's a learning experience at the most fundamental level, not a system of grievances and grudges (though this seems to be the case for many kids)
If you have questions feel free to ask before the round, I'll do my best to answer.
this is the first tournament i've judged in 2 years
i was a K debater in policy and LD and ran nontopical affs all the time so if you've got something "weird" you wanna run i'd love to see it
currently expecting to just hear about nuke war nonstop for two days so i'd love for that to not happen
I look for the debaters to tell me how I should vote. I go into a debate with a clear and open mind leaving my personal ideals aside. All agruments should be clear and to the point with facts to support them. Speaking fast so that no one can keep up or understand your case does not sit well with me. Doing such leads me to believe that the debater is not secure with their case and they are trying to rush through and confuse everyone listening. Finally I look to the debaters to be professinal and respectful. Debaters must have all evidence accurately sited and quoted word for word. The actual evidence must be shown without going online within the round of asked.
Progressive judge and previous progressive debater. Have 5 years under my belt for judging and debating. I am open to almost any style of argumentation. (Minus really xenophobic / racist stuff). I will almost always look at Theory before a K or any other arguments on the case, this assumes that you don't tell me what to do, if you weigh them or give me reasons for why I shouldn't I will just follow your lead. Read anything you want in front of me, if you're reading anything that is very high theory or very nuanced (IE: D&G, Baudrillard) you should probably slow down and just explain the thesis of the K. Minus that, the debate space is yours, do whatever you want. Sing, dance, talk at conversation speed, spread. If FW is not that important to you, then make sure to do your impact calc.
I coach at Eagle High School in Idaho. Our team participates in CX, LD and PF. I hold no preferences regarding the style of LD ran in the round. However, I do possess certain preferences about debate in general as well as what I expect for specific styles of LD.
In all rounds, clarity is crucial. I do not oppose introducing lots of arguments, but I need to comprehend what a debater is advocating. Articulation—especially on tags—is essential. Regardless of the number of arguments introduced in the round, I expect debaters to sign post and respond line-by-line on the flow. The only exception to this falls in rebuttals when I expect clear voters for why I should prefer one position over another; I still want debaters to address significant points from the line-by-line as they summarize the flow. I strongly dislike interventionists who make arguments on the ballot for the debaters to make their RFD; even more disconcerting are rounds in which the debaters force me to become an interventionist because they do not provide impact calculus. If I spend a lot of time filling out the ballot after the round, I probably am deciding how I should weigh the impacts while attempting to intervene as little as possible.
With traditional LD, I do not like cases which give the appearance of a value/criterion approach but actually provide a plan (criterion) and solvency (value). If debaters prefer policy style cases they should run them rather than masking them in a traditional case. I expect the criterion to provide a weighing mechanism to analyze which of two values/actions/positions proves superior. Thus, debaters should weigh all arguments introduced in the round and provide me with impact calculus so that I know which of the two positions I should prefer. If topicality becomes an issue, I expect the negative to follow a CX approach (counter interpretation, violation, standards and voters).
I do not hold preconceived notions on the structure to which a progressive case should adhere, but I do expect debaters to demonstrate a strong understanding of them (especially during cross-examination). Any critical cases or kritiks need a clear link to the resolution and a clear story so I can actually follow your position. (I realize that a plethora of pressing issues prove worthy of discussion, but I come to the round expecting to actually learn about the topic.) I tend to vote more on post fiat implications and impacts—because it permits me to weigh both debaters’ arguments—but understand that some circumstances call for pre-fiat or theory implications. I will vote on such kritiks or theory arguments, but I will hold them to a very high standard if it means that by accepting them I must exclude weighing both debaters’ impacts to reach my decision.
I welcome questions before the round for clarification.
(Updated For Silver and Black)
First off congrats on actually looking up your judges wiki, next step is implementing it in the way you debate.
If you'd like to contact me for anything other than a solid after-round grilling of why you disagreed with my decision, my email is JacobDKunzler@gmail.com. I'd also like to be on any email chains in round.
tl;dr: I read kritiks, theory, cp's da's and most types of arguments in high school. I will buy anything you have to sell, not only because I love capitalism but because I do my best to enter the round as tabula rasa as possible. Read whatever you want, just be able to defend it. The exception is anything related to the spread of discrimination in the debate space. I don't care how well you prove your point that women's suffrage was not utilitarian (I wish I hadn't been in that round) I'm not going to buy it. If you feel your opponent is violating this start snapping your fingers.
Speed: Yeah speed is probably one of the more exclusionary aspects of debate but that doesn't mean it's going away. I've been out of the circuit for a few years, so plan on going around 70% top speed. If its a problem I'll clear you. I don't plan on ever deducting speaks for a clear meant to slow a debater down.
Kritik: I read a modified form of the Afro Pessimism K for 2 years on both the aff and neg until I started reading poetry based cases. I'm by no means an expert but will definitely know what elements are necessary to call your argument a kritik, and will be looking for them. If both procedural arguments and the K have pre-fiat impacts you should work to create a priority between them. You probably wont like the way I prioritize arguments if you leave me no option other than to choose for myself. (quarters may or may not be involved because why not, capitalism makes all the other decisions in this country)
On the aff I'm also a strong advocate for the kritik, go ahead, but you better be ready to justify why that education specifically is more valuable than the education of a typical affirmative, and be prepared to answer the procedurals out of the negative.
Procedurals: never my strong suit but nonetheless a form of debate that I enjoyed. While some disagree I believe fairness is inevitably an internal link to education, and will be more easily convinced of arguments in line with that way of thinking, but I do my best to enter a procedural debate as tabula rasa as possible. I default to drop the arg over drop the debater, no RVI's, Reasonability over Counter Interpretations, and Procedural fairness over structural fairness.
I default to epistemic certainty, but when read, I'm pretty easily persuaded by epistemic modesty. I'll also default to comparative worlds over truth testing
Speaks: I start both debaters at 28 speaker points and go on to add or subtract whenever I feel I need to. Some great things to avoid would be unclear spreading, rudeness. Some great things to do would be humor (quality over quantity), familiarity with your own case in cross, and overviews.
Flashing is not prep but don't abuse it.
If all debaters ask me then I will disclose both the round and speaker points
If you want to talk about the round definitely find me/email me, given that I have time we can go over anything you'd like.
I believe disclosure is good for debate, and will grant you +.1 speak for either being disclosed before round, or showing me after
Flex prep is chill for clarification, but try to avoid its use for argument building.
Updated for Kentucky 21
I am currently a Graduate Student for the University of Wyoming. I have also debated at the University of Wyoming for 4 years under Travis Cram and Matt Liu just to get a good sense who I learned debate from.
Yes Email Chain email@example.com
The short version
I am a judge who will vote for essentially any argument. I am as likely to vote on FW versus K affs than I am to vote for impact turns on FW. Simply put, run whatever arguments you are the most comfortable with and dont feel the need to change your style for me.
I will say that because of my debating style I am much more experienced in Policy v Policy and Policy v K debates but I still view K v K debate as amazing and will be excited whenever I get a chance to judge one of those rounds! NOTE: I am super inexperienced at Pomo debates. I have and will continue to vote for them IF I can understand them, pref me if you read those arguments at your own risk.
I think it is important as I judge more rounds to note areas that I have noticed that have become more important to me. The biggest thing I have noticed is debate is a communication event as a result I place a higher premium on communication than some other judges do. Don't read great evidence and leave it at that but rather connect it to the debate round as a whole. I am a judge who loves judge instruction and telling me how I should evaluate arguments or impacts is going to put you in a much better position than simply hoping that I will follow your same line of thinking.
The long version: Most of these comments below are my specific thoughts. Things like DA's and CP's are pretty straightforward. Have a link for the DA and be able to solve some or all the aff with the CP.
Tech over truth: If an argument goes conceded and you impacted it well enough and explain why I should vote for it, I will.
Speed: I have a high threshold for speed and will yell clear out twice in a speech before I stop flowing. That being said with this year most likely being all on Zoom it is important to go at a speed that everyone can understand online. I recommend 80% of your normal speed but you know what works best for you.
K-affs: This is an area where I have experience in but was never my main focus during debate. K's and K affs are the areas where I am the most likely not to vote on an argument because I did not understand it. All that means is to make sure to explain your argument and dont assume that I will fill in the gaps with the same level of knowledge that you all have.
I prefer affs that are in the direction of the topic (that doesn't mean defending USFG action) but affs that are not in the direction of the topic are still able to win my ballot if it is well debated.
K-aff's Vs T/FW: My opinion of what arguments against framework that I find persuasive is still very malleable. All that really means is answer framework in whatever way you think is the most strategic. Reading my advice on T/FW vs K-aff's will give you a good idea of what I find important and being able to beat those arguments will put you in a good place in the debate. Affirmative teams usually win against T/FW in front of me when you prove that the neg's interp excludes the possibility of being able to discuss your scholarship (got to beat the TVA), combined with offense.
After judging multiple framework vs K aff rounds I have come to find that I am more persuaded by whatever team does better impact comparison (why does fairness outweigh education or vice versa?). I will also say that I am less persuaded by general debate bad arguments. I agree that the community is messed up and there is a lot we can do to improve it but saying that debate provides no benefit is a harder sell. If that is your A strat you are not out of luck instead it just requires you to invest more time in this argument if you would like to win it. In general impact turning, T/FW is very viable in front of me.
T/FW vs K-aff's: Im relatively open to all type of negative impacts for framework. I am much more persuaded by T impacts that are centered around skill-building or resolution focus good compared to impacts such as fairness but again am open to any impact. TVA's are pretty much must haves and at the very least make your odds of winning much higher.
K's: Just like above I have some experience but it was not my main focus. Having links to the aff and winning impact calc and/or framework will put you in a good spot.
Going for CP's: I default to no judge kick unless told otherwise.
Theory: Theory is a tool that is underutilized by a lot of aff teams Neg's get away with a lot and needs some checks. Condo theory I view as a reason to reject the team. I am more lenient on reject the arg with everything non-condo but I can be convinced why reading those CP's in the first place is a reason to reject the team. I enjoy theory debates less typed out/reading blocks and more engaging on the line by line and vision of debate.
Topicality for policy affs: Having a specific violation and examples of in round abuse puts you in a better place than just a generic T-shell. Also in the later speeches if you are still going for it, make sure to explain what a world of your interp looks like (What affs are aloud, why are only those affs good for debate, etc)
Impact Turns: Love them and think they are underutilized as well. I have had experience with impact turns from Heg bad to Nuke war good.
Prep: I do not count flashing/emailing as prep, as soon as your document is finished you can stop prep. If I see you stealing prep I will call you out once and then start the clock for your prep.
Language: Your language matters racist,homophobic,abelistic,misgendering language is probelmatic just be kind to people.
Clipping cards: If someone is accused of clipping cards the round will stop, you must have video evidence and make the claim in the round. Clipping cards causes an instant loss and low speaks. Accidents happen just make sure you are reading everything you said you read. Mark where you said to mark.
If you have any questions before the round don't be afraid to ask!
I'm a traditional judge. Overall, I look for professionalism and that as you debate you defend your case while working to defeat your opponents' case. If an opponent offers arguments/counter-arguments/evidence, you need to recognize and address it. Don't just ignore it or act as if it doesn't affect your case, otherwise it might end up doing just that.
LD: I want to see how your arguments tie into your Value and Value Criterion. Also make sure you're explaining why your Value should be the held above others in the round.
If you choose to use plans/counterplans, both parties need to accept them in the round, otherwise you'll have to argue as to whether it fits under the resolution.
Make sure your points are logical, tie into your evidence or value, and can show a clear path to the argument you're making.
PF: Make sure your arguments are logical. If you have a Framework, make sure your points tie to the Framework and that the philosophy strengthens your side of the resolution. If there is a contest of evidence, I may ask to view it.
Cal RR Policy Update: I did mostly LD in high school, and attended a few policy tournaments. I went to policy camp going into my junior and senior year. I have yet to judge a round on this year's policy topic, however I coached on last year's military aid topic which has quite the overlap in the topic literature with the arms sales topic. I believe argument explanation, regardless of content, is very important. Any of my defaults can be challenged and I will vote for any argument that is won. I am more than happy to entertain any questions either through my email, facebook, or before the round.
2013-2017: Competed at Peninsula HS (CA)
Yes I want to be on the email chain, add me: firstname.lastname@example.org
I primarily read policy arguments during the regular season. At camp I experimented with everything including high theory, performance, (ethical) framework, theory, and tricks.
I am willing to judge, listen to, and vote for anything. Just explain it well. I am not a fan of strategies which are heavily reliant on blippy arguments and frequently find myself holding the bar for answers to poor uneveloped arguments extremely low.
Speed should not be an issue, but be clear.
Drop the argument
If I shout TAGS it means that the end of your cards and the beginning of your next tags are not distinct enough.
If you want a better chance at winning and higher speaks start rebuttal speech with a real impact overview and not just explaining how debate works.
Explaining dense arguments will make me more likely to vote for them/higher speaks.
CX and prep are both flex prep. You can just use CX to prep if you want to, and you can use prep to ask questions, and both!
Incomplete extensions will be viewed with heavy skepticism when evaluating the argument. 99% of the time this is just shouting an argument or an author name without explaining what they say/warrant.
Aff vs. the K: No Link + Perm (Yes)
K vs. the Aff: Ks without a link (No)
"Read the Cards!" : If your 2NR/2AR puts your faith in me to just read all the evidence in the debate without any prodding as to what I am looking for, odds are you may be disappointed. I will not make arguments for you/come to conclusions about an argument on my own.
Only the negative reads off-case positions, if you call a 1ar shell a "new off" and not a "new sheet", you will lose speaks.
No, I do not disclose speaks.
Role of the Ballot = Roll of the Eyes; It's just impact calc.
CX begins immediately after the 1AC and the 1NC.
I focus on the particular Values being presented, applied and defended. I expect all arguments to be responded to. I'm interested in the clash of ideas on cross-ex and rebuttal. Clear and effective communication is appreciated.
Hey, I'm Emmiee (they/them) - my email is email@example.com, please use it for the email chain and feel free to shoot me an email for any paradigm/RFD questions!
I did 4 years of debate in HS (3 policy, 1 LD) and 3 years of college policy for UC Berkeley. In both I started off reading very LARP/policy arguments and then branched out into more soft left and K territory. The arguments I've spent most of my time reading are queer pessimism, psychoanalysis, and Russian settler colonialism. I've been coaching Harker LD for 5 years now and have taught at maybe 10 LD/policy camp sessions.
I try to stay as tab and non-interventionist as possible. There is literally not a single argument I have not voted for. All of my decisions are purely based off of how the flow lines up and I don't care if you're going for an RVI on Nebel, a PoMo FrankenK, indexicals, a heg DA, "surrender to ____", the Hobbes NC, etc. If I stopped voting for downright horrible arguments that were won on the flow, I would quickly end up having to give out double losses.
It's not my job to "preserve the sanctity of the activity" or whatever, especially given all of the things I pulled in my own debate career; it's my job to vote for whoever won and then roast any arguments I didn't personally like in the RFD. There are only three arguments I don't want to see: those that are blatantly oppressive (___icm good, etc), those that are unethically read (clipped, text of article altered, etc), or those that lack a claim/impact/warrant.
Other Important Info:
• I am 100% cool with post-rounding - if you think I forgot to flow something important, gave a nonsense RFD, didn't address something you think should have decided the debate, etc by all means grill me over it, as long as you're not actively rude to me or your opponent.
• Some rounds I take a super long time to decide and have a lot of comments - it's usually because I'm typing all the comments out on my flow for a while. If I take forever or dump feedback on you, it's not a bad thing - I probably just have a lot of random thoughts, especially if it's a K debate. If it's too fast, too much, it's the end of the day and you want to go to bed, you need to run to another round or prep, etc just let me know I 100% get it.
• Incoherently rapid-spread a million blippy analytics and lose - if you want me to flow your giant analytic wall via online debate without missing anything important, you are going to need at least 3 of the following:  doc was sent out with the analytics in it,  you are at least somewhat clear and aren't going the same speed you go reading a random line in a card,  there's intonation/volume changes when you go from arg to arg and/or on the important terms, or  the arguments are numbered/labelled/separated somehow and you more-or-less stick to the flow when you extend them instead of dropping them in a bunch of random places.
• Don't over-accommodate but don't be mean to traditional/novice debaters - if you're in the top 50% of the pool I will boost speaks if you slow down somewhat (especially on tags), are polite and don't clown on your opponent for not understanding something basic, generally try to be helpful and CX and try to help them understand your arguments if they're confused, etc. Likewise, will drop speaks if your strategy for the W is very blatantly just to spread out a newer kid with a bunch of arguments they've never heard of while being rude to them the whole time.
In general, I judge a lot of clash debates, bubbles, bid rounds, etc and I get that stress is high, different schools/regions/circuits have different norms and habits, everyone's tired, etc but please do your part to make the round as un-painful as possible. Assume good intent, don't be purposefully sketchy or mean, etc.
• I also tend to get progressively stupider as the tournament goes on and I'm sorry if you catch me on the end of day 2 and I'm a little spacey. Tournaments tend to aggravate disability-related things and I burn out especially fast. I can still make coherent decisions, but will just take a little longer and give less concise RFDs. If you're going to break a DA with a super convoluted and nuanced I/L chain or get into a super ticky-tacky phil throw down in R6, please adjust your degree of hand-holding accordingly.
• LARP: This is the style of debate that I mainly coach and am most comfortable with (along with Ks). I'll vote for your totally contrived politics DA and for "heg good outweighs the K/soft left AFF" if you win it on the flow. I default to presuming NEG, unless the NEG reads a counter-advocacy. I also tend to rely on how people explain their arguments and don't do a lot of card reading unless I'm forced to or someone asks me to do it. If you're AFF and the NR dropped the AFF so the 2AR is clearly going to be all about the DA or CP or whatever please give me at least 1 sentence about the 1AC scenario somewhere so I know how we got to a certain impact outweighing something else or what the PERM on the CP would look like.
I'm agnostic on a lot of things that the LARP community seems to be split on and will let it slide or let debaters debate it out in round. If you insert rehighlightings and say in your NC something to the extent of "their ____ scenario is horribly cut - we've inserted the rehighlightings" so I know it's something you meant to insert and not something you didn't read due to time constraints and the other team says nothing, I'll evaluate it. If they read theory, I guess we're having a theory debate now. Same with judge kick - I'll do it if I'm asked to, won't do it if you don't or you do and your opponent wins that I shouldn't for some reason. Multiplank CPs where you kick out of planks, "haha PERM do the CP this is normal means" reveals in the 1AR, etc are all very much in the same camp - I'll roll with it if it's not contested, will evaluate contestation and potentially roll with it anyways otherwise.
• K: I'm generally very down for weird/memey arguments but on god if you choose to pull a bunch of conflicting pomo ev into a doc just so you can spend the round yelling vague buzzwords without making any attempt to say anything specific about the AFF I will tank your speaks. If you're not familiar with whatever you're reading so your arguments or cards you end up cutting aren't phenomenal that's fine. If your K is about the need to sideline the AFF/topic and instead center your performance, community, something else, etc that's that's fine. If you have a genuine defense of why you need to sound like the PoMo generator or remain very nebulous and vague that's fine. I truly don't care what it is you do, but please don't come in sounding like the PoMo generator because you think outconfusing your opponent with some lit you have made no attempt to understand is an easy ballot.
• K AFF v. T:
• T/Theory: I will vote for it; I'll vote for the RVI on it. I don't think my personal opinions on how many condo is ok or if semantics are good matter because it shouldn't factor into how I judge. In the absence of clear warranting from either side, I will obviously be more swayed by nebulous abuse or reasonability claims depending on the context of that specific round. The bullet point above about incoherent rapid-spreading analytics definitely applies here - I can't vote for what I can't flow and a few good arguments go so much farther than proliferating random impacts and links that'll just get everyone confused all over the place. It's hard to yell "clear" over Zoom because it cuts out the other person's audio for a second so if you're blitzing through huge walls of text I'm probably going to miss arguments.
If you write the RFD for me in the debate that explains how impacts and layers stack up and weigh, you are overwhelmingly likely to have that be the actual RFD. If you end up neck deep in a super messy and dense theory/T debate and manage to stay organized, clear, and pretty line by line, you will get a 29.5 minimum. My biggest issue with these debates by far is the messiness and lack of weighing on both sides. It is really hard for me to evaluate debates when no one explains why they have the stronger I/L to education, why phil education outweighs topic education, why their NC theory should come before 1AR theory, whether T or theory comes first, etc.
Only other relevant things is that I presume T/Theory > K unless told otherwise and am not the best with grammar so I can flow your upward entailment test argument and vote for you off it, but I but I don't have more than a surface level understanding of it outside of its strategic value in debate.
• Trix: I've voted for lots of tricks debaters, but think that tricks objectively are all silly and false and have adjusted my threshold for responding to them to a comparable level. My bar for responding is "this is nonsense and you shouldn't vote on it because ___". If there's three hidden words in an analytic wall that are dropped, the threshold changes to the above along with "you should allow this response even though it's new because ____" in the next speech. I'm very sympathetic to newer LDers or policy cross overs losing over mishandling some silly spike they didn't know about and personally took a lot of Ls that way, but if you decide to sit the entire round without making a single argument about why "evaluate the round after the 1AC" is a horrible idea, you will lose to it.
All of the stuff in the T/Theory section about spreading through analytics, the fact that no one weighs or implicates anything, etc all applies.
If you have any specific questions, please ask in round.
I don't disclose. I don't ask for evidence. I don't accept post-rounding. The round should be controlled by debaters, and anything that you feel is important to earning my ballot needs to be addressed in the round. Once completed, the round is out of sight and mind. Any critiques I have will go on the ballot. No one's opinion is worth an additional ten minutes of hearing themselves talk.
While I am flexible in terms of argumentation style, for PF and LD, I prefer traditional arguments. It's super easy to rest on jargon and to vomit a case. Brevity is becoming a lost skill in debate, and I like seeing it. If you think you can win on progressive arguments regardless, please present them.
In Policy and PF, I judge almost entirely on impact and framework. In LD, VC gets a little more weight, naturally. Voters are super helpful. Anything you drop is weighed against you.
Topicality is annoying, so please avoid running it. If you think you can swing Theory, do your darnedest. Kritiks are cool, too.
If you want to do speed, that's fine, but anything I can't understand can't go on my flow, and I'm not gonna correct you. You're in charge of your own performance.
FLASHING COMES OUT OF PREP, unless done before the 1AC. Also, if your preflow takes more than five minutes, I will dock speaks for each additional minute.
Clashing and some aggressiveness is fine, but if you're scoffing or snickering at any opponent, I'm going to be especially motivated to find reasons to drop you, obviously. Even if I like your argument or pick you up, I'm probably going to give you really low speaks. Respect the fact that your opponents also work hard to be in the same room as you.
When I call "time," nothing you say gets added to the flow. Simply stop speaking, because it's not going to be counted. No exceptions.
Most of all, if you have me as your judge, relax. It is debate. You're not defusing a bomb. You're not performing neurosurgery. You'll make it out of the round alive, and you'll probably go on to debate many other rounds. You want to do well, and a lot goes into that. You will be okay, regardless of how I vote.
Miscellaneous items that won't decide around, but could garner higher speaks
-Uses of the words, and various thereof, "flummoxed," "cantankerous," "trill," "inconceivable, "verisimilitude," and "betwixt"
-Quotes from television series Community, Steven Universe, Friday Night Lights, Arrested Development, and 30 Rock
-Knowing the difference between "asocial" and "antisocial"
I did debate, mostly in CX for three years. if you are going to do something unusual, make sure you know how. I will know if you do not.
Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or any other prejudice or discrimination in your case will result you in a loss. Debate is a safe space, so be sensitive when talking about sensitive issues.
I judge Tabula Rasa, and I'll evaluate just about anything that makes sense
I've done CX, LD and PF. So I understand all arguments and am good with speed.
I am of the mindset that if you run a K and win on it, you can still win the round even if the AFF has 100% solvency.
Former policy debater. Sensibilities skew towards policy making / comparative worlds. Skeptical of root cause kritiks.
Explain the K alt, what it does, why it solves.
Don't assume I'm intimately familiar with your critical theory or its warrants. Make the warrants explicit.
Disclosure is good, you should disclose. It's not my job as a judge to enforce disclosure.
If you plan to go for theory, you should be able to articulate in-round abuse as a result of your opponent's violation.
Sending email counts as prep.
Don't ask if I disclose speaker points. Unless you're tracking the points of everyone in the tournament, that information is useless to you.
* Explicit is better than implicit
* Simple is better than complex
* Complex is better than complicated
* Equity delights in equality.
* One who seeks equity must do equity
* Equity aids the vigilant
high school = Kansas 2012-2016 (Policy and LD)
undergrad = Emporia State 2016-2020 (Policy)
grad = Kansas State 2020-present (Policy Coach)DO NOT RECORD MY VOICE OR IMAGE AND DO NOT TAKE PICTURES OF ME WITHOUT MY WRITTEN CONSENT. It's ridiculous this has to be said.
edited for the youth
Updated 2/27/21 (updates have a "---" listed before them)
---- Yes, put me on the email chain. Squiddoesdebate@gmail.com
---- Do a sound check before you start your speech. Simply ask if we can all hear you. I will not dock speaks because of audio issues, however, we will do everything we can to fix the audio issue before we proceed.
------------------- SEND YOUR ANALYTICS - if you want me to flow every word, it would behove you to send me every word you have typed. I am not the only one who uses typed analytics. Don't exclude folks from being able to fully participate just because you don't want to share your analytics.
--- the first thirty seconds of the last rebuttal for each side should be what they expect my RFD should be. I like being lazy and I love it when you not only tell me how I need to vote, but also provide deep explanation and extensive warrants for why the debate has ended in such a way to where I have no other choice to vote that way.
----My decision is most influenced by the last two rebuttals than any other speech. I actively flow the entire debate, but the majority of my attention when considering my decision comes down to a flow-based comparison of the last rebuttals. If you plan to bounce from one page to the next in the 2NR/2AR, then please do cross-applications and choose one page to stay on. That will help both of us.
I think debate should be an activity to have discussions. Sometimes these discussions are fun, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they are obvious and clear, sometimes they are not. Sometimes that's the point. Regardless, have a discussion and I will listen to it.
I don't like to read evidence after debates. That being said, I will if I have to. If you can make the argument without the evidence, feel free to do so. If I yell "clear", don't trip, just articulate.
--- If I call for evidence or otherwise find myself needing to read evidence, it probably means you did not do a good enough job of explaining the argument and rather relied on author extensions. Please avoid this.
Your speaks start at a 30. Wherever they go from there are up to you. Things that I will drop speaks for include clearly not explaining/engaging the arguments in the round (without a justification for doing so), not explaining or answering CX questions, not articulating more after I clear you. Things that will improve your speaks include being fast, being efficient with your words, being clear while reading evidence, demonstrating comprehensive knowledge of your args by being off your blocks or schooling someone in cross-x, etc. If I significantly hurt your speaks, I will let you know why. Otherwise, you start at 30 and I've only had to go below 26 a handful of times.
----- my range is roughly 28.7-29.5 if you are curious
Prep time, cross-x, in-between-speeches chats, I'll be listening. All that means- be attentive to what's happening beyond the speeches. If you are making arguments during these times, be sure to make application arguments in the speech times. That's not just a judge preference, it's often devastating.
I like kritikal/performative debate. I did traditional/policy-styled debate. I prefer the previous but won't rule out the latter.
---- ^^ this is less true as I judge more and more high school debate but it is still true for college debate.
slow down when reading the theory / analytics / interps
don't assume I know everything, I know nothing in the grand scheme of things
don't be rude unless you're sure of it
Ask me more if you want to know. Email me. I am down to chat more about my decisions in email if you are willing.
- theory is wild. i don't know as much about it as you think I do
- tell me how to evaluate things, especially in the later speeches because new things are read in every speech and its wild and new to me. tell me what to do.
- I love the k's that are in this activity, keep that up.
3 Years debating at Idaho State 1 Year at UNI 4 Years judging college debate
13 Years judging high school debate
My favorite debaters (in no particular order)- Michael Klinger, Jessica Yeats, Stephen Weil, Sunil Pai and Kade Olsen My favorite judges (in no particular order)- Steve Pointer, Mike Hester, Adam Symonds and Aimi Hamraie
My favorite strategy for pretty much any argument is impact turning. You should probably do what you do best though.
I’m very strict about clarity and the highlighting of evidence. If you have an off case arg or advantage that takes less than a minute to read you should probably save it for another critic.
Topicality- Explanations of aff and neg ground under your interpretation goes a long way. I’m persuaded more than most by reasonability arguments.
DA’s- Defense is underrated. Please highlight enough of your ev to make an actual argument. Remember what I said about impact turning.
CP’s- I lean affirmative on most theory questions.
K’s- The key to winning these debates, regardless of side, is to talk about the aff. Don’t assume I’ve read the same literature you have so keep the jargon to a minimum. In most K debates I’ve seen there isn’t enough discussion of the alternative for my liking.
Framework- I’m one of the sick few that enjoy these arguments. A clear framework for evaluating impacts is a necessity for any argument. Whether you’re down with traditional or non-traditional frameworks you should make these arguments in front of me.
I’m not sure I can be offended and I respect boldness. I’m confused by the widespread belief that people somehow have a right to not be offended.
Oh and paperless teams- don't give the other team a document with cards you aren't going to read. If you realize you have to skip some cards to cover tell them exactly how many cards you are skipping then take prep (your own) to delete them from their document before the next cx starts.
Good luck to all. Any questions please ask. I promise to work hard and I respect you for participating in this intense competition.
Affiliations/Judging conflicts: Harvard-Westlake, Marlborough
I debated for four years at Harvard-Westlake School in Los Angeles, qualifying to TOC thrice. I now coach for Marlborough.
If you have questions, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
I like hearing well-developed, supported, smart arguments. This can include philosophy, t or theory, Ks, plans, CPs, DAs, etc. Form doesn't matter a huge amount to me. Just steer clear of my landmines and make good arguments: your speaks and win record will show it.
Flashing/emailing is on prep time.
Traditional Policy stuff: yes
Theory: yes if there’s real abuse.
Philosophy (almost all sorts): yes
Do I say clear? Yes.
How many times? Until you get clear or it becomes clear that you're ignoring me.
Mandatory scary stuff:
Landmines: The following things are not ok in debate. I WILL INSTANTLY DROP YOU FOR:
-Religious/theistic arguments *I don't think very many (if any) other judges hold this prohibition, so I want to emphasize that I do hold it, and I will hold you to it.*
-moral skepticism (unless the topic specifically mandates it, like the Nov-Dec 2011. I'll specifically note it at the top of my paradigm if one of these comes up.)
-presumption (if you tell me I should ignore substance to vote on presumption. I might presume if there is legitimately no offense but I will do everything in my power not to.)
-any argument that is “triggered” in a later speech. If you defend it, you must say so in your first speech
-biting the bullet on something atrocious like genocide, rape, mass murder, etc. (That is, openly acknowledging that your framework would not condemn something like this. Simply arguing that your opponent’s framework can’t condemn genocide will not be a reason to drop them.)
-an a priori (these are arguments that say that the resolution is true or false for linguistic/semantic reasons and don't link to a framework. Despite debaters' best efforts to hide them, a prioris are pretty easily visible.)
-blatantly lying in cx
In general, be honest. I won’t instantly drop you for anything not on this list, but if you pull tricks or are generally sketchy I will be pissed. My stance on this is pretty similar to Chris Theis’.
The following arguments I will not listen to, but will not drop you for the sole reason that you ran one of them (you can still win elsewhere on the flow). I will not vote on:
-any argument that is not normative, like ought implies can or ought means logical consequence.
-theory arguments against an interp in the AC are counterinterpretations/defense only
Things I dislike but will vote on if you win them by a wide margin (either they're conceded or you crush):
-Competing interps requires a counterinterpretation.
-Affirmative “ethics” choice (When the aff gets to pick the standard/value criterion – distinct from AFC as run in policy, which I am ok with)
-Meta-theory comes before “regular” theory. OK to run a “meta-theory” shell and weigh impacts, but I don’t believe that meta-theory exists differently than theory. One sentence in a theory voter will not convince me otherwise.
-Anything that would have me take an actual action other than judging. (It takes a really good reason to make me not be lazy. I might vote for the position and ignore the action anyway.)
And a bunch of theory shells fall into this category too. If you run one of these shells, I will be skeptical and probably find the most stock responses persuasive. I'll vote on it, but you'll have to do lots of work and win it by a lot:
-Must run/not run framework
-Must run/not run plan/counterplan (inc. plans bad)
-Must run/not run kritik (noticing a theme?)
-Must run/not run DAs, etc.
-Can't have both pre- and post-fiat impacts
-Can't make link/impact turns (yes, people actually run this shell)
-Negatively worded interps bad ("Must have positively worded interp" for the formalists)
-Neg must defend the converse
Judging Paradigm for John Overing
I debated in NDT-CEDA policy for UC Berkeley and in Nat-Circ and Trad Lincoln-Douglas for Loyola High School. I've judged over 250 rounds and competed in just as many.
Win the case, win the debate. Do impact calculus.
Here's how you win in front of me:
1. Identify the issue that will win you the round
2. Collapse to that issue and win it
3. Explain why it outweighs other considerations or should be evaluated first
Mostly tab, not scared to vote on abnormal or unpopular stuff. Go for whatever you want, even if it's an unorthodox take. I'm here to evaluate what you put before me, not impose my beliefs onto your arguments.
I am willing to vote on disclosure theory. Should you read it? Sure, UNLESS your opponent is new to debate. I'm very opposed to disclosure theory against students new to the activity.
- Debate well, do something new or interesting, or give me an easy decision in a polite way.
- Open-source disclosure will make me more generous with speaks, let me know if you do this.
- Show me your flow after the round and I'll add 0.1 to 0.3 speaks. If requested, I will give feedback on your flow.
Poor behavior will affect your speaks, though (barring extreme cases) I'll keep such issues out of my decision.
I don't enforce prep time for flashing. Be reasonable.
I flow cross-ex and prep. I rarely flow off speech docs.
Note- my judge wiki hasn't been updated in quite awhile and is focused mostly on policy judging (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Pack%2C+Erin ). Please default to the paradigm below.
Paradigm: I identify most strongly as a Tab judge and will listen to any warranted argument. I tend to default to Policy Making and enjoy a good impact calc debate. Argue what you are comfortable arguing. It's your debate round, not mine.
Speed: I understand spreading pretty well, but please enunciate. I will shout "CLEAR!" one time if I can't understand. Adjust accordingly. Be especially clear on your tags and theory args.
Kritiks: As they logically flow within the context of the round, go for it. You need to have more than a Spark Notes understanding of the author's ideas. The rule of thumb for me with K's- don't read something if it doesn’t offer a competitive alternative and you can't sufficiently link it into the case without making a huge leap. I want logical progression. Generic Ks for their own sake are no bueno.
Style Points: Be polite and present thoughtful arguments. Don't be an awful human being. I consider this to include: being rude to other people in-round, randomly shouting at the other team during their speeches, racist/sexist/classist/xenophobic/homophobic/ableist comments to other people.
LD Specifics: I appreciate good clash on framework. Most of my LD ballots go to debaters who can provide the most offense-based arguments and the best value/criterion linkages. I also like evidence, policy-based approaches, and a priori considerations.
Who is this person?: I love debate, and believe it can be a force for good. This is my 13th year of semi-regularly judging! I'm originally from rural Texas, hold a BA in History and a Masters in Social Studies Education, and ran my own full-service forensics programs in Texas and Utah for 8 years. I served on the curriculum board of the Women's Debate Institute, worked several camps, tabbed many tournaments, and was the judge coordinator for the 2016 NSDA Nationals in Salt Lake City. After a short "retirement" period, I'm now an assistant coach at Green Canyon High School in Utah.
I’m a parent judge. I probably won’t be able to keep up with spreading, so go slow please. Try to avoid T and theory as I won’t be able to evaluate it properly. Ks are probably a no-go as well but I can evaluate if necessary/if you elaborate and make the story very clear. Try to keep the round as clean as possible and write the ballot for me. Don’t be rude in round and just make sure that you are extending your arguments.
I am a new judge.
I do NOT want to hear any spewing! You need to speak slow enough to be articulate and persuasive. Just getting out more information, stats, quotes, etc does NOT make a person persuasive. Having intelligent, relevant, and direct arguments that are well presented DOES make you persuasive. You should also make sure you address any legitimate, primary arguments presented by your oppononent. That's it...
Hi, My name is Vasanth
Details about me
- Debated 3 years for Lexington High School
- Did LD all 3 years but know how Policy works
- First Year out
- Email: email@example.com
-- LARP/Util- 1
-- Tricks- 1
-- High Theory- 4
-- Phil- 3
-- I won't vote for anything that's not warranted-- that being said, the standard for what is enough of a warrant can be debated and I will listen to arguements that seek to define it
-- I default to Competing Interps/drop the debater, and RVIs
-- The only arguments I won't vote on are oppression/racism/sexism good type args (+ unwarranted stuff), which includes asking your opponent to justify why racism/sexism/etc is bad
-- Don't cheat -- disclose, don't clip, don't bracket in spikes into your cards-- I will vote for disclosure Theory 9.9/10 times so unless you think you are a god at theory ( I have yet to meet one) then you should disclose. Loss to Disclose theory wont get you more than a 27.5 speaks
-- Flex prep is a given
-- Flashing/emailing isn't prep -- compiling the speech doc is
-- 1AR extensions dont have to be great, if there is a meaningful mention of the arguement I will extend it
-- I'm fine with speed and I'll say clear if I need to
Non-T Affs: These are fine, I read one my senior year and I understand where they come from. That being said I went for T a lot and thus get both sides of the debate so I am open to either way, just debate it well
Ks: I only read Ks my second year and read them a good amount my 3rd year. They are fine unless they are high theory. I didnt read a single piece of high theory during High school and dont plan on to in the future so I wont really be able to follow the debate, but of course you can read it infront of me. Ks dont need an Alt but if they dont, explain what I am voting for or why I am voting. The Role of the Ballot is a framework
LARP: I liked Util debate a lot, didnt get to do much of it cause no one in the Northeast gets it. Make sure to do weighing since its really essential to this type of debate
Phil: I have read a little bit of kant on every topic, I read it as a time suck and didnt really ever go for it but I do get the concepts of Kant. any other non-util phil should probs be explained, esp how it interacts with the other framework.
Theory: What ever shell is fine. Im fine with theory as a strat because I understand not everyone has answers to every aff. I dont really think I will cut speaks for abusive shells cause absusive shells are usually bad and if you are winning a bad shell then you deserve the win (Unless its a novice or someone that clearly doesnt know theory, in which case i might cut some speaks but not too much). I default to RVIs because RVIs are probs good but of course you can debate that.
Tricks: Its fine, phil tricks might be harder to understand, explain them well
-2NR Ks like trigger warning DAs and Gendered Language Ks are very hard to evaluate since they are read so late. Reading them doesnt mean Auto win and I will listen to the 2AR and to be honest since its so late and the 2AR is so time crunched I wont be harsh on the 2A and give them some credance because lets be honest unless one reads one of these arguments for 5 minutes in the 2N its an unfair positive time trade off that will kill the 2AR. That all being said if there is a proven incident before the round in which certain preferances on these matters were given or asked for, then I am more than happy to vote neg.
-Extra Speaks if you rep lex gear
-Extra Speaks for Jonas jokes
-Plus .3 speaks if you bring me food (No beef or Pork)
I would like to be on the email chain, my email is jpscoggin at gmail.com
I am the coach of Loyola High School in Los Angeles. I also own and operate Premier Debate along with Bob Overing. I coach Nevin Gera. I prefer a nuanced util debate to anything else.
In general, I am not a fan of frivolous theory or non-topical Ks.
High speaker points are awarded for exceptional creativity and margin of victory.
I am fine with speed as long as it is comprehensible.
If you are not comfortable disclosing to your opponent at the flip or after pairings are released it is likely in your best interest to strike me. If the tournament has a rule about when that should occur I will defer to that, if not 10 minutes after the pairing is released seems reasonable to me.
Compiling is prep. Prep ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed from your computer.
firstname.lastname@example.org (Start an email chain right away please)
Basically, I'm familiar with most progressive/traditional arguments. So feel free to run whatever you want.
If you have questions, please ask before round.
Techniciality before anything, I judge that first.
Theory is fine, but break it down and tell me why its a voting issue. I don't do RVIs. Counter-interp's are better than "we-meet". But go about it whatever way you want.
I feel very strongly about calling your opponent a "cheater". I think there are better ways/words to show that you are being put at a disadvantage during the debate round.
Some dropped arguments are honestly useless for the whole picture of the debate. Just because you extended a dropped argument that does nothing for you doesn't mean I'll vote it up.
Topicality is also fine and I will evaluate it first if I think your opponent is being unfair. I do strongly believe that for fair engagement inside of the debate space, the affirmative should be somewhat topical. However, this is up to you to convince me how to vote off of that.
K's are great. I'm familiar with most of the K's circulating around, and with a lot of the literature of K's. But if you're going to be reading something out of the ordinary, articulate and explain it to me.
(I will say this; however, most people that run structural violence K's tend to group minorities in hierarchies and solve for the "most oppressed"; this strategy is wrong and offensive).
Philosophical arguments are also very cool. I love Philosophy. However, you will need to explain it to me if its out of the ordinary.
Traditional LD is also awesome. If you're going to do Traditional LD, then i'll put a little emphasis on the V/VC debate. I love good framework debates! I HATE cross-benefit/cost-benefit analysis frameworks, if you do read that, just know i'm disappointed.
I've seen a few performance cases and I loved them, if that's what you do, go for it.
I don't flow Cross-Ex, but I listen. If there is something that you want on your flow, bring it up in your speech.
SPEED - Speed is great, go as fast as you want BUT taglines, plan texts and/or advocacies should always be conversation speed. If I don't hear it, i won't flow it.
Intensity is fine, just don't be rude.
Speaker Points - I never give 26 or lower, if I do, you're super offensive and/or rude.
& Always give voters.
-If you wanna transfer CX time to prep; go for it.
I also call for evidence a lot.
If I don't understand something, you will know from my face expressions. I will expect you to explain it to me if you notice that I don't understand your argument. I can't vote on something that doesn't make sense to me.
Things I hate:
-Males talking over Females in CX is a pet peeve of mine.
-Being a Male and being over-aggressive to your female opponent will earn you a 25 or lower.
-Knowing that your opponent is traditional and then reading like 2 K's or 8 off is also un-educational and unhelpful. A good debater knows how to adjust and win off of that. I'm not saying I won't vote off of it, I'm just saying its unproductive inside of the given debate space.
-K's with no alts aren't K's.. Seriously.
-- i'm EXTREMELY tired of progressive vs. traditional debates. If your opponent is traditional, adjust. That's what good debaters do.
I want to be able to hear and process the information presented. I expect arguments to be clearly spoken and substantiated with solid evidence. Quality of information trumps irrelevant quantity. Clearly and directly respond to your opponents arguments. I am not interested in any non topical arguments.
Background: I competed on national and local level LD for all of high school during which I achieved moderate success and qualified to the TOC. I judged consistently throughout college and coached for 3 years on the national level. I have only judged a few times in the past two years. My pronouns are he/him/his.
Email for chain: email@example.com
Warning: I haven't judged in a bit but find that I am still ok at keeping up in high speed rounds, though the Stanford 2021 tournament is my first virtual tournament so just check in throughout the round.
Speaking: I used to do and coach national circuit debate so I am fine with speed however my tolerance is diminished so I will probably be better at judging medium paced rounds. I will tell you to slow down. If I tell you to slow down I have probably already missed arguments you are making.
Substance: Ill judge any round (K, Theory, Substance, etc) I am probably more adapt at judging framework debates but I enjoy anything that is well explained and am happy to judge kritiks, theory, policy making etc.
I am in my tenth year of coaching and teaching Speech & Debate (6 in OR; 4 in UT).
Overall, I want to see true clash and I usually judge on the flow. Strong, crystallized voters can win me over though. I am fine with progressive cases (and sometimes prefer them if they are creative while maintaining logical appeal), as long as you are able to defend them aptly and you still truly attack your opponent's case and contentions. And don't lose enunciation.
I have judged LD at Nationals and have had a student compete at Nationals in LD twice. I prefer traditional, but can roll with progressive.
I will judge on true clash, the least dropped arguments, and strong voters. I like civil sass and speaking styles that engage and entertain as long as it's not at the expense of argumentation and substance. I try to be tabula rasa. Don't just tell me you uphold your value criterion or that your opponent does not; explain why (links).
I prefer to not have card battles. If I want to see a card, I'll ask for it at the end. Don't waste too much of your time on it. Yes, specific and credible evidence is needed but I look more holistically at the logic.
I like true clash, but don't want a debate that turns into hyper-focus on a definition or card battle. Note the disagreement, concisely state why your side is better then move on.
My vote goes to whoever has the most sound logic holistically, with strong voters and impacts. I also like strong links between each contention and framework and being able to point out flaws in your opponent's logic. Consideration of and insight into your and your opponents' warrants will go far. Being respectful will go far. Being disrespectful will lose you speaker points and will make me less forgiving of smaller flaws in your case.
please add me on the email chain, firstname.lastname@example.org
4 years of policy debate at Centennial High School in Boise, ID (1N/2A)
3 years of policy debate at the University of Wyoming (1A/2N)
2 years of judging experience in Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas
Notes for every form of debate:
- Do what you do best and go for whatever you feel most comfortable in front of me. I don't have any argument preferences. I am way more concerned about you articulating your arguments to me than what the arguments actually are.
- It's your job to communicate the warrants of a card during the debate. Building connections with your cards and arguments are important and I won't try to do that for you in a debate.
- Tech > Truth but obviously, I won't grant you an argument if it isn't extended properly, impacted out, etc (the debating part). The dropped argument needs to be fleshed out before I consider it true.
- Make the space enjoyable and safe for everyone. Let me know if there is anything I can do or the other debaters can do to make the space more accessible to you.
--- LD ---
While I have not competed in LD, I have judged numerous varsity LD rounds from the local to national level. I do not have a preference to a style in which you debate the topic, i.e. philosophical, kritikal, traditional, etc., however, I do care that you debate the topic in some way.
Here are some thoughts that I have about particular arguments but also how I evaluate LD debates:
1. I view the value-criterion as the framing for the debate and typically go to that debate first so I can filter the rest of the debate through this framework. In some debates it matters, others it doesn't (especially if the teams agree on/have similar value-criterions).
2. I am going to take a bit from my coach's paradigm because I believe this is something I encounter a lot in LD: "too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it's awesome. You should make sure I know it's awesome while you read it...Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, [by thoroughly explaining their evidence and why it matters in the debate], will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot."
3. I do not like when debaters will read/extend a bunch of arguments that do not provide a good warrant or reason why the argument matters. I would rather the 1NC read 1 less off case position in favor of more developed case analysis, impact calc, or fully complete arguments. I would rather the 1ar make 1 less theory argument in favor of actually explaining what the words "perm do both" mean, why the case outweighs, and sinking time in where it matters.
4. Impacting out your arguments and doing impact/evidence comparison in the final rebuttals is very important to me. Tell me why your arguments matters, why they are a priority, and overall why you won the debate. Ships passing in the night or blippy extensions are not advantageous for you.
5. Conditionality is probably bad in LD, but it's not that hard to defend condo good and I think most of these counterplan issues are best resolved at the level of how competitive they are with the aff, not theory. Again, sink time into arguments where you feel confident in going for them and explaining thoroughly in your final rebuttal.
--- POLICY ---
Things I find important (probably in this order):
- Impacting out your arguments, tell me why they matter and why they are a priority
- Impact & Evidence Comparison
- Case debate and case engagement (important w/ any aff, plan or not)
- Strong link and alternative debates on the kritik (especially with high theory arguments since I am not too familiar)
- Strong link debate on the disad and a story of the impact scenario
- Clarity when speaking
- Strategic choices made during the rebuttals
Speaker points: You'll get bad speaks if you steal prep, clip cards and/or make the space unsafe for others. You'll get good speaks if you flow the speech and not the speech doc, mark your cards during your speech, are organized, and do some of the things I wrote above.
Kritikal Affirmatives- Although this isn't an argument I've primarly read on the aff, I still enjoy judging these debates. I think they raise questions about our underlying assumptions about change on a social/political level and the topic itself. That being said, I think K affs should be somewhat in the direction of the topic. Solvency mechanism warrants are important for me. At the end of the debate, I like to evaluate these affs with questions ike, "what is the impact/importance of the aff" and "why does my ballot matter/what does it represent". Versus T or FW debates, I think even if you are impact turning it, I would like to know why your aff was a prior question to their TVA and I like to see work on the interp debate.
Topicality/Framework (v. kritikal affs)- I find topical versions of the aff are important. If you have one, you need to explain to me why it solves the affirmatives offense on the page. Make sure you impact this argument out and explain why you couldn't engage with the aff (or rather why potential abuse is a voter). I'm down with the affirmative impact turning these arguments so long as their is impact comparison in the rebuttals.
Topicality (v. policy affs)- give me a picture of what the topic should look like under your interpretation and what the affirmative has done to disrupt this. Often times I find that some teams forget to impact out their standards. Go further and tell me how your ground and limits arguments are key to fairness and education. Tell me why the affirmative's interpretation has made fairness and education worse and also why those impacts are important. These arguments should be present in the 2NR.
Kritiks- I find that a strong and clear link story makes the K more convincing to me. I think clear link arguments must be present during the block that contextualizes your link with the aff. I would also enjoy some alternative solvency explanation and how/why the alternative can solve the impacts the 1AC isolates. Just a note- I am also not well versed in high theory so doing these things can be especially helpful for me.
Counterplans- I think counterplans are used to test the affirmatives method as well as make the aff defend specific warrants of the aff. That being said, in the 2NC I would like the solvency mechanism to be explained and why it's superior to the aff. If I don't think you won the cp in the 2NR, I won't kick it for you.
Disadvantages- Make sure a clear link and impact story established in the 2NC. This makes for better story-telling in the 2NR. I also think quality of evidence on disads are pertinent. That being said you can still run a shitty disad but I am sympathetic to aff arguments about evidence quality if I'm comparing it theirs. Topic disads and good ole midterms/politics are cool.
Case- C'mon, there need to be arguments on case regardless of whether the aff has a plan or not. I love case debating and any negative strategy that involves a heavy case debate will go far in front of me. I am also a fan of embedded offense on case (da, links to the k, etc.).
Theory-I'm totally down with these debates. Please slow down so I can catch these arguments. Theory can be an option in the 2AR so long as there is enough substance in the 1AR to grant you your 2ar arguments. Make sure comparison of arguments happens and that your theory arguments are impacted out.
If you want to look at this later once you know the speaks I gave you, here is my metric for speaker points:
Below 27.5 - ethical violations
27.5-28.4 - errors were made, there is still some room for improvement
28.5-28.9 - excellent work! You performed well during this debate
29-29.4 - you are a spectacular debater and I assume you do well in your other rounds
29.5- 29.9 - you are an incredible debater whose levels exceed average and I am EXTREMELY impressed.
Note: This metric above applies to national tournaments that allow judges to use the decimal scale on tabroom. This is primarily a note to local Wyoming tournaments that make judges use whole numbers for speaker points.
1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)
2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)
2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)
2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)
2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)
General Preferences and Decision Calculus
I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 70% of your fastest.
I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.
I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.
Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.
I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.
Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.
I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.
I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.
I will apply a higher threshold to random theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.
Tricks and Triggers
Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.
Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs
The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.
I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.
I default to the presumption that floating PIKs must be articulated as such in the NC. If it is not apparent that the kritik alternative allows you to also enact the affirmative advocacy, then I will regard this argument as a change of advocacy in the NR and disregard it as a new argument.
To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.
The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 90% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.
My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.
It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or pocket box that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.
I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:
30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.
29: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.
28: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.
27.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.
26: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.
25: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors
Below 25: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.
Rude or Unethical Actions
I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.
A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to both your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.
To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that s/he has clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.
I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.
haydenlw4 [at] gmail. com
Include me in the chain without asking me.
Judge philosophies are terrible to read because they all read the same and aren't true. I will try to make mine as useful as possible by being descriptive of how I think that I differ from the community standards.
I am the head coach at Bingham HS. I have been involved in high school debate for over a decade. But the fact I am a head coach means that I rarely am actually judging so my flow speed is below average and I will need adjustment at the beginning of rounds. This is true for national circuit debates only. I am still capable of flowing local circuit rounds. This also affects my topic knowledge. I will have some knowledge on the topic but I am thinking about it on a weekly basis not a daily basis.
I personally care a lot about politeness. I will start with warnings, then taking tenths of points off speaker points but if the lack of politeness becomes unbearable I will drop the offending team. I will not do any warnings while I am on a panel but I still very much care for politeness.
I try to be a very expressive when I judge. If I'm liking your arguments then I want my face to reflect that so you can adapt on the fly.
DA and case debates are some of my favorites to judge. I will look first at the link level before the impact level on these debates.
I am aff biased for cheater cps (consult, process, delay, etc). I try to not buy the negative analysis that "1% risk of a net benefit is a reason to vote neg" for those types of cps. Because of my thoughts on DA's it makes me more willing to vote on perms and defense.
I have less content knowledge of the k's that have become more popular recently. That would be afro-pess and settler colonialism. I will stick to the description of the K that happens in the round. I don't know how poems are arguments. This leads me to barely flow poems.
I like T more than most. I think that if you are good at T my threshold is quite low. But I have noticed myself not voting on T because I didn't think that negative did enough smart work. I enjoy TVA's, perms on T, explaining why the aff does not meet their C/I or are not reasonable. The T debate that I am most persuaded by is accurate descriptions of the flaws of the topic and why your interp helps solve the flaws of the topic.
If I were to construct rules for debate they would include: 2 conditional worlds, no floating piks, aff's/cp's must have a solvency advocate.
K affs vs T-USfg
My historical tendencies (when I was younger) is towards liking K affs. I still love to listen to a fun k aff 1ac that is very topic specific. But I wasn't very active in debate from 2014-2016. The k aff seems to have proliferated in that time. I have been leaning more towards the negatives fairness claims since I returned. I think that the best way to describe my preferences at the moment is that I am in the middle waiting to be convinced in the round. BUT my voting record is currently leaning towards framework.
Prep stops when the email is sent or when the flash drive comes out of the computer. I will give grace period because I understand computers are weird sometimes. But if it takes more than a minute to resolve then I will hate you.
Speaker point scale:
29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.
29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.
29-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.
28.8-28.9 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.
28.6-28.7 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.
28.2-28.5 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.
27.9-28.1 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.
To help with speaker point inflation I will give .1 speaker point bonuses for things that I want to reward. These rewards will only happen if you explicitly ask me about them immediately after the round and before my rfd.
-Good disclosure practices (great cites / full text).
-Making the debate round pleasant (humor or kindness).
-Utah Jazz and stand-up comedian (Kumail Nanjiani, Hannibal Burress, Eugene Mirman, Bo Burnham, and John Mulaney) references are appreciated.
Go to judgephilosophies, tabroom apparently doesn't like the accent.
I did policy debate for my entire high school career, and I have judged debate for about two years. I will not tolerate oppressive or harmful speech.
I try to be a tabula rasa judge, and I am comfortable with most arguments. I prefer k's over straight up debate, but I will weigh framework arguments prior to kritiks.
Communication matters more than speed. Spreading is fine, just make sure that I can actually understand you and make sure that your arguments make sense.
Evidence is important, but so are analytics and extensions. You need to extend cards and explain your args if you want my vote. Please ensure to do impact work and clash with your opponents.
How I vote is entirely up to you. It's your round, your framework, your theory, and your work.
Yes to the email chain: email@example.com
!If you're using a bunch of acronyms don't assume I know what you mean! Don't start your speeches top speed. Slow down a little when reading blocks if you want me to know what you're saying (especially on theory and framework args)
Congress: I really value rebuttals. Constructives can do well in front of me, but if you give more than one speech in a round and both are constructives I'll feel like that's because you don't know how to be off script. Remember you are in a room with a bunch of other students.. it's hard for your judges to remember all of you. Be an active participant in questioning and the house to help yourself stand out.
"This round ... with us ... dedicated to 2890 ... the best there ever was."
Background: I debated for four years in high school cycling between LD and CX, I coached for several years cycling between LD and CX, and I currently debate in college.
At a high level: I generally view myself prioritizing technical concessions over truth. At the same time, for me to vote on an argument, the Toulmin model must be present. Claim, grounds, and warrant. For an argument to be 'dropped', what you are advocating for must meet this model.
My position on 'unconventional cases': Arguments are arguments ... Performance, advocacy, non-traditional, soft left, etc. are all arguments. Questions such as "does policymaking outweigh individual resistance?" or "Does activism come prior to ground?" are questions that are usually answered on a round to round basis.
Topicality, Theory, and Abuse: In order to win T or Theory you need to prove abuse. I won't vote for a 'better vision of debate' because frankly no one cares how I vote and me voting one way or another won't change communal norms. I also tend to defer to reasonability. Again, I tend to defer to reasonability.
Important procedural on new arguments: I am willing to reject new arguments. I probably won't reject the team but I will disregard the argument. At the same time, I only will do so if a team brings up the specific argument that was new and why that new argument is bad/should be disregarded. If the team that's answering the new argument doesn't explain this, I'll assume both sides are okay with the argument and continue judging as usual.
Kritiks: Go for the K. I run them and love them. When judging the K, I view the debate through the lens of framework. You have to have offensive reasons why your viewpoint and framing of the world come first. This includes going for policymaking good, epistemology first, or anything in between.
Permutations: They are a right the affirmative has as advocacy to check negative abuse. I defer to perms being an advocacy over a test of competition. In general, conditionality is good up to two advocacies, after that theory could start becoming a VI/cross applicable piece of the offense.
DAs/CPs: I'll be willing to vote on presumption a little more than others. I find that debaters generally lack the nuanced discussion for me to know with certainty whether the disadvantage will occur or not, thus, the risk of the disadvantage is sometimes enough. Actor, consult, etc. CPs are fair game. Well-developed net-benefit debates are always a classic.
Typing during CX: If you find my typing during your cross-examination I'm not ignoring the round. I am simply typing out feedback from the speech you presumably just presented. I may also be tidying up my flow.
*Speed in LD (if I'm in LD): The inclusivity of LD debate means that speed must be agreed upon between debaters. If your strategy is to outspread your opponent please abandon that now. If both debaters agree to speed however I can understand nearly all levels of speed. Clarity however is not the same and lacking that will result in me saying clear up to three times followed by me handing out low speaker points.