BIO:

Education:

BA in Philosophy, Peace Studies, & Communication Studies from Regis University

MA Communication Studies -K-State University

Debate Teaching/Coaching:

-Debate Coach @ Colorado Academy ('23 - present)

-College Debate Coach @ K-State for BP debate ('21-'23)

-Assistant Coach for WSD @ The Greenhill School ('20-'23)

- Instructor, VBI-San Diego '24

- Instructor, Harvard University - Harvard Debate Workshop '24

-Curriculum Coordinator & Top Lab Leader at Global Debate Symposium for WSD ('19-present)

-Instructor at Baylor Debate Institute for LD ('22)

-Instructor at Stanford National Forensics Institute (PF & Parli) ('19-'21)

PARADIGM
First and foremost I believe debate is about engagement and education. I highly value the role of charity in argumentation and the function of intellectual humility in debate.

NOTEs FOR ONLINE DEBATING:

1) You'll likely need to go slower

2) Be gracious to everyone, don't freak out if someone's Wi-Fi drops

3) I've reverted to flowing on paper--so signpost signpost signpost *See my sections on Cross-X & Speed*

You’ll see two distinct paradigms for WSD & LD/Policy in that order:

World Schools

I love World Schools Debate! This has by far become my favorite format of debate!

Do not run from the heart of the motion--instead, engage in the most salient and fruitful clashes. Weigh very clearly and don't forget to extend the principled/framework conversation throughout the entire debate (not just in the 1!). Ensure that you have a logical structure for the progression and development of the bench, work on developing and staying true to your team line. Work to weigh the round at the end--divide the round into dissectible and engaging sections that can be understood through your given principle or framework system. You are speaking to the judge as an image of a global, informed citizen--you cannot assume that I know all of the inner workings of the topic literature, even if I do; work to sell a clear story: make the implicit, explicit. World Schools Debate takes seriously each of the following: Strategy, Style, and Content. Many neglect strategy and style--too few develop enough depth for their content. Ensure that you take each judging area seriously.

Some thoughts on WSD

1. Prop Teams really need to prioritize establishing a clear comparative and beginning the weighing conversation in the Prop 3 to overcome the time-skew in the Opp Block. This involves spelling out clearly in the prop three not only what the major clashes in the round are but also what sort of voters I should prefer and why.

2. Weighing is a big deal and needs to happen on two levels. The first level has to do with the specific content of the round and the impacts (i.e., who is factually correct about the material debated and the characterizations that are most likely). The second level has to do with the mechanics leveraged in the substantives and defensive part of the round (i.e., independent of content—who did the better debating by relying on clear incentives, layered characterizations, and mechanisms). Most debates neglect this second level of weighing; these levels work together and complement each other.

3. Opposition teams should use the block strategically. This means that the material covered in the opp reply should not be a redundant repetition of the opp 3. One of these two speeches should be more demonstrative (the 3) and the other less defensive (the 4) — we can view them as cohesive but distinct because they prioritize different issues and methods. There is a ton of room to play around here, but bottom line is that I should not hear two back to back identical speeches.

4. Big fan of principled arguments, but lately I have found that teams are not doing a fantastic job weighing these arguments against practical arguments. The framework of the case and the argument should preemptively explain to me what I should prefer this *type* of argument over or against a practical argument (an independent reason to prefer you). This usually involves rhetorically and strategically outlining the importance of this principle because of its moral/value primacy (i.e., what is the principled impact to disregarding this argument). This said, winning your principle should not depend on you winning a prior practical argument.

5. Regrets motions are some of my favorite motions, but I find that teams really struggle with these. You are debating here with the power and retrospect and hindsight. To this end, watch out for arguments that say something is bad because it “will cause X;” rather, arguments should say this thing is bad because it “already caused X.” This does not mean that we cannot access conversations about the future in regrets motions—but we need to focus the majority of our framing on actually analyzing why an *already present/happened* event or phenomena is worthy of regret.

__________________________

LD & Policy Paradigm: Long story short "you do you." Details are provided. I'll listen to just about anything done well. Though I dislike tricks & am not a great judge to pref for theory debates. Some of these sections are more applicable to either LD or Policy but that should be intuitive.

General: I am very much a "flow" judge. Signposting is crucial. I do not extend arguments or draw links on my own. If you do not tell me and paint the story for me I will really despise doing the work for you.

Speaks: I am not afraid to give low point wins. The quality of the argument will always outway the persuasion that you use. It is ridiculous to vote for a team because they sound better. I will penalize racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist or ableist speech with low speaks. I don't disclose speaks. This seems arbitrary. I'm not confident why the practice of disclosing speaks has become a common request--but I think this is largely silly.

Speed: I am fine with speed; though I am not fine with bad clarity. More the half of the spreading debaters I listen to seriously neglect diction drills and clarity. Rapidly slurring cards together and ignoring clear sign-posting does not allow as much time as you think for the pen to put ink on the flow. I cannot tell you how many debates I have judged in the last two years where the entirety of CX time is spent by the opponent's trying to figure out what the other debater just said. I will only yell "clear" twice if you are going too fast for me--clarity has only become more important in the world of online debating. Recently, if I reach the point where I have to either say clear (or type it in the zoom chat) debaters get visibly frustrated. You have to choose between a judge who is capable of flowing your material or your desire to go so fast even when incomprehensible. In non-Zoom debates, typically nothing is too fast so long as your diction is good. If you see me stop flowing or if you notice my facial demeanor change this is a good indicator that your speed is too fast with not enough clarity. *Note my Section on Online Debating*

Value debate: I love philosophical clash! View my comments under Framework. Morality is not a value. It's just not. It is descriptive; debate requires normative frameworks.

Framework: Framework is very important to a good debate. Value clash should start here. This comes with two caveats. 1) Know what your authors are actually saying. I am a Philosophy major. I might penalize you for running content that you misconstrue. 2) Be able to explain, with your own analytics, any dense framework that you run. I will default to comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Some level of intervention is required on the part of the judge unless the framework debate is carried all the way to the 2AR--don't make me intervene. Make sure you return to the framework debate! (Especially important for me in LD)

Theory: You do you. Not a fan of frivolous theory, tbh; but you're in charge (more or less). Make the interp clear and the violation clear. I want to be clear here though: I do not enjoy theory debates, I think the proliferating practice of theory debates and competing underviews is net-bad for the activity. Additionally, if theory is a consistent leg of your strategy as a debater, that is fine, just do not pref me. I will not be a good judge for your preferred strategy. I'll also concede here that I am really poor at analyzing tricks debates and I am not a fan of the practice of lists of theory spikes--debate should be, at its core, about engagement not tricks for evasion. This is not to say that I have no understanding of how to adjudicate competing interps or theory debates, but it is not my comfort zone and I dislike the practice.

Cross-X: I flow cross-ex. I do consider it a substantive portion of the debate and cross-ex is binding. I believe that too many debaters waste their cross-ex time by desperately trying to get some understanding of their opponent's case because of the increasing absurdity of some case strategies and/or the lack of clarity that accompanies some speed. There are fundamentally three types of overarching cross-x questions: 1) Clarification, 2) Rebuttal, 3) Set-up/Concession; they rank in weakness/effectiveness from 1-3, with 1 being a non-strategic use of time.

Plans/CPs IN LD: This is fine. I will not usually listen to a theory debate on plans bad or CP bad for LD. PICs are fine. Once again, If you do it right you are fine. Again: If your strategy is to run a theory argument against a CP, a Plan, a PIC, or the like I may not necessarily be super happy about this *See my section on theory*. Debate is about engagement, not evasion--but I will listen to anything to the best of my ability.

K's: Good K debates are wonderful! Bad ones are the worst debates to watch. I love to see something Unique but relevant if you default to K. Please very clearly tell me what the Alt looks like; "vote neg" is not an alt!!! You gotta give me some function beyond “give me the ballot.” I am comfortable with most critical theory and post-modern scholarship. In particular, I have well-established academic training in phenomenology-informed critical theory, metaphysical frameworks that take strong ontological positions, and Deleuzian scholarship writ large. I can draw the links for you; Please do not make me. If you choose to run a critical theory, you should understand it well. I have experience working with critical theory and have worked alongside Dr. George Yancy firsthand on Critical Race Theory--I cannot stress this enough: good K debaters do their authors and their authors' scholarship justice by understanding the primary texts and scholarship inside and outside of the round. If your only exposure to a K author is a list of cards, you are philosophically unequipped to meaningfully engage in that author's scholarship, and unprepared for a good K debate.

This in no way means that you have to be a PhD student on Baudrillard to run a Baudrillard K, it just means you have to actually do your homework and trust your reasonable knowledge of the case-dependent scholarship because you didn't take shortcuts in understanding the K-Author, and your main textual engagement with the K-Author goes well beyond a series of cards, especially cards someone else cut.

Evidence: Be ethical with your evidence. This is serious stuff.

Weighing and Impacts: Spell out the voters for me. It's that simple. If you give me an impact calc, that is super beneficial for you.****When I give my RFD in prelims, you are more than welcome to ask questions. However, if you argue with me or begin to debate with me, I will give you a 20 on speaks--no joke Do not waste my time.

* I will not tolerate any rhetoric that is racist, sexist, or homophobic. Taking morally repugnant positions is not in your favor.

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

//shree

I am a social studies & math teacher who is no longer involved in full-time argument coaching. I am judging this tournament because my wife, a mentor, or a former student asked me to.

I previously served as a DOD at the high school level and as a hired gun for college debate programs. During this time, I had the privilege of working with Baker Award recipients, TOC champions in CX, a NFA champion in LD, and multiple NDT First-Round teams; I was very much ‘in the cards.’ Debate used to be everything to me, and I fancied myself as a ‘lifer.’ I held the naïve view that this activity was the pinnacle of critical thinking and unequivocally produced the best and brightest scholars compared to any other curricular or extracurricular pursuit.

My perspective has shifted since I’ve reduced my competitive involvement with the community. Debate has provided me with some incredible mentors, colleagues, and friends that I would trade for nothing. However, several of the practices prevalent in modern debate risk making the activity an academically unserious echo chamber. Many in the community have traded in flowing for rehearsing scripts, critical thinking for virtue signaling, adjudication for idol worship, and research for empty posturing. I can’t pretend that I wasn’t guilty of adopting or teaching some of the trendy practices that are rapidly devolving the activity, but I am no longer willing to keep up the charade that what we do here is pedagogically sound.

This ‘get off my lawn’ ethos colors some of my idiosyncrasies if you have me in the back of the room. Here are guidelines to maximize your speaker points and win percentage:

1 – Flow. Number arguments. Answer arguments in the order that they were presented. Minimize overviews.

2 – Actually research. Most of you don’t, and it shows. Know what you are talking about and be able to use the vocabulary of your opponents. Weave theory with examples. Read a book. Being confidently clueless or dodgy in CX is annoying, not compelling.

3 – Please try. Read cards from this year when possible; be on the cutting edge. Say new and interesting things, even if they’re about old or core concepts. Adapt your arguments to make them more ‘you.’ Reading cards from before 2020 or regurgitating my old blocks will bore me.

4 – Emphasize clarity. This applies to both your thoughts and speaking. When I return, my topic knowledge will be superficial, and I will be out of practice with listening to the fastest speakers. Easy-to-transcribe soundbytes, emphasis in sentences, and pen time is a must. I cannot transcribe bots who shotgun 3-word arguments at 400wpm nor wannabe philosopher-activists who speak in delirious, winding paragraphs.

5 – Beautify your speech docs. Inconsistent, poor formatting is an eyesore. So is word salad highlighting without the semblance of sentence structure.

6 – No dumpster fires. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. I find unnecessarily escalating CX, heckling opponents, zoom insults, authenticity tests, and screenshot insertions uncompelling. I neither have the resources nor interest in launching an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, or pref sheets.

7 – Don’t proliferate trivial voting issues. I will evaluate a well-evidenced topicality violation; conditionality can be a VI; in-round harassment and slurs are not trivial. However, I have a higher threshold than most with regards to voting issues surrounding an author’s twitter beef, poorly warranted specification arguments, trigger warnings, and abominations I classify as ‘LD tricks.’ If you are on the fence about whether your procedural or gateway issue is trivial, it probably is; unless it’s been dropped in multiple speeches, my preferred remedy is to reject the argument, not the team. Depending on how deranged it is, I may just ignore it completely. I strongly prefer substantive debates.

8 – Be well rounded. The divide between ‘policy,’ ‘critical,’ and ‘performance’ debate is artificial. Pick options that are strategic and specific to the arguments your opponents are reading.

9 – Not everything is a ‘DA.’ Topicality standards are not ‘DAs.’ Critique links are not ‘DAs’ and the alternative is not a ‘CP.’ A disadvantage requires, at a minimum, uniqueness, a link, and an impact. Describing your arguments as ‘DAs’ when they are not will do you a disservice, both in terms of your strategy and your speaker points.

10 – I’m old. I won’t know who you are, and frankly, I don’t care. Good debaters can give bad speeches, and the reverse can also be true. Rep has no correlation to the speaker points you will receive. 28.5 is average. 29 is solid. 29.5 is exceptional. 30 means you’ve restored my belief in the pedagogical value of policy debate.

Hey! I debated throughout high school, competing in both PF and LD, and did policy at Emory for a year. If there are any parts of this that need further clarification, feel free to email me before round (sabrinacallahan18@gmail.com) or ask me in person before the round starts. Enjoy!

General:

- Do not be blatantly offensive in round. Racism, sexism, ableism, etc. are unacceptable and are a bad norm for debate and life in general. This can cost you speaks or the round in general.

- Go with the style of debate that makes you most comfortable. At the end of the day, the debate round is yours and it is not within my jurisdiction to impose a certain style on anybody for the sake of one round. Regardless of what you choose to read, just focus on the flow because that’s what I’ll be doing as a judge. I’ll flow whatever you choose to read as long as I can understand what you’re saying. With that being said, make sure to slow down for tag lines and keep your spreading intelligible.

- Trigger warnings do matter.

- Doing a lot of weighing between arguments is always a plus.

- I haven’t read lit on this topic, so keep this in mind and don’t assume I’ll know what a specific card is or what certain topic related lingo means.

- While I recognize that debate is a game, make sure to keep this an educational space where positive norms prevail. This seems pretty obvious, but just be aware of the importance of being a decent person in (and out) round. For instance, if you’re a varsity going against a novice debating for the first time, don’t absolutely destroy them for your own pleasure.

- I’m trying to work on this, but I tend to not flow during CX, so if there’s anything super important that you want me to write down, emphasize this.

- Quality over quantity of arguments.

Frameworks:

- I used to not be a huge fan of framework debate, but increasingly this has changed and I tend to really pay attention to this element of the flow when making my decision, so make sure to keep the framework debate as clean as possible or else it makes it more ambiguous on my end to evaluate the round since it forces me to do some judge intervention in the sense that I then have to decide what mechanism to evaluate the round. I like to see framework clash from the beginning of the round, rather than just being thrown into the last 30 seconds of a rebuttal. Whether this applies to lay rounds or more technical rounds, establishing your framework from the beginning makes me more likely to vote for you.

Lay debate:

- People often shame lay debate, but I think it’s cool and is probably the type of debate that translates best into the real world. Don’t feel that you have to read anything besides this if you aren’t comfortable with it for the sake of impressing anybody in round. I’ll still flow the round as I would any other round, so things such as weighing, analytics, line by line, etcetera do matter. Also, no matter what you do, please don’t go new in the 2NR/2AR (please). I’ll just sit there awkwardly because I can’t evaluate anything.

K’s:

- I’m a huge fan of these so I’m always down for these kinds of rounds. However, just saying that “capitalism, the patriarchy, etc” are bad is not enough to win the round. Have strong and specific links or else the K means nothing to me.

- Concrete alts have more value than ones that just advocate for a pure rejection of said issue, even though I recognize that some Ks make arguments as to why this is uniquely bad and I am open to them.

- Don’t just respond to a K by saying “perm” with no cards or analytics to support it. This does little for all parties involved in the round.

- Don’t assume that either myself or your opponent have read the literature you used. Explaining your arguments will always be a safer option than not.

- Have an ROB/ROJ that is as clear as you can possibly make it.

- Most important of all- be familiar with what you’re reading.

Theory/ Tricks:

- On the K vs theory debate, make sure your shells are calling out legitimate abuse and explain why this abuse impedes the pedagogical benefits of the K. A fair amount of weighing must be done here, or else the round just gets super messy on both ends. I don’t assume that one is higher than the other, but if theory is read specifically against a K, I will evaluate theory as an indict to the K if no weighing arguments are made.

- If you read a shell, make sure you have all parts of the shell and don’t assume that certain things are implied (ie. that education and fairness are voters) or else it’ll be highly likely that you’ll lose on it.

- Condo is a good norm

- Not a huge fan of reasonability, so it’ll take good justifications to get me to buy this argument.

- I’m more inclined to drop the arg than to drop the debater, though this is subject to change depending on the circumstance.

- Have specific interps (ex: “they must do x” instead of “they didn’t do x”) or else you don’t give your opponent a legitimate way to engage with the shell and you force them to spend time trying to dodge abuse, rather than just making it very clear what you interpret to be a good norm for debate. In the case that your opponent has a super blippy interp, I think it’s totally valid to call this out as abusive.

- I don’t read them myself, but I think tricks are cool so have at it if this is your thing. If you make me smile with your creativity, I’ll award you with higher speaks.

Topicality:

- I’m also a huge fan of this kind of debate, so feel free to go for this.

- Absent sources it makes it impossible for what you’re reading to have any validity.

- Assume I’ll evaluate the round through competing interps

Disclosure:

- I’m not the biggest fan of it, but I also don’t really care enough to be repulsed by it. However, I do think that debaters from big schools are the primary beneficiaries from this and will be more inclined to support arguments against it.

Speaks:

- I don’t have a formulaic way of assessing how many speaks I’ll give you, but unless you’re super rude in round or make a fatal mistake, I’m generous with speaks (average range of 28-29.5).

PF Paradigm:

- I spent most of high school doing PF, so I guess technically speaking this is the category I’m most familiar with, even though I haven’t sat through a PF round in a while. I’ll flow the round as I would any other round, except I’ll focus more on evidence since it’s a bigger component of PF than it is in other categories. However, I don’t want to sit through an hour of just four people screaming at each other about which card is more important. Focus on the strength of arguments and the warrants behind them.

Policy paradigm:

- To be completely honest, I’m new to policy and am not too familiar with all of the nuances of it. I’ll flow the round to the best of my abilities, but don’t assume that I will know all of your jargon, even though I think LD has somewhat exposed me to a lot of concepts in policy. Be organized and tell me how to evaluate the round. I’ll apply most of the ways from how I evaluate other rounds into policy, so if you have any specific questions don’t be afraid to ask before the round starts to avoid any confusion.

jeremy.hammond@pinecrest.edu, pinecrestdebatedocs@gmail.com (please put both).

I have experience judging most policy debates that would occur. I have found that there is really only one argument type that I currently won't evaluate which are wipeout based arguments which prioritize saving unknown life to that of saving known life (human/non-human life).

I haven't calculated the percentages but I below are some feelings of where I am in various types of debates.

Policy aff v Core DA - Even

Policy aff v Process CP - 60% for the neg (mostly due to poor affirmative debating rather than argument preference)

Policy aff v K - Probably have voted neg more mostly due to poor affirmative debating or dropped tricks. Side note i'm pretty against the you link you lose style of negative framework, but I have regretfully have voted for it.

Theory v Policy Neg - Probably voted more neg than aff when the aff has a non-sense counter-interpretation (i.e. CI - you get 2 condo). When the aff is just going for condo bad with a more strict counter-interpretation I have voted aff more.

K aff v FW - Probably even to voted aff more (like due to poor negative debating)

K aff v K Neg - Probably judged these the least honestly they don't stick out for me to remember how I voted. I have definitely voted for the Cap K against K affs but I don't know the percentages.

K aff v Policy Neg - (Think State good, Alt Bad, or CP) have judged but can't remember.

I have plenty of more specific thoughts about debate, but mostly those don't play into my decisions. I will add more as the year progresses if something bothers me in a round.

David Heidt

Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart

davidheidt@gmail.com

Some thoughts about the fiscal redistribution topic:

Having only judged practice debates so far, I like the topic. But it seems harder to be Aff than in a typical year. All three affirmative areas are pretty controversial, and there's deep literature engaging each area on both sides.

All of the thoughts I've posted below are my preferences, not rules that I'll enforce in the debate. Everything is debatable. But my preferences reflect the types of arguments that I find more persuasive.

1. I am unlikely to view multiple conditional worlds favorably. I think the past few years have demonstrated an inverse relationship between the number of CPs in the 1nc and the quality of the debate. The proliferation of terrible process CPs would not have been possible without unlimited negative conditionality. I was more sympathetic to negative strategy concerns last year where there was very little direct clash in the literature. But this topic is a lot different. I don't see a problem with one conditional option. I can maybe be convinced about two, but I like Tim Mahoney's rule that you should only get one. More than two will certainly make the debate worse. The fact that the negative won substantially more debates last year with with no literature support whatsoever suggests there is a serious problem with multiple conditional options.

Does that mean the neg auto-loses if they read three conditional options? No, debating matters - but I'll likely find affirmative impact arguments on theory a lot more persuasive if there is more than one (or maybe two) CPs in the debate.

2. I am not sympathetic about affirmative plan vagueness. Debate is at it's best with two prepared teams, and vagueness is a way to avoid clash and discourage preparation. If your plan is just the resolution, that tells me very little and I will be looking for more details. I am likely to interpret your plan based upon the plan text, highlighted portions of your solvency evidence that say what the plan does, and clarifications in cx. That means both what you say and the highlighted portions of your evidence are fair game for arguments about CP competition, DA links, and topicality. This is within reason - the plan text is still important, and I'm not going to hold the affirmative responsible for a word PIC that's based on a piece of solvency evidence or an offhand remark. And if cx or evidence is ambiguous because the negative team didn't ask the right questions or didn't ask follow up questions, I'm not going to automatically err towards the negative's interpretation either. But if the only way to determine the scope of the plan's mandates is by looking to solvency evidence or listening to clarification in CX, then a CP that PICs out of those clarified mandates is competitive, and a topicality violation that says those clarified mandates aren't topical can't be beaten with "we meet - plan in a vacuum".

How might this play out on this topic? Well, if the negative team asks in CX, "do you mandate a tax increase?", and the affirmative response is "we don't specify", then I think that means the affirmative does not, in fact, mandate a tax increase under any possible interpretation of the plan, that they cannot read addons based on increasing taxes, or say "no link - we increase taxes" to a disadvantage that says the affirmative causes a spending tradeoff. If the affirmative doesn't want to mandate a specific funding mechanism, that might be ok, but that means evidence about normal means of passing bills is relevant for links, and the affirmative can't avoid that evidence by saying the plan fiats out of it. There can be a reasonable debate over what might constitute 'normal means' for funding legislation, but I'm confident that normal means in a GOP-controlled House is not increasing taxes.

On the other hand, if they say "we don't specify our funding mechanism in the plan," but they've highlighted "wealth tax key" warrants in their solvency evidence, then I think this is performative cowardice and honestly I'll believe whatever the negative wants me to believe in that case. Would a wealth tax PIC be competitive in that scenario? Yes, without question. Alternatively, could the negative say "you can't access your solvency evidence because you don't fiat a wealth tax?" Also, yes. As I said, I am unsympathetic to affirmative vagueness, and you can easily avoid this situation just by defending your plan.

Does this apply to the plan's agent? I think this can be an exception - in other words, the affirmative could reasonably say "we're the USFG" if they don't have an agent-based advantage or solvency evidence that explicitly requires one agent. I think there are strong reasons why agent debates are unique. Agent debates in a competitive setting with unlimited fiat grossly misrepresent agent debates in the literature, and requiring the affirmative to specify beyond what their solvency evidence requires puts them in an untenable position. But if the affirmative has an agent-based advantage, then it's unlikely (though empirically not impossible) that I'll think it's ok for them to not defend that agent against an agent CP.

3. I believe that any negative strategy that revolves around "it's hard to be neg so therefore we need to do the 1ac" is not a real strategy. A CP that results in the possibility of doing the entire mandate of the plan is neither legitimate nor competitive. Immediacy and certainty are not the basis of counterplan competition, no matter how many terrible cards are read to assert otherwise. If you think "should" means "immediate" then you'd likely have more success with a 2nr that was "t - should" in front of me than you would with a CP competition argument based on that word. Permutations are tests of competition, and as such, do not have to be topical. "Perms can be extra topical but not nontopical" has no basis in anything. Perms can be any combination of all of the plan and part or all of the CP. But even if they did have to be topical, reading a card that says "increase" = "net increase" is not a competition argument, it's a topicality argument. A single affirmative card defining the "increase" as "doesn't have to be a net increase" beats this CP in its entirety. Even if the negative interpretation of "net increase" is better for debate it does not change what the plan does, and if the aff says they do not fiat a net increase, then they do not fiat a net increase. If you think you have an argument, you need to go for T, not the CP. A topicality argument premised on "you've killed our offsets CP ground" probably isn't a winner, however. The only world I could ever see the offsets CP be competitive in is if the plan began with "without offsetting fiscal redistribution in any manner, the USFG should..."

I was surprised by the number of process CPs turned out at camps this year. This topic has a lot of well-supported ways to directly engage each of the three areas. And most of the camp affs are genuinely bad ideas with a ridiculous amount of negative ground. Even a 1nc that is exclusively an economy DA and case defense is probably capable of winning most debates. I know we just had a year where there were almost no case debates, but NATO was a bad topic with low-quality negative strategies, and I think it's time to step up. This topic is different. And affs are so weak they have to resort to reading dedevelopment as their advantage. I am FAR more likely to vote aff on "it's already hard to be aff, and your theory of competition makes it impossible" on this topic than any other.

This doesn't mean I'm opposed to PICs, or even most counterplans. And high quality evidence can help sway my views about both the legitimacy and competitiveness of any CP. But if you're coming to the first tournament banking on the offsets CP or "do the plan if prediction markets say it's good CP", you should probably rethink that choice.

But maybe I'm wrong! Maybe the first set of tournaments will see lots of teams reading small, unpredictable affs that run as far to the margins of the topic as possible. I hope not. The less representative the affirmative is of the topic literature, the more likely it is that I'll find process CPs to be an acceptable response. If you're trying to discourage meaningful clash through your choice of affirmative, then maybe strategies premised on 'clash is bad' are more reasonable.

4. I'm ambivalent on the question of whether fiscal redistribution requires both taxes and transfers. The cards on both sides of this are okay. I'm not convinced by the affirmative that it's too hard to defend a tax, but I'm also not convinced by the negative that taxes are the most important part of negative ground.

5. I'm skeptical of the camp affirmatives that suggest either that Medicare is part of Social Security, or that putting Medicare under Social Security constitutes "expanding" Social Security. I'll approach any debate about this with an open mind, because I've certainly been wrong before. But I am curious about what the 2ac looks like. I can see some opportunity for the aff on the definition of "expanding," but I don't think it's great. Aff cards that confuse Social Security with the Social Security Act or Social Security Administration or international definitions of lower case "social security" miss the mark entirely.

6. Critiques on this topic seem ok. I like critiques that have topic-specific links and show why doing the affirmative is undesirable. I dislike critiques that are dependent on framework for the same reason I dislike process counterplans. Both strategies are cop-outs - they both try to win without actually debating the merits of the affirmative. I find framework arguments that question the truth value of specific affirmative claims far more persuasive than framework arguments that assert that policy-making is the wrong forum.

7. There's a LOT of literature defending policy change from a critical perspective on this topic. I've always been skeptical of planless affirmatives, but they seem especially unwarranted this year. I think debate doesn't function if one side doesn't debate the assigned topic. Debating the topic requires debating the entire topic, including defending a policy change from the federal government. Merely talking about fiscal redistribution in some way doesn't even come close. It's possible to defend policy change from a variety of perspectives on this topic, including some that would critique ways in which the negative traditionally responds to policy proposals.

Having said that, if you're running a planless affirmative and find yourself stuck with me in the back of the room, I still do my best to evaluate all arguments as fairly as a I can. It's a debate round, and not a forum for me to just insert my preferences over the arguments of the debaters themselves. But some arguments will resonate more than others.

Old thoughts

Some thoughts about the NATO topic:

1. Defending the status quo seems very difficult. The topic seems aff-biased without a clear controversy in the literature, without many unique disadvantages, and without even credible impact defense against some arguments. The water topic was more balanced (and it was not balanced at all).

This means I'm more sympathetic to multiple conditional options than I might otherwise would be. I'm also very skeptical of plan vagueness and I'm unlikely to be very receptive towards any aff argument that relies on it.

Having said that, some of the 1ncs I've seen that include 6 conditional options are absurd and I'd be pretty receptive to conditionality in that context, or in a context where the neg says something like hegemony good and the security K in the same debate.

And an aff-biased topic is not a justification for CPs that compete off of certainty. The argument that "it's hard to be negative so therefore we get to do your aff" is pretty silly. I haven't voted on process CP theory very often, but at the same time, it's pretty rare for a 2a to go for it in the 2ar. The neg can win this debate in front of me, but I lean aff on this.

There are also parts of this topic that make it difficult to be aff, especially the consensus requirement of the NAC. So while the status quo is probably difficult to defend, I think the aff is at a disadvantage against strategies that test the consensus requirement.

2. Topicality Article 5 is not an argument. I could be convinced otherwise if someone reads a card that supports the interpretation. I have yet to see a card that comes even close. I think it is confusing that 1ncs waste time on this because a sufficient 2ac is "there is no violation because you have not read evidence that actually supports your interpretation." The minimum threshold would be for the negative to have a card defining "cooperation with NATO" as "requires changing Article 5". That card does not exist, because no one actually believes that.

3. Topicality on this topic seems very weak as a 2nr choice, as long as the affirmative meets basic requirements such as using the DOD and working directly with NATO as opposed to member states. It's not unwinnable because debating matters, but the negative seems to be on the wrong side of just about every argument.

4. Country PICs do not make very much sense to me on this topic. No affirmative cooperates directly with member states, they cooperate with the organization, given that the resolution uses the word 'organization' and not 'member states'. Excluding a country means the NAC would say no, given that the excluded country gets to vote in the NAC. If the country PIC is described as a bilateral CP with each member state, that makes more sense, but then it obviously does not go through NATO and is a completely separate action, not a PIC.

5. Is midterms a winnable disadvantage on the NATO topic? I am very surprised to see negative teams read it, let alone go for it. I can't imagine that there's a single person in the United States that would change their vote or their decision to turn out as a result of the plan. The domestic focus link argument seems completely untenable in light of the fact that our government acts in the area of foreign policy multiple times a day. But I have yet to see a midterms debate, so maybe there's special evidence teams are reading that is somehow omitted from speech docs. It's hard for me to imagine what a persuasive midterms speech on a NATO topic looks like though.

What should you do if you're neg? I think there are some good CPs, some good critiques, and maybe impact turns? NATO bad is likely Russian propaganda, but it's probably a winnable argument.

******

Generally I try to evaluate arguments fairly and based upon the debaters' explanations of arguments, rather than injecting my own opinions. What follows are my opinions regarding several bad practices currently in debate, but just agreeing with me isn't sufficient to win a debate - you actually have to win the arguments relative to what your opponents said. There are some things I'll intervene about - death good, behavior meant to intimidate or harass your opponents, or any other practice that I think is harmful for a high school student classroom setting - but just use some common sense.

Thoughts about critical affs and critiques:

Good debates require two prepared teams. Allowing the affirmative team to not advocate the resolution creates bad debates. There's a disconnect in a frighteningly large number of judging philosophies I've read where judges say their favorite debates are when the negative has a specific strategy against an affirmative, and yet they don't think the affirmative has to defend a plan. This does not seem very well thought out, and the consequence is that the quality of debates in the last few years has declined greatly as judges increasingly reward teams for not engaging the topic.

Fairness is the most important impact. Other judging philosophies that say it's just an internal link are poorly reasoned. In a competitive activity involving two teams, assuring fairness is one of the primary roles of the judge. The fundamental expectation is that judges evaluate the debate fairly; asking them to ignore fairness in that evaluation eliminates the condition that makes debate possible. If every debate came down to whoever the judge liked better, there would be no value to participating in this activity. The ballot doesn't do much other than create a win or a loss, but it can definitely remedy the harms of a fairness violation. The vast majority of other impacts in debate are by definition less important because they never depend upon the ballot to remedy the harm.

Fairness is also an internal link - but it's an internal link to establishing every other impact. Saying fairness is an internal link to other values is like saying nuclear war is an internal link to death impacts. A loss of fairness implies a significant, negative impact on the activity and judges that require a more formal elaboration of the impact are being pedantic.

Arguments along the lines of 'but policy debate is valueless' are a complete nonstarter in a voluntary activity, especially given the existence of multiple alternative forms of speech and debate. Policy debate is valuable to some people, even if you don't personally share those values. If your expectation is that you need a platform to talk about whatever personally matters to you rather than the assigned topic, I encourage you to try out a more effective form of speech activity, such as original oratory. Debate is probably not the right activity for you if the condition of your participation is that you need to avoid debating a prepared opponent.

The phrase "fiat double-bind" demonstrates a complete ignorance about the meaning of fiat, which, unfortunately, appears to be shared by some judges. Fiat is merely the statement that the government should do something, not that they would. The affirmative burden of proof in a debate is solely to demonstrate the government should take a topical action at a particular time. That the government would not actually take that action is not relevant to any judge's decision.

Framework arguments typically made by the negative for critiques are clash-avoidance devices, and therefore are counterproductive to education. There is no merit whatsoever in arguing that the affirmative does not get to weigh their plan. Critiques of representations can be relevant, but only in relation to evaluating the desirability of a policy action. Representations cannot be separated from the plan - the plan is also a part of the affirmative's representations. For example, the argument that apocalyptic representations of insecurity are used to justify militaristic solutions is asinine if the plan includes a representation of a non-militaristic solution. The plan determines the context of representations included to justify it.

Thoughts about topicality:

Limited topics make for better topics. Enormous topics mean that it's much harder to be prepared, and that creates lower quality debates. The best debates are those that involve extensive topic research and preparation from both sides. Large topics undermine preparation and discourage cultivating expertise. Aff creativity and topic innovation are just appeals to avoid genuine debate.

Thoughts about evidence:

Evidence quality matters. A lot of evidence read by teams this year is underlined in such a way that it's out of context, and a lot of evidence is either badly mistagged or very unqualified. On the one hand, I want the other team to say this when it's true. On the other hand, if I'm genuinely shocked at how bad your evidence is, I will probably discount it.

Flexible

I debated policy four years for Burlington High School in Vermont.
-Attended Northwestern's Z' Sophomores, UMich 7 Week Juniors, DDI Senior Assistants + Serrano/Strange. 
-Qualified for the TOC as a junior and senior.
-Received bids and speaker awards at the Bronx, Lakeland, Georgetown Day, The Glenbrooks, Lexington, Harvard, Emory, Blake.

Debated 1 tournament for Vermont in 2016 on the college climate change topic. Went for queer theory k, slammed some poems on the neg. Read meat tax/ anthro on the aff. 

I debated 2 semesters for Emory, 2007 and 2009 on the college Middle East policy and Nuclear Weapons topics. I have periodically judged HS debates and college novice/JV debates over the years, most recently for Vermont. I love debate, and I look forward to more involvement in the activity. 

Debating as a 2N for a small HS with little coaching or resources, I went for T/framework/theory and process counterplans often (Consult Japan, Sunsets CP). That means I like these arguments, but I hate seeing them argued poorly.

I can fw the K. I was in the finals of the DDI tournament going for Foucault p much every debate. My freshman year on ocean policy I went for gendered language a bunch (*fisherpeople), and I read a performance K called the Punisher featuring Jessica Kulynych and the rhymes of Rage Against the Machine. 

My default ideology in my debate career was that the resolution is the baseline for all theory arguments. Predictable limits are key. I think there is value to switch-side debate, and affs should probably have a plan text (though the latter, like everything except for speech/prep time, is up for debate.) Plan-focused debate is good. In depth case/disad debates are usually the best. I think PICS are good. I think conditionality is fine, but I could be persuaded to vote for conditionality/multiple frameworks bad with dispositionality* as a counter-interperetation.

My politics have probably gotten more radical over the years. I have followed what's been going on in college policy debate with great interest. 

I def like smart K debate with well-articulated links generated from the 1AC and the aff's performance.  I can definitely be persuaded that discourse, methodology, ontology, systematic problems like white supremacy/the patriarchy are more important than simulated policymaking education.

I think the framework interpretation "debates about the topic/plan + debates about debate" could be a reasonable limit. I find the old Louisville thesis "we can't change the state, but we can change the state of debate" compelling. 

Be smart and engaging. Clash is good. I will listen, flow and be open-minded. I can flow the fastest speakers, but I do have ADD, so just be sure to differentiate arguments, enunciate cites/tags please. I'll holler "clear" if I can't comprehend. 

I think policy debate is the greatest game ever invented. That said, it's hard; it's exhausting. I have respect for all debaters putting in the work. I tend to prefer empathetic, compassionate, nice debaters, but I'm also conscious of the problems with respectability politics.

No one is a blank slate. I'm a queer white Jewishish man. I won't tolerate racist, homophobic, misogynistic, or transphobic speech--I'll listen to your arguments, but I'll tank your speaks.

At the risk of openly identifying as a radical point faerie, I try to be encouraging and generally give good speaker points.  

Policy debater for 4 years at Cypress Bay High School, 2014-2018. Johns Hopkins University '22 but not debating. Qualified to the TOC twice and debated right-of-center but am open in general.

Put me on the email chain pls: lkot1004@gmail.com

General

Tech > truth - Even if I don't necessarily agree with the argument, if you're winning it, that's what matters most, assuming there's an explanation (argument = claim + warrant + impact). A dropped argument is true provided there's a re-explanation that hits the 3 parts. I love smart analytics and clever spin on cards, especially when debating against less fleshed-out (by the other team) but higher quality evidence.

Sound smart - If you've done the research/know your evidence, this is the best way to get good speaks or come across persuasively in front of me. It's most persuasive when you actually know what your ev says and what reasons it gives, and can evaluate theirs as well (rehighlting, calling out lack of warrants, qualifications, etc.)

Line-by-line - You can be very smart but not be organized, which won't help. Line your arguments up in a coherent manner and you'll do well in front of me. Answer arguments in the order of the line-by-line (usually starts with 2AC order of responses to offcase and 1NC order of responses on-case)

Arms Sales - I haven't judged on this topic yet, so spell out your acronyms at some point, but this is a topic I feel pretty comfortable with. I love good Topicality debates, but don't assume I know the nuances of your definition/model of debate under that topic without explaining it to me.

**I prefer to be able to evaluate a debate solely based on the arguments provided rather than reading through the evidence after a round! How you debate in the round is most important (your technical manipulation of arguments and responses/offense and defense) not how good your unexplained cards are. I said it before but smart analytics and spin can go a long way.

Specifics

As a 2N, I primarily went for DAs, CPs, and T, but I'm open to and have judged whatever. I love good case debate, no matter what kind of aff it is. I'm not super well-versed across K lit but know some from debating it many times/summers at camp. I will evaluate the debate based on what the 2NR/2AR tell me, as long as there are clear lines drawn to the previous speeches (warrants that are recognizable from previous speeches unless the ev was just read before). Impact calculus, framing arguments with justifications, etc. all are essential for me leaning one way over the other in th end.

*This part is largely identical to my brother, Tyler Kotler's, paradigm (also Cypress Bay '18)

DAs:

I love a good DA debate, or DA/case 2NR. These are a great time to sit down on the impact calc/turns case, and beat back thin 1AR warrants on each part of the DA. Don't forget to spend time on the case with defense/mitigation because this is essential to the DA story outweighing that of the aff.

If warrants or parts of the DA are covered poorly in the 2NR, a strong 2AR CAN beat the DA with only defense and a "risk of the advantage outweighs" story.

CPs:

I love me a good CP/DA 2NR strategy. I feel like, when executed right, the CP can do a good job mopping up the offense on the case without even having to do case work, and the DA outweighs any residual risk of a solvency deficit (or vice versa depending on the 2NR/2AR spin).

I definitely like to hear most CPs, but am definitely conscious that many may be illegitimate. Although neg leaning on CP theory, the affirmative can decisively win these debates against pretty obviously cheaty CPs or against a neg that doesn't clash on the subpoints of the theory debate.

On the aff, especially vs process CPs, don't just say perm do both, perm do the CP and move on. Setting up smart permutations and defending them can sometimes solve the net benefit, and the aff should set up a standard for competition in these debates (textual, functional, etc).

Courts affs that say USFG in the plan text have been sneaky this year and last. I can be convinced that the aff's solvency/advantages talk about using the courts and creating CP competition based on this.

T:

Clean, coherent T debates are great to watch as well. I'm persuaded by competing interpretations, offense/defense paradigm but reasonability can be won when fleshed out better than the neg's model. However, a stronger 2AR is often winning your counter-interp and a strong piece of offense you can weigh against the neg's with defense to theirs. For example, this may be an aff ground standard: why certain affs that the neg limits but are included in your CI are essential to any aff chance of victory or are key to any educational/important discussion under the topic.

On the neg, I don't necessarily have a preference to, say, limits over ground as a standard. Both can access pretty strong internal links to their impacts depending on the interp/CI, but limits has definitely seemed to be a go-to for many neg teams recently.

Case:

Case debate is a beautiful art when focused on. Smart 1NC arguments, both analytic or carded, can start a great case debate that is fun to watch and I'll be inclined to make a very thoughtful decision on, supposing the 2AC doesn't entirely blow them off (though I do understand efficiency, especially against many offcase), and the block decides to spend time on extending the important arguments in-depth. Here, the 2NR/2AR can have a great battle over warrants, offense, and defense from multiple angles, i.e. strength of the internal link vs some impact defense, etc.

K:

I'm relatively familiar with the basic ones (cap, security, etc) and least familiar with high theory (Lacan, Baudrillard, etc), so I definitely require greater explanation for these.

Unless the negative is significantly ahead on framework, I tend to side with the aff being able to weigh the case, and I feel like the aff can often collapse into the middle ground (rhetoric matters, but shouldn't exclude process of weighing impacts) - fairness and cost benefit analysis arguments make a lot of sense here. 1ar's are often blippy on framework, though, and the neg can definitely capitalize in the 2nr on this.

Please do not disguise tricky K arguments until the 2nr, make them blips in a long 2nc overview, etc - be clear with them. The "alt solves the case" shouldn't suddenly materialize in the 2nr, and I'll be lenient towards 2ar explanations against it if that's the case. Spend the time in the block to unpack these arguments. Examples are also great, especially when extending the impact/alt.

Perms on the aff can be explained to mitigate links, so I think the neg should have specific links to the aff and the perm.

Explain how framework implicates the perm - IE: winning rhetoric first means the perm severs the aff's reps and isn't legitimate.

K Affs/FWK:

I didn't read these in high school and didn't go for the K much either. This just means you need to be clear with explanations, as I'm more familiar with the neg's framework arguments. These affs should be in the related to the resolution and not be negative arguments - advocate for a change from the status quo. Also, the 2AC can be sneaky with certain case explanations, but know that I may also not follow along, not just the neg. Thus, I just ask the aff spend time developing their aff's story, as this is essential to convincingly answer possibly more generic neg case D and setting up the crucial DAs/impact turns on FWK. When these stories do come together, it becomes that much easier to me to vote aff in many of these debates.

For framework, don't expect me to take an argument and cross apply it to other parts of the debate unless I'm told to. I'm not a fan of one side making arguments in long narrative format and the other side extending arguments on the flow. On the other hand, I'm lenient towards the neg if the aff's strategy is to speed through blippy arguments until the 2ar. On the aff, winning/beating back the internal links to the neg's offense plus a risk of your own seems most effective.

Debated 4 years at Cypress Bay High School '18, Washington University in St. Louis '22 (not debating)

Qualled to TOC junior and senior years

Please add me on the email chain: tylerk1004@gmail.com

General Info

Spin/explanation can go a long way against stronger evidence. Analytics are good too, especially when there is an obvious hole in an argument.

Please try to maintain a solid line by line and avoid extremely lengthy overviews. Numbered arguments (esp starting in the 2AC) help too. I flow by lining up arguments, and if things get messy, maintain 2AC order.

Knowing your own evidence well is really important and helps boost speaks when you can explain it well while extending it or answering CX questions about it.

Tech>truth for the most part, but make complete arguments.

I don't have much prior knowledge on the arms sales topic this year, so just make sure more specific things are explained.

Impact turns, re-highlighting evidence, speech efficiency are great.

Evaluating Debates

I'll start by locating the most important parts of the debate. The 2nr/2ar should make it clear what is most important in the debate and why you are ahead in those areas, especially in a debate with a lot of moving parts. This will naturally give me a lens to begin picking out the central questions.

I'll determine who is ahead in these parts of the round based on my flow. If there is a question that is too close to figure out, I will read the evidence relevant to this part of the debate. However, I really want you to guide this part of my decision! - Don't leave it up to me to read all of the relevant evidence and figure out on my own what out of the slew of 1nr/1ar cards will determine the direction of uniqueness on the politics DA - compare your evidence, use the warrants, explain to me why yours are better.

After answering the relevant questions, I'll compare them. Some issues in a debate will matter more, and this is where I'll figure out questions of offense. Framing arguments, turns case, impact comparisons, etc all factor in. Then, whichever team has more offense will win.

K affs:

I didn't read these in high school and didn't go for the K much either. I'm obviously open to them though. This just means that you need to be clear with explanations, as I'm more familiar with the neg's framework arguments. These affs should be in the direction of the resolution and not be negative arguments - advocate for a change from the status quo.

For framework debates, don't expect me to take an argument and cross apply it to other parts of the debate unless I'm told to. I'm not a fan of one side making arguments in long narrative format and the other side extending arguments on the flow. On the other hand, I'm lenient towards the neg if the aff's strategy is to speed through blippy arguments until the 2ar. On the aff, winning/beating back the internal links to the neg's offense plus a strong risk of your own seems most effective.

Ks:

I'm relatively familiar with the basic ones (cap, security, etc) and least familiar with high theory (Lacan, Baudrillard, etc), so I definitely require greater explanation for these.

Unless the negative is significantly ahead on framework, I tend to side with the aff being able to weigh the case, and I feel like the aff can often collapse into the middle ground (IE: rhetoric matters, but shouldn't exclude the process of weighing impacts) - fairness, policy education, and cost benefit analysis arguments make a lot of sense here. 1ar's are often blippy on framework, though, and the neg can definitely capitalize in the 2nr on this.

Please do not disguise tricky K arguments until the 2nr, make them blips in a long 2nc overview, etc - be clear with them. The "alt solves the case" shouldn't suddenly materialize in the 2nr, and I'll be lenient towards 2ar explanations against it if that's the case. Spend the time in the block to unpack these arguments. Examples are also great, especially when extending the impact/alt.

Perms on the aff can be explained to mitigate links, so I think the neg should have specific links to the aff and the perm. Explain how framework implicates the perm - IE: winning rhetoric first means the perm severs the aff's reps and isn't legitimate.

CPs:

Love a nice CP/DA strat. I'm neg leaning on most CP theory. However, that should not dissuade you from going for theory, and there are definitely some process CPs that are pretty illegitimate. Whichever side you are on, it's most important to avoid shotgunning subpoints and moving on. Be efficient in theory debates, but slow down, focus on your best offense, maintain a line by line.

On the aff, especially vs process CPs, don't just say perm do both, perm do the CP and move on. Setting up smart permutations and defending them can sometimes solve the net benefit, and the aff should set up a standard for competition in these debates (textual, functional, etc).

Courts affs that say USFG in the plan text have been sneaky this year and last. I can be convinced that the aff's solvency/advantages talk about using the courts and creating CP competition based on this.

DAs:

Turns case and impact calc are key, just don't neglect the the rest of the DA.

Create a coherent story of the DA and win the framing - explain why uniqueness controls the link or vice versa if relevant to the DA debate.

I don't think the 2ar must have offense against the DA to win the debate - a no link press with some impact D, for example, plus winning an impact on case with impact calc can be very effective.

T:

Often love T debates too. I default to competing interpretations, offense/defense paradigm unless told otherwise. I'll vote on reasonability, but I see winning your CI with a stronger piece of offense than the neg's offense as a better 2ar if you have the option. I see T debates kind of like DA debates, which means you should mitigate the internal links of their standards.

Limits often seems to be the best neg piece of offense, and you should impact it out and explain why it outweighs/IL turns aff ground, predictability, etc - same thing on the aff against limits or ground or whatever other standard the neg goes for.

Quick 2022 update--CX is important, use it fully. Examples make a big difference, but you have to compare your examples to theirs and show why yours are better. Quality of evidence matters--debate the strengths of your evidence vs. theirs. Finally, all the comments in a majority of paradigms about tech vs. truth are somewhat absurd. Tech can determine truth and vice-versa: they are not opposed or mutually exclusive and they can be each others' best tools. Want to emphasize your tech? Great--defend it. Want to emphasize your truths? Great--but compare them. Most of all, get into it! We are here for a bit of time together, let's make the most of it.

Updated 2020...just a small note: have fun and make the most of it! Being enthusiastic goes a long way.

Updated 2019. Coaching at Berkeley Prep in Tampa. Nothing massive has changed except I give slightly higher points across the board to match inflation. Keep in mind, I am still pleased to hear qualification debates and deep examples win rounds. I know you all work hard so I will too. Any argument preference or style is fine with me: good debate is good debate. Email: kevindkuswa at gmail dot com.

Updated 2017. Currently coaching for Berkeley Prep in Tampa. Been judging a lot on the China topic, enjoying it. Could emphasize just about everything in the comments below, but wanted to especially highlight my thirst for good evidence qualification debates...

_____________________________ (previous paradigm)

Summary: Quality over quantity, be specific, use examples, debate about evidence.

I think debate is an incredibly special and valuable activity despite being deeply flawed and even dangerous in some ways. If you are interested in more conversations about debate or a certain decision (you could also use this to add me to an email chain for the round if there is one), contact me at kevindkuswa at gmail dot com. It is a privilege to be judging you—I know it takes a lot of time, effort, and commitment to participate in debate. At a minimum you are here and devoting your weekend to the activity—you add in travel time, research, practice and all the other aspects of preparation and you really are expressing some dedication.

So, the first issue is filling out your preference sheets. I’m usually more preferred by the kritikal or non-traditional crowd, but I would encourage other teams to think about giving me a try. I work hard to be as fair as possible in every debate, I strive to vote on well-explained arguments as articulated in the round, and my ballots have been quite balanced in close rounds on indicative ideological issues. I’m not affiliated with a particular debate team right now and may be able to judge at the NDT, so give me a try early on and then go from there.

The second issue is at the tournament—you have me as a judge and are looking for some suggestions that might help in the round. In addition to a list of things I’m about to give you, it’s good that you are taking the time to read this statement. We are about to spend over an hour talking to and with each other—you might as well try to get some insight from a document that has been written for this purpose.

1. Have some energy, care about the debate. This goes without saying for most, but enthusiasm is contagious and we’ve all put in some work to get to the debate. Most of you will probably speak as fast as you possibly can and spend a majority of your time reading things from a computer screen (which is fine—that can be done efficiently and even beautifully), but it is also possible to make equally or more compelling arguments in other ways in a five or ten minute speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQVq5mugw_Y).

2. Examples win debates. Well-developed examples are necessary to make the abstract concrete, they show an understanding of the issues in the round, and they tend to control our understandings of how particular changes will play out. Good examples take many forms and might include all sorts of elements (paraphrasing, citing, narrating, quantifying, conditioning, countering, embedding, extending, etc.), but the best examples are easily applicable, supported by references and other experiences, and used to frame specific portions of the debate. I’m not sure this will be very helpful because it’s so broad, but at the very least you should be able to answer the question, “What are your examples?” For example, refer to Carville’s commencement speech to Tulane graduates in 2008…he offers the example of Abe Lincoln to make the point that “failure is the oxygen of success” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMiSKPpyvMk.

3. Argument comparison wins debate. Get in there and compare evidence—debate the non-highlighted portion of cards (or the cryptic nature of their highlighting). Debate the warrants and compare them in terms of application, rationale, depth, etc. The trinity of impact, plausibility, and verge analysis doesn’t hurt, especially if those variables are weighed against one another. It’s nice to hear good explanations that follow phrases like “Even if…,” “On balance…,” or “In the context of…” I know that evidence comparison is being done at an extremely high level, but I also fear that one of the effects of paperless debate might be a tilt toward competing speech documents that feature less direct evidence comparison. Prove me wrong.

4. Debates about the relative validity of sources win rounds. Where is the evidence on both sides coming from and why are those sources better or worse? Qualification debates can make a big difference, especially because these arguments are surprisingly rare. It’s also shocking that more evidence is not used to indict other sources and effectively remove an entire card (or even argument) from consideration. The more good qualification arguments you can make, the better. Until this kind of argument is more common, I am thirsty enough for source comparisons (in many ways, this is what debate is about—evidence comparison), that I’ll add a few decimal points when it happens. I do not know exactly where my points are relative to other judges, but I would say I am along a spectrum where 27.4 is pretty good but not far from average, 27.7 is good and really contributing to the debate, 28 is very good and above average, 28.5 is outstanding and belongs in elims, and 29.1 or above is excellent for that division—could contend for one of the best speeches at the tournament.

5. All debates can still be won in 2AR. For all the speakers, that’s a corollary of the “Be gritty” mantra. Persevere, take risks and defend your choices

(https://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit). The ballot is not based on record at previous tournaments, gpa, school ranking, or number of coaches.

6. Do not be afraid to go for a little more than usual in the 2NR—it might even help you avoid being repetitive. It is certainly possible to be too greedy, leaving a bloated strategy that can’t stand up to a good 2AR, but I usually think this speech leaves too much on the table.

7. Beginning in the 1AR, brand new arguments should only be in reference to new arguments in the previous speech. Admittedly this is a fuzzy line and it is up to the teams to point out brand new arguments as well as the implications. The reason I’ve decided to include a point on this is because in some cases a 2AR has been so new that I have had to serve as the filter. That is rare and involves more than just a new example or a new paraphrasing (and more than a new response to a new argument in the 2NR).

8. Very good arguments can be made without evidence being introduced in card form, but I do like good cards that are as specific and warranted as possible. Use the evidence you do introduce and do as much direct quoting of key words and phrases to enhance your evidence comparison and the validity of your argument overall.

9. CX matters. This probably deserves its own philosophy, but it is worth repeating that CX is a very important time for exposing flaws in arguments, for setting yourself up for the rebuttals, for going over strengths and weaknesses in arguments, and for generating direct clash. I do not have numbers for this or a clear definition of what it means to “win CX,” but I get the sense that the team that “wins” the four questioning periods often wins the debate.

10. I lean toward “reciprocity” arguments over “punish them because…” arguments. This is a very loose observation and there are many exceptions, but my sympathies connect more to arguments about how certain theoretical moves made by your opponent open up more avenues for you (remember to spell out what those avenues look like and how they benefit you). If there are places to make arguments about how you have been disadvantaged or harmed by your opponent’s positions (and there certainly are), those discussions are most compelling when contextualized, linked to larger issues in the debate, and fully justified.

Overall, enjoy yourself—remember to learn things when you can and that competition is usually better as a means than as an ends.

And, finally, the third big issue is post-round. Usually I will not call for many cards—it will help your cause to point out which cards are most significant in the rebuttals (and explain why). I will try to provide a few suggestions for future rounds if there is enough time. Feel free to ask questions as well. In terms of a long-term request, I have two favors to ask. First, give back to the activity when you can. Judging high school debates and helping local programs is the way the community sustains itself and grows—every little bit helps. Whether you realize it or not, you are a very qualified judge for all the debate events at high school tournaments. Second, consider going into teaching. If you enjoy debate at all, then bringing some of the skills of advocacy, the passion of thinking hard about issues, or the ability to apply strategy to argumentation, might make teaching a great calling for you and for your future students (https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_emdin_teach_teachers_how_to_create_magic note: debaters are definitely part of academia, but represent a group than can engage in Emdin’s terms). There are lots of good paths to pursue, but teaching is one where debaters excel and often find fulfilling. Best of luck along the ways.

Jason Larey – Caddo Magnet

I have no preference for argument choice, or at least try to approach judging with that in mind.

I prefer clarity and efficiency over technical block reading. I think arguments are won on the line-by-line, but this is often overlooked when debaters abandon the flow. I don’t like to do the analysis of the evidence for you for an argument that you didn’t apply on the line-by-line.

I don’t always feel the need evidence based on the analysis given in speech time. But, 1 good card is better than 10 bad short cards.

Please be reasonable with flash prep.

mancininicholas20@gmail.com

I'm Nick. I debated for North Broward (won 2019 TOC) and Dartmouth (cleared at 2021 NDT). In high school, I solely read critiques. In college, I solely read policy arguments. As a result, I am willing to listen to most arguments. I will evaluate the round based on the technical execution of the debaters rather than my personal preferences.

Please go slow and use numbering.

The UC Berkeley (Feb 2024) tournament will be the first time I have judged on the high school topic. Help me so I can help you - assume I know nothing and explain your arguments more than you normally would.

Assistant Director of Debate -- UTD... YOU SHOULD COME DEBATE FOR US BECAUSE WE HAVE SCHOLARSHIPS AVAILABLE

So I really dont want to judge but if you must pref me here's some things you should know.

Arguments I wont vote on ever

Pref Sheets args

Things outside the debate round

Death is good

General thoughts

Tl:Dr- do you just dont violate the things i'll never vote on and do not pref me that'd be great.

Line by Line is important.

I generally give quick RFDs this isnt a insult to anyone but I've spent the entire debate thinking about the round and generally have a good idea where its going by the end.

Clarity over speed (ESP IN THIS ONLINE ENVIRONMENT) if I dont understand you it isnt a argument.

****NEW THOUGHTS FOR THE NDT**** I generally dont think process CPs that result in the aff are competitive -- I'm more likely to vote on perm do both or the PDCP if push comes to shove... could I vote on it sure but I generally lean aff on these cps.

Online edit -- go slower speed and most of your audio setups arent great. (See what I did there)

Only the debaters debating can give speeches.

I catch you clipping I will drop you. So suggest you dont and be clear mumbling after i've said clear risk me pulling the trigger.

ecmathis AT gmail for email chains... but PLEASE DONT PREF ME

Longer thoughts

Can you beat T-USFG in front of me if your not a traditional team.... yes... can you lose it also yes. Procedural fairness is a impact for me. K teams need to give me a reason why I should ignore T if they want to win it. Saying warrantless claims impacted by the 1AC probably isnt good enough.

Aff's that say "Affirm me because it makes me feel better or it helps me" probably not the best in front of me. I just kinda dont believe it.

Reading cards-

I dislike reading cards because I do not fell like reconstructing the debate for one side over another. I will read cards dont get me wrong but rarely will I read cards on args that were not explained or extended well.

K-There fine I like em except the death good ones.

In round behavior- Aggressive is great being a jerk is not. This can and will kill your speaks. Treat your opponents with respect and if they dont you can win a ballot off me saying what they've done in round is problematic. That said if someone says you're arg is (sexist, racist, etc) that isnt the same as (a debater cursing you out because you ran FW or T or a debater telling you to get out of my activity) instant 0 and a loss. i'm not about that life.

Experience: 4 years of public forum, 4 years of NFA-LD (one-person policy debate), and 2 years of coaching NFA-LD. I haven't coached debate in several years; however, I still occasionally judge.

1/7/2022 update - I understand and am willing to evaluate theory; however, I would prefer to judge a debate about the topic. I firmly believe that debaters should be mostly in control of the round and what is read and I certainly will not punish you for reading theory, but I personally enjoy debates that are centered on the topic.

I am still in the process of formatting my paradigm for the high school circuit, so please excuse its brevity.

I feel that debate should reward hard work. I will call for cards at the end of the round, and my ballot and speaker points will be used to reward the team with a greater quality and quantity of evidence.

I prefer substantive arguments and default to a logical-decision maker paradigm. I am rarely persuaded by theory arguments that are not topicality or shells that do not have real implications for the solvency of the affirmative.

You should engage in evidence and impact comparison. Impact comparison should be a full exploration of the link, internal link, and impact card to produce a full analysis of the probability, timeframe, and magnitude.

Speed is not an issue for me as long as it is reciprocal and not exclusive.

I'm an open policy debater at the University of Miami and I've run your run of the mill kind of stuff like CPs, Ks, DAs, etc. I debate for Dinger, so if you need further explanations default to his philosophy. As a judge, I've judged quite a few tournaments in Broward and Dade counties in the highschool circuit for the past two years. For the surveillance topic I have taught the topic for MDUDL but haven't judged many rounds. 

I'll give you the short of it first: Arguments founded in quality evidence that has been thoroughly explained will win you the round. Give me good arguments with zero evidence, I won't vote you up. Give me great evidence with little to no explanation, I won't vote you up. As a judge, I'd like you to tell me how to vote and why. Basically, please know what you're talking about.

Case/Disads

I like this. Good case debate is nice. Get specific on links and impacts and explain how they interact. If you want to win, the 2AR and 2NR better have some impact calculus. 

CPs

I tend to like these as long as they aren't dubious. Consult CPs, Delay CPs, PICs tend to be included under the list of dubious. Make me understand why the CP is perferable to the plan (i.e. net benefits, and solvency defecits) 

Kritiks

My same idea applies here, give me good evidence and good explanations. If you can't explain how the kritik links to the plan, how the kritik solves back the harms of the aff, and how it is mutually exclusive from the plan, then I probably will not vote you up. Floating PIKs are dubious.Don't just say a bunch of words pertaining to -isms and -ology, apply them to specific arguments that happen in the round while mitigating the harms of the aff. This will put me a much more comfortable place to vote for your kritik. 

Cross-ex 

It's important. Don't sound stupid(especially if you're explaining your own arguments). Don't let your partner sound stupid. Attempt to make your opponent sound stupid. At the same time, don't beat a dead horse. Make your point and move on. This is an easy place for you to explain to me what is going on and get speaker points. If you're lost this is also a good place for you to figure out what's going on(I won't punish you for trying to figure stuff out).

Theory

Don't let theory go unanswered. However, if they don't extend any voters on it, I won't vote on it. I don't really want to vote for theory unless they're pretty abusive and time is spent on it. I'd prefer you to use theory as a reason for me to give you leeway on other arguments. Like if the 1AR runs condo bad and maybe drops some answers on the kritik, I'll give the 2AR some flexbility on answering back the kritik (you know because condo is so harmful it didn't allow you to debate properly)  

T

If you're topical you're topical, if you aren't you aren't. I'll probably default to reasonability unless you leave it unanswered. What you should take outta these two paragraphs is never leave voting issues unanswered.

Intergrity

You don't want me to catch you cheating.

Civility

Be nice and respectful (to one another and to myself.) At the end of the day it's just debate, don't personally attack other people. You don't want me to catch you personally attacking other people. 

Prep Time

Keep track of yourselves and your opponents. You don't want me to catch you stealing prep time. 

Other Stuff

As a microbiology major, I've seen alot of dubious science happening in debates. Don't contribute to the awfulness-it makes my soul weep. Be smart, be creative,be strategic. I will reward you accordingly with speaks. If you have any issues, questions or comments post round e-mail me at b.puodzius@umiami.edu 

i haven't been a part of the activity for a while, though I still keep tabs on trends via social media.  I've seen some changes here and there, and can relate to a degree.  

Regardless, my feelings about the state of the activity as a former participant aren't as important as yours.  You debate as you wish, though I'd like to know the relevance of the topic to my decision.  Debate in the way you wish, but defend your methodology if necessary.

My voting aff means that the team designated Aff has sucessfully defended an idea against offered competing ideas.

My voting neg means that the team designated Neg has successfully created a point of departure from the Aff worth noting. 

Speaker points are determined by how well you contributed to getting done what your side needed to do.

nogreatpowerwar@gmail.com

When debaters walk in the room, they expect the judge to render a fair decision, not to rob them of years of hard work and dedication by substituting their personal biases for the arguments presented.

Getting Higher Speaker Points with Me

1. Go as fast as you want, but I do try to listen to the evidence, so please speak clearly. Make sure your tags and cites are flowable; slower/louder/shorter helps.

2. Assertive is great. Aggressive, not so much. The line tends to be attacking the argument rather than the person.

3. Make the round easy for me. Write my ballot for me through a comparative analysis of competing positions. That means, among other things, not forgetting about impact calculus, and showing me the easy way to vote for you. Assume I'm lazy, and do the work for me. I typically won't read cards after the round unless there is a debate specifically about what a card said.

4. I welcome post-round questions about ways you can improve, whether when debating in front of me or generally. Don't bother trying to persuade me that I got things wrong. I might have, but it won't affect my decision, and you are missing an opportunity to have a more productive conversation and make a positive impression.

Personal Biases

1. There's a periodic change of topics for a reason, so absent amazing arguments to the contrary, I think affs need to be topical. I enjoy debates about the topic, and hate debates about "gotchas". For example, I prefer not to spend an hour or so of my life thinking about and resolving disclosure theory issues.

2. Similarly, I will vote on kritiks, but the neg needs to have a clear link and alt. I am sympathetic to permutations, particularly for Ks in which the alt is to think about things in a different way, unless someone does a great job at explaining how the other side's mindset is truly incompatible with the alt.

3. Tech over truth, but only if there is tech. That means there first needs to be an actual argument. I'm not going to vote for you just because the other side drops a blip that isn't explained or impacted.

4. Ethical behavior is important. If there is a significant ethics concern, raise it and impact the argument, but do not do so frivolously. Ethics violations are serious matters, and should be reserved for actual misconduct.

5. Similar to #4, I think everyone should be respectful of each other, but am unlikely to be sympathetic to arguments that a team should lose, for example, because they or their cited authors chose pronouns poorly. If the intent is malicious, however, that's different.

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

They/Them

Programming & Operations Coordinator for Denver Urban Debate League / Editor-in-Chief Champions Brief LD

For online rounds please put me on the chain. Email: DSSQ62@gmail.com

Been around debate for 20 years (4 years as a competitor the rest coaching). I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear. I can understand spreading at high speed unfortunately time is catching up to me and I can’t write/type as fast as I once could so I'll say clearer or slower a few times as needed in order to make sure I can actually flow what’s necessary.

*Slow down a bit for online debates. I flow off what i hear. Sound issues inevitably pop up and while I may have the doc just in case; this isn't an essay contest.

Lincoln Douglas

I'll evaluate the round based on how I flow it so run what you want for specifics see below. Please ask me questions if you want to know more.

Framework

I judge a lot of util debates which is fine but I'm up for any kind of framework debate. I like a good complicated Phil heavy round. Skep debates are sorely lacking nowadays so I'm all for them. Haven't heard a good skep round in awhile. Don't be afraid to run nihilistic frameworks in front of me. If you can warrant it and defend it I'll listen to it (so long as it's not racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic).

K's:

Run them please. Admittedly I'm more familiar with classical K literature like cap, bio power and some psychoanalysis. I enjoy a good postmodern Phil round but that doesn't mean I won't listen to other K's. Identity K's and stuff like that are totally fine but make sure you're really clear on the link and alt level. K aff's are fine as long as they can win reasonability on T.

Topicality:

I default to reasonability it's hard for me to say there is an objective limit on the topic when language has multiple meanings. Have good interps. Warranted interps that have an internal justification for why they're true will probably be better than a random dictionary. Random violations that you know your opponents meet but you run them anyway as a time suck are bad. I likely won't buy a contested RVI but a good I meet is probably enough for aff's to avoid any offense on T for me. T violations function as a gateway issue. If the aff isn't topical they likely will lose especially if there is a topical version of the aff. If the aff can give me a good warranted reason why they don't need to be topical I'll vote on it. The standards debate is important if you're gonna go for T you need to go all in and spend time here really explaining why your interpretation creates the best model/the aff isn't debatable.

Theory:

Not my favorite but necessary at times. It's structured the same as topicality and starts with a "T" but theory isn't T. I default to drop the argument in less you tell me otherwise. Theory comes immediately before the layer in which it is criticizing unless you tell me otherwise. Frivolous theory is real, it's when you could easily answer arguments but decide to read theory. This shouldn't be your go to in front of me but I will vote on it if you win it. I'll listen to RVIs on theory but it takes an awful lot of work or the other debater just dropping it for me to vote on them. Better route is just answer the theory quickly and get to substance.

CPs & DAs

Yes please. Make sure you have an explicit CP text with a solvency advocate. Debaters jump from links to impacts really quick nowadays. Don't forget about internal links. They help tell stories in the 2AR/NR. Conditionality is probably fine in front of me but I think anything beyond testing the aff once methodologically and once pedagogically (one CP and one K) is getting abusive.

*Tech over truth only goes so far. If your technically true argument is morally repugnant don't expect me to vote for it. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or transphobic that's likely gonna be an auto loss.

Currently a coach for Berkeley Prep

Debated at Berkeley Prep for 4 years (2012-2017)

Read whatever you are comfortable with, just make sure its warranted. If you're reading high theory just explain it a bit more since I'm not very familiar with it. 

Background:

I am a former student debater with the University of Miami British Parliamentary Debate Team and continue to judge BP at college level, I have also been judging policy (among other formats) high school tournaments for 6 years now.

A Note on PF/World Schools and other lay formats:

Although I am usually a tech judge, when the format dictates a lay judge I will judge as a lay judge. That means that if you spread or run a K in a PF round, you will be dropped. LD I dont consider a lay format, so go all out if you wish.

General Notes:

I judge mostly based on what's on my flow, so good organization is key to winning with me.

Signposting is good, fully flushing out an argument before moving on is good, being all over the place is a sure way to me missing something. Tying several arguments together to a single theme is good and gives your team a strong team line upon which I can judge, but make that connection known, dont expect me to tie your loose ends for you, thats a sure way to an L.

Please make sure to flush out your arguments, if you dont give me a reason that an argument is true (whether by using facts or theory), I wont judge on it.

Misrepresenting your oppositions arguments may be good enough to win you the debate (if they dont call you out on it), but it sure wont win you any speaker points. While we are on the topic of misrepresenting, no card clipping, heavy penalties will apply.

Towards the end of your 2AR/2NR speech, make sure to close off the debate and tell me why you think you should win, tell me what you want me to vote on and why.

Although evidence is expected, dont hide solely behind it, give me reasoning as to why your position is better than your opposition. Debate is about more than just reading cards, its about applying your own critical thinking.

Specifics:

Topicality: Run topicality only if you have a case for it, remember that the burden lies with the negative to show why the affirmative definition is abusive, and it better be a good reason. Show me why the debate is worse off as a result of affirmative's definitions, dont just say that it is. Also be sure to provide your alternative interpretations, the best way to win a T argument is to show what the debate should have been vs what the affirmative made it out to be.

Counter-Plan: CP's are always fun, but remember to show that your plan is either mutually-exclusive or better than CP+ or else affirm gets it. Also make sure to show how your plan is different from the affirmative. Plan must be clear and concise. Conditionality is fine as long as you dont contradict yourself and give room to affirmative to debate it, anything else is abusive. More than 2 conditional args is abusive and will be judged down.

Kritik: Another very fun thing to judge, make sure to explain your K well. Dont just tell me that the paradigm that the affirmative accepted is bad, show me specifically how the plan worsens the outcome as a result of your kritik and its implications. Doing anything less will not win you the argument. Keep in mind that I am generally not a fan of heavy-theory rounds, any theory arguments presented must be grounded in real solvency.

2AR/2NR: NO NEW ARGUMENTATION IN THE LAST TWO SPEECHES. New argumentation wont be judged on and will heavily influence speaker points. The only exception to this is as rebuttal to new argumentation brought up in the previous speech, that said its a fine line, so tread carefully.

Cross-Ex: Open CX is fine, but will impact speaker points accordingly. When asking questions, allow the person to answer, avoid interruptions if possible.

Ethics: Dont clip cards, dont mis-represent evidence, dont use insults, be respectful to opponents/partners/judges/audience. Ethics violations will heavily influence speaker points.

Speaker Points: I will generally limit myself to 25-30 speaker points (although I reserve the right to go below that for serious ethics violations). Generally my points will fall somewhere along a standard distribution curve, so 26-28 on average. In general I will look at the following in no particular order: Technical proficiency, argumentation, clarity, engagement with opposition arguments, jokes/puns (we all like to laugh every once in a while).

Fran Swanson
Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart ’13
Harvard ‘17
franswanson95 [at] gmail.com (please add me to the email chain)

I debated at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart for 4 years and I'm currently a college senior. Assume no familiarity with the topic: acronyms, “norms” that have developed about topicality, and other topic-specific knowledge must be explained.

The aff should defend a plan that is an example of a topical action by the United States federal government. Teams that do not do this (or vaguely claim to in 1AC cx but shift out of this later) will be vulnerable to framework/topicality. A topical example of the aff when paired with well-impacted arguments about ground and fairness is a persuasive 2NR.

Each debate comes down to a few key questions. Give 2NRs and 2ARs that "write the ballot" by resolving these. Make fewer, more well-explained arguments (this goes for the 1AR too) with "even if" statements. 

Debate in a way that shows me how hard you work: read high quality evidence, be familiar with it, have an end-of-round vision, and plan strategic CXs.

Silly T violations, procedurals (ASPEC, etc), and bad theory arguments (new affs bad, no neg fiat, etc) are a waste of time and will hurt your speaker points.

Kritiks must be made specific to the aff/advantages/impacts (possible with an IR or consumption K, impossible with a death/suffering K). Don't neglect the case-- use solvency deficits, impact defense, and framing arguments. The aff is often in good shape with well-explained perms, attacks of alt solvency, and distinguishing the 1AC from the neg's (usually broad) link arguments.

Theory must be slow, consistently explained/extended, and impacted to be winnable. I will hold the 2AR very closely to the 2AC/1AR extension. Conditionality is good, within limits. A well-explained, impacted, and flowable push by the aff could persuade me otherwise. Theory requires a significant 1AR time investment. 

Non-condo theory is usually a reason to reject the argument but can be explained otherwise with significant investment on impact assessment. Conditions, consult, process, and agent CPs need specific solvency advocates and are very susceptible to theory. They are often so poor that they can be beaten on well-worded/explained perms and low risk of a net benefit.

Don’t overlook the internal link level of the case debate. Negs with well-impacted solvency take outs are in great shape against 2AR “try-or-die” framing. Case turns and impact turn debates are awesome and often determined by evidence and time frame comparison.

Competing interpretations seems like the least arbitrary way to evaluate topicality but a well-explained reasonability argument can help the aff. Reasonability requires a counter-interpretation. Evidence comparison is essential. So is a case list and topical version of the aff. Topicality is never a reverse-voting issue.

Dropped arguments are true but must be impacted and can be outweighed by other arguments.

University of Chicago Law School c/o 2024

Emory University c/o 2021

Edina HS c/o 2017

Put me on the email chain: maggie.edina@gmail.com

**Water Updates**

I haven’t judged any water debates since camp, please keep this in mind.

**LD Updates**

I don't like frivolous theory arguments or philosophy with no application to the debate.

If you're going to posit overarching principles for deciding the debate, you need to apply it to the round.

**Online Debate Updates**

I will keep my camera on during speeches and CX unless I have wifi issues. If I have to turn my camera off to preserve my wifi connection, I apologize in advance.

****

I don't have any strong predispositions about how you should debate and will evaluate whichever arguments you choose present to me. That being said, please tell me how I should evaluate arguments in the final rebuttals so I'm not left to figure things out on my own and read cards without any instruction.

I will reward in-depth research, clash, and evidence comparison. I care about evidence quality and will probably ask you for a card doc after the debate is over.

T-USFG

I generally believe that the aff should defend hypothetical USFG action. Debate is a valuable communicative activity and fiat is a good mechanism for generating clash.

I believe that fairness is an impact. If you are aff, please connect the dots between your offense on t and how you solve it via your method or your aff.

I place a high burden on the affirmative proving an internal link to their impacts on case - if you are negative, please make arguments about this, it is so frustrating to watch neg teams just auto grant the aff solvency.

If you read a planless aff, I am more likely to vote for you if your aff is in the direction of the topic and has clear, impacted reasons why topical action is impossible in the context of your advocacy. I also like clever counter-interpretations on topicality that retain some limits but have an external impact related to your aff.

Topicality

*** CJR UPDATE - the topic is huge and so I sympathize with 2Ns going for T, I will vote for t-enact = congress if you debate it well. ***

If you’re looking for a sign not to go for T-subs in front of me, this is it.

Please don't subject me to a shallow topicality debate. If you would like to go for this argument, do a lot of impact calculus in the 2NR/2AR. It is essential to compare evidence in topicality debates, if you do not I will be forced to make a decision based on how I interpret the evidence myself.

If you are a 2N trying to go for T, consider where your ev comes from and what it says. Is it an arbitrary defense of whatever word you are suggesting the aff violates? Is your evidence only tangentially related to the topic? Does it provide a good metric for predictable limits? If the answer is no, I most likely will not be persuaded. I will not vote for limits for the sake of limits unless the aff drops T.

Theory

Conditionality is probably good, that doesn't mean I cannot be compelled otherwise.

Other CP theory stuff is open for debate, probably only a reason to reject the team.

Ks

If you decide to go for a K in front of me, please explain the relationship between your K and the outcome of the plan. Please explain why links apply to the permutation, not just the aff.

If your entire arg boils down to a k of fiat and your only impact is ressentiment, consider not preffing me.

random

i dislike when teams ask for a marked doc and then it results in 10 minutes of time between preparing the marked doc and the team receiving the marked doc. please don't be this team.

Have fun...

... but don't be a bad person, I will give you low speaker points and will be persuaded by arguments to vote against you if you are

Judge Philosophy

Name: Lisa Willoughby

Current Affiliation: Midtown High School formerly Henry W. Grady High School

Conflicts: AUDL teams

Debate Experience: 1 year debating High School 1978-79, Coaching High School 1984-present

How many rounds have you judged in 2012-13: 50, 2013-2014: 45, 2015-2016: 25, 2016-17 15, 2017-2018: 30, 2018-19: 30, 2019-20:10, 2020-21: 40, 2021-2022: 35, 2022-2023:6

send evidence e-mail chain to quaintt@aol.com

I still view my self as a policy maker unless the debaters specify a different role for my ballot. I love impact comparison between disadvantages and advantages, what Rich Edwards used to call Desirability. I don’t mind the politics disad, but I am open to Kritiks of Politics.

I like Counterplans, especially case specific counterplans. I certainly think that some counterplans are arguably illegitimate; for example, I think that some international counterplans are utopian, and arguably claim advantages beyond the reciprocal scope of the affirmative, and are, therefore, unfair. I think that negatives should offer a solvency advocate for all aspects of their counterplan, and that multi-plank cps are problematic. I think that there are several reasons why consultation counterplans, and the States CP could be unfair. I will not vote unilaterally on any of these theoretical objections; the debaters need to demonstrate for me why a particular counterplan would be unfair.

I have a minor in Philosophy, and love good Kritik debate. Sadly, I have seen a lot of bad Kritik debate. I think that K debaters need to have a strong understanding of the K authors that they embrace. I really want to understand the alternative or the role of my ballot. I have no problem with a K Aff, but am certainly willing to vote on Framework/T against a case that does not have at least a clear advocacy statement that I can understand. I am persuadable on "AFF must be USFG."

I like Topicality, Theory and Framework arguments when they are merited. I want to see fair division of ground or discourse that allows both teams a chance to prepare and be ready to engage the arguments.

I prefer substance to theory; go for the theoretical objections when the abuse is real.

As for style, I love good line-by-line debate. I adore evidence comparison, and argument comparison. I am fairly comfortable with speed, but I like clarity. I have discovered that as I get older, I am very comfortable asking the students to "clear." I enjoy humor; I prefer entertaining cross-examinations to belligerent CX. Warrant your claims with evidence or reasoning.

Ultimately, I demand civility: any rhetoric, language, performance or interactions that demean, dehumanize or trivialize fellow debaters, their arguments or judges would be problematic, and I believe, a voting issue.

An occasional interruption of a partner’s speech or deferring to a more expert partner to answer a CX question is not a problem in my view. Generally only one debater at a time should be speaking. Interruptions of partner speeches or CX that makes one partner merely a ventriloquist for the other are extremely problematic.

Clipping cards is cheating. Quoting authors or evidence out of context, or distorting the original meaning of a text or narrative is both intellectually bankrupt and unfair.

There is no such thing as one ideal form or type of debate. I love the clash of ideas and argumentation. That said, I prefer discourse that is educational, and substantive. I want to walk away from a round, as I often do, feeling reassured that the policy makers, educators, and citizens of the future will seek to do a reasonable and ethical job of running the world.

For Lincoln Douglas debates:

I am "old school" and feel most comfortable in a Value/Criterion Framework, but it is your debate to frame. Because I judge policy frequently, I am comfortable with speed but generally find it is needless. Clarity is paramount. Because of the limited time, I find that I typically err AFF on theoretical objections much more than I would in a policy round.

I believe that any argument that an AFF wants to weigh in the 2AR needs to be in the 1AR. I will vote against new 2AR arguments.

I believe that NEG has an obligation to clash with the AFF. For this reason, a counterplan would only be justified in a round when the AFF argues for a plan; otherwise a counterplan is an argument for the AFF. The NEG must force a decision, and for that reason, I am not fond of what used to be called a 'balance neg.'

Senior at Berkeley Preparatory School. Tampa, Florida