Our activity should first and foremost be an educational experience for everyone involved. Because we are practicing an academic exercise in a competitive space, sportsmanship is imperative. I tell my students to model the type of debate they would like to compete against; if the way they engage in the activity makes their opponents want to quit our activity...they are doing it wrong. Debate should be for everyone - a healthy debate circuit, like a healthy democracy, thrives off high engagement/participation. I invite you to engage with this narrative; if you love this activity, you should want to share it with as many as possible.

Debaters are sometimes shocked when they come into a round asking me for my paradigm; I will often defer my paradigm to be determined first by the preferences of their opponents. I bring this up because I would rather all participants be comfortable setting norms with one another prior to engaging with what my preferences are as an adjudicator--it makes for a more balanced debate rather than one team having an advantage because they are better at adapting to a specific paradigm of any specific judge. A fast way to lose my ballot is to treat people (judges, opponents, and spectators) within the debate space with disregard because your goals of winning don't require their preferences to be met. I'm not a lay judge, but the debate should primarily be accessible by everyone in the space in order for it to be maximally educational. If I'm on a panel, I pay attention to the paradigms of my fellow judges (and the experience level of your opponents)...so it's always safe to assume I'll vote you down for debate for exploitive, patronizing, and exclusionary behaviors and language. *Extend this line of thought to the literature you're reading and the narratives you're sharing; the people in your impact scenarios matter, they are not a chess piece in your "game of words".

Rather than seeing the debate space as "competitive" (yes, I acknowledge a judge determines a winning side--or best reasoned/articulated/defended side), I choose to see the debate space as "collaborative". Debate asks us to engage in perspective taking; the purpose of switch-side debate is so students gain perspective based on research and critical thought. Ideally, we (judges, spectators, coaches, and participants) should enter into the debate space with good faith; with the goal of everyone ending the round having learned something new, considered a different point of view, and enjoyed the experience (and with the sentiment that it was worth it/we'd do it again if we could).

I reward teams who bring topical research into the space. Fewer substantive arguments with thorough analysis of the literature will always be preferred over trying to win because your opponent doesn't have time to respond to an argument (because you chose to run many under-developed arguments). I understand and enjoy theory, kritik, performance, and fw/value debate when they are done well. I don't think it is productive or required to advocate a position you don't believe in; you may not get to choose your side, but you do get to choose your arguments. 99% of the time I'm going to vote for legitimate advocacy over an overly technocratic strategy developed specifically for the round. Internal consistency is important to me - especially when there are in-round impacts being weighed.

I generally view the debate space as both a lab/playground for testing ideas and *also* as a space for engaging in deliberative democracy - because of this, I discourage deterministically framed arguments that disempower or remove agency from others sharing the space. There's a difference between framing an argument as non-unique and framing it as *inevitable*; if your opponents do this, you'll probably be able to win the impact by making space for an alternate narrative in the round (and I may likely be willing to vote on the in-round impact of preferring your alternate narrative). For example, the inability to eliminate corruption or suffering isn't a reason to reject a plan or framework that minimizes it (this is also true for narratives of peace as the absence of violence, narratives of environmental stewardship, and so on). You'll do well to not dismiss your opponent's impacts in a way that perpetuates a narrative that excludes an alternate narrative that might be better for us to engage with. I enjoy when debaters challenge narratives that often go unquestioned as a means to empower.

I'm going to flow, you should too--it's annoying when you argue against evidence your opponent doesn't read - don't think of reading/skimming through your opponent's files as a substitute for listening/flowing (conversely, don't give your opponents large quantities of evidence you don't plan on reading).

Aside from the rules of the activity, I ask that you're open to earnestly engaging with arguments as your opponents present them; not everyone is taught how to debate the same way, and part of what makes our activity beautiful is the potential it has to evolve and change to become *more* inclusive. I generally believe all constructive speeches are fair game for new lines of argumentation (though topicality probably needs to be run directly subsequent to the interp violation), and rebuttals require debaters to both consolidate and prioritize - I believe *how* we choose to consolidate and *what* we prioritize in rebuttals to be revelatory and this will be where you may get yourself into trouble with internal consistency.

Treat the activity and everyone in the round with respect--that'll get you far.

Schools/Affiliations: Program Manager - Tulsa Debate League, Coach - Charles Page HS - Coach Webster HS

I competed in policy debate in high school for 4 years, advancing to late rounds at nationals

I’ve coached, in one role or another, for 22 years

General Paradigm
Left to my own devices, I’d approach the round from a policymaking point of view, but I know that few rounds boil down to such a paradigm. In light of that, debate is a game of sorts and I’m willing to let the debaters decide how it should be played. I can’t see myself voting against an affirmative on a stock issue like inherency.

Speed
Clarity, of course, is key. If I can’t understand you, then I can’t flow you and I likely won’t be inclined to vote for you or the position(s) I don’t understand. Look for cues (not flowing, a blank look on my face).

Line by Line
I prefer line by line debate. I believe you need to flow and I don’t think a team is obligated to share analytical arguments in a flash/speech doc. If the debate becomes disorganized because of your inability to stay on the flow, that’ll likely cost you in some way. Debate, at its essence, is about a clash of ideas...therefore clash is an essential ingredient to a good debate round. A round between two teams who neither extend their own arguments, nor address the specific attacks made on these arguments, is not a debate round, and such a round begs for intervention on my part.

Decision Calculus
I am loathe to intervene in a round, but will do so if neither team presents a clear comparative analysis of the issues in the round. You need to tell my why I should vote for you and make that clear in the final rebuttals.

Framework
I’ll start with my paradigm, you tell me where to move to, and convince me of why I should do so, if you’d like to change the framework. Any framework should make it possible for both sides to win and shouldn’t be rooted in a rejection of debate as an activity (though it’s possible I could be convinced otherwise).

Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)

I will vote on topicality. I think the negative has to construct a fully formed argument to convince me I should do so, complete with a reason that the violation committed by the affirmative is worthy of giving them the loss. I’m not as inclined to be convinced by a reverse voter argument in t, but affirmatives can defend themselves by attacking one or all of the components of a typical T argument and win the issue. Other procedurals tend to get decided based on actual, rather than, potential abuse.

Kritiks

I debated before kritiks were a thing, so that’s fair warning. Having said that, I’ve voted on them many times, but profess a lack of deep knowledge on some of the more theoretical positions. Deep theory, you’ll have to tell me what to do. Despite my knowledge about some of the authors and their positions, I’m usually able to discern when the student speaking knows as little or less than I do. I prefer that if you’re going to make the k an issue, that you know it inside and out, and be aware of the inherent dangers in speaking quickly to a judge who may know less than you do, and who you are trying to convince. Real world alts are pretty much a requirement.


Performance
Do what you will, I’ll listen. Prefer they be relevant to topic.

Counterplans
I am good with counterplans, conditional is fine, but don’t get too feisty in this regard. Deep counterplan and pic theory give me headaches, so slow down and talk me through it.

Multiple Worlds

No thanks...multiple conditional positions are fine, but not contradictory advocacy. Can’t be convinced otherwise on the matter so save your time.

3NRs and My Decision
I will give an oral critique if time allows and reveal decision if permitted by tourney expectations, but I will not enter into an argument with either team about my decision. I can handle a question or two, but make sure it’s a question. Look, I am always going to do my best, but I’m sure I’ve gotten the decision wrong a time or two, and I hate it when I do. That being said, my usual answer when teams argue why they lost is: I’d feel the same way if I were you, but next time debate better. Then I mark their speaker points down for being rude. Live to fight another day, and be aware that you might see your judge again down the road.

Prep Time

i will be lenient as we learn the online format, but that being said, I’m losing patience with the time taken up by flashing files even during in-person debates. Be efficient.

Denslow, Keith Edit 0 3… Judging Philosophy
Keith Denslow,
Skiatook High School,
Skiatook, OK

I have taught academic debate for 32 years. I have coached both policy debate and value debate on the high school level plus NDT and CEDA for 2 years on the college level. I have coached regional, district, and state champions.

I give up. I embrace the absurdity which is post-modern debate. If you debate on a critical level, then it is your burden to understand and explain the philosophical position you are advocating and offer a rational alternative to the worldview.

Topicality is an outdated mode of thought with tries to put up fences in our brain about what we can and can not talk about. It harms education and the marketplace of ideas. As a negative, only run Topicality if the argument is 100% accurate not as a test of skill or response.

It is important that anyone arguing counterplans have an understanding of counterplan theory especially how a counterplan relates to presumption. DO NOT automatically permute a counterplan or critique without critically thinking about the impact to the theory of the debate.

Style issues: Civility is important. Open CX is okay. Clarity must accompany speed. Numbering your arguments is better than “next” signposting. Detailed roadmaps are better than “I have 5 off” and prep time doesn’t continue for 2 minutes after you say “stop prep” Flash evidence faster!

I currently am the debate coach at Central High in Tulsa, OK, a member of the Tulsa Debate League (UDL). I competed for 5 years in Oklahoma 6A and 4 years at the University of Oklahoma. I previously worked as an assistant coach for Jenks High School and have worked at numerous debate camps.

My paradigm has somewhat altered in recent years. To put it simply, I am more interested in evaluating the entire debate not just what survived the flow to make it to the 2NR/2AR. Each speech (including cross-ex) is an opportunity for competitors to showcase skills which include logic, strategy, knowledgeably of issues, speaking proficiency, team work, research and more. As I do not want to dictate the content or style of the round to the competitors, I will add that I believe primarily the style and content of the debate are justified through the quality of the debate presented (although they can also become issues in the round themselves). Do what you want to do well and I will do my best job to evaluate the round as fairly as possible. Make sure and tell me how and why I should vote for you, that would be much more to your favor than leaving it up to me.

Lastly: speak clearly, treat everyone in the round with respect, and don't assume I know what your argument/evidence says or what the acronyms you use mean. I am more at the periphery of this activity than I once was, and as a result I may be out of the loop on contemporary trends.

I run the Tulsa Debate League. I debated at Charles Page for four years in the 90's and at the University of Southern California for four years in the early aughts. For most of my career, I ran what would be considered traditional policy debate arguments. I've certainly ran and been exposed to other styles of argumentation, including many varieties of kritiks (though I have very limited experience with what was once called performance arguments). With that said, I haven't been heavily involved in the national circuit or college debate for many years, so, if you are running a set of arguments which require a vernacular and a set of assumptions that I lack, it is your job to educate me on those issues. My default set of assumptions will necessarily be based on my experience and historical reference points. With that said, I try to be as open-minded and inclusive as possible. I have voted for both identity K teams and policy teams, on topicality and for multiple counterplan strategies that I deplore when I felt like they these strategies were debated well.

If you asked me what I'd like to see rather than what I will merely vote on, I would say I like to see debates with clash and a clear, big picture sense of what matters in the debate. Great debaters tell stories with evidence and examples.

Most of the debating that I have seen in Oklahoma since moving back here could have been made better with the use of paper files instead of computers. The use of flash drives and laptops has generally made debaters less apt to flow, which has caused all manner of problems, such as dropping arguments and failing to explain arguments to the judge because you assume it's on the flash drive. And flash drives have added hours to tournaments. So be mindful of that.

I would love to see is a commitment to making the community better and more inclusive. Being nice is always a good thing.

I debated 3 years in high school policy for Newton High, 1 year of parliamentary debate for Loyola University Chicago, I was an assistant coach for Northtown Academy, and I was a coach at Cameron Debate Institute for around six years.

I haven’t judged a round in alittle over a year so I’m a little rusty and probably can’t follow spreading as well as I used to. I’m pretty tabula rasa but you MUST tell me what framework we are using. If you don’t I will default to a policy maker. I also have an odd fondnessfor topicality when argued correctly.

I DO NOT have a laptop for flowing. I will flow on paper.

6 Years of policy debate at Union High School in Oklahoma.

2 years at Baylor University.

gerbrandt.eve@gmail.com

I am often tempted to leave my paradigm blank but that is because I consider myself largely agnostic on most issues. I’ve read and gone for every genre of argument, So I am not inclined to reject, or even really cringe at anything on face. I believe the default role of the judge is always to be an educator, but the way I think I’m supposed to do that is by fairly evaluating every argument made, and making decisions based on the quality (and sometimes quantity) of those arguments. Don’t worry if you don’t know the big fancy debate words, an argument is an argument even if you don’t know the proper buzz word for it.

My default is that judge kicking CPs is okay but not alternatives, but that can be debated.

Typically speaks will be decided on how well you know your stuff but if you are a jerk (making debate a space not safe for other people) it will take a HUGE hit on your speaks and make me raise your threshold to win the round overall.

*For both policy and LD* When no one extends a framework for the debate (or it is a total wash) I always default to offense-defense.

I'm the Program Director for the Tulsa Debate League. I coach all events but my focus is policy debate. I'm open to all styles of debate and I try to minimize judge intervention in my decisions. With that in mind, I’m more concerned with argument form than argument content. Arguments can come in many forms (e.g., traditional policy arguments, kritikal arguments, narrative arguments, etc.) but I think all arguments should have warrants and impacts. I also think line-by-line and clash help me minimize judge intervention. If your debate style eschews line-by-line, that's okay, but the clash should still be present, even if it's implicit. Ultimately though, I will do my best to evaluate your round according to the terms you establish in the round. With all that said, the rest of this paradigm covers a few technical aspects of debate that I consider important.

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

Speech Docs

Please include me in the email chain: michael.haskins@tulsadebate.org

Flowing

I will flow where you tell me to flow. If you don’t tell me where to flow, I will flow in the way that makes the most sense to me. I'm hesitant to cross-apply for you so sign-posting and explicit cross-applications are important.

Evidence

I prefer fewer pieces of evidence better explained and better applied than many pieces of evidence poorly explained and poorly applied. I think the debate community as a whole has done a poor job of teaching debaters how to evaluate competing evidence. Credentials and expert status hold less sway in my mind than the empirical and logical analysis contained in the evidence. On that note, I tend to give more weight to analytical arguments that use common knowledge examples and reasoned analysis than most judges. I consider this an important check against teams that run intentionally obscure offense on the hope that the other team will lack the evidence to respond.

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

Feel free to ask me questions. I love to talk debate.

Pretty much tab, I'll vote for practically anything if you explain it well and it's not racist/sexist/bigoted etc. Because of this, framework occupies an essential role in the round as it defines the debate space. Also, the cleaner you allow my flow to be, generally the easier time I'll have voting for you. Feel free to ask any specific paradigm questions.

Updated Last: May 4, 2023

Email: christian.d.jones[at]gmail.com (yes, I would like to be on the chain)

Experience: Head coach for 11 years.

My General Paradigm
Debates must be fair and winnable for both sides, but debaters may argue what is and is not fair. Debaters may try to convince me which particular instance of debate ought to occur in each round. I will try to have an open mind, but I do have likes and dislikes.

Speed
I prefer debaters to ensure clarity before trying to accelerate. I can handle speed, but if I can't understand it, it doesn't get flowed. If I am being honest, I would estimate that I can catch almost every argument at about 85% of top speed for the national circuit. But if you brake for taglines and present them in a unique vocal inflection, top speed is not a problem.

Decision Calculus
I will only intervene if I feel I absolutely have to. I prefer that debaters to help me decide the debate. Comparative arguments will usually accomplish this. Extrapolations in rebuttals are acceptable if they are grounded in arguments already on the flow. Arguments that are extremely offensive or outright false may be rejected on face.

Style
I enjoy and find value in a variety of argumentation styles as long as they do not preclude a debate from taking place. A debate must have clash.

Framework
The 1AC presents their argument to a blank slate. If you want to change this, you will need an interpretation and to be clear on the criteria for winning the round. This criteria should offer both sides the possibility of winning the debate.

Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)
If you want me to vote on a proposed rule violation, then you need to win the complete argument. You must win that you have the best interpretation, that the other team has violated your interpretation, that your interpretation is good for debate, and that the offense is a voting issue. If you want to argue that the other team is breaking the rules, then you have the burden of proof. Procedural arguments may also urge a lesser punishment, such as, excluding the consideration of an argument.

Kritik
I do not want to proscribe specifics when it comes to kritiks, but I do want to see clash and comparative argumentation in any debate. I prefer Ks that are germane to the topic or affirmative case in some way. I like kritiks that have a clearly defined alternative. Alternatives that propose something are preferable to 'reject' or 'do nothing' type alts. I am not a fan of ontological arguments, especially nihilistic ones. If you choose to enter the debate space, you have already ceded certain assumptions about reality.

Counterplans
I am open to any type of counterplan, but all arguments are subject to the standard of fairness determined in the debate round. That said, if you are going to read a counterplan, it should probably have a solvency card.

Experience: 2yrs HS debater for Cherokee HS.  4yrs Collegient debater for NOC-Tonkawa and Ferris State University.  This is my 6th year to coach HS debate: 5yrs at Cherokee, 1yr at Trinity Academy Wichita KS.

Judging Paradigm: Have no problem with speed reading, although I do use audience presentation to evaluate speaker points/ranks (not necessarily argument effectiveness and/or creativity).  Generally, I use stock issues, specifically harms, solvency and of course, topicality to make a policy-maker decision in most rounds.  I am not opposed to K AFFs so long as the alternative is a policy that could be deployed in the real world (or even a hypothetical world).  I'm somewhat more lenient on NEG K alt's, although I dislike generic alt's like "reject the aff" or "anything but X".  I'd prefer alt's that lend to solvency clash compared to these generic alt's.  I'll listen to T, but dislike it being run as a time-suck.  I'll listen to generic DAs.  I'll listen to CPs:  I'd prefer non-T CPs but T CPs are okay as long as they solve for AFF harms and are competitive.  I'll listen to framework and theory arguments.

If further questions exist of how I evalute rounds, beyond this paradigm, ask me!  I like to think I'm approachable, and I enjoy discussing policy debate.

Updated 4/3/22 for OK State

TLDR: Debate is great, have fun. I haven't read your authors, but I understand debate

Debating: My name is Tristan Loveless, I debated for four years at Skiatook High School in East Oklahoma. I debated 200-300 rounds over my four years between tournaments and camps. I attended Georgetown and Northwestern for camps. I did not debate in college.

Coaching: I am currently working for the Tulsa Urban Debate League as their Data Manager.

2 year as a program coordinator for the TDL (OK)

6 years coaching/assistant coaching Urban Debate (OK)

1 year assistant coaching Skiatook High School (OK)

Judging (Water topic):I have judged very few rounds this topic

Topics I've debated/coached: Space, Transportation infrastructure, Cuba/Mexico/Venezuela, Oceans, Surveillance, China, Education, Immigration, Arm Sales, Police Reform, Water Protections

Simply put I’ll evaluate everything. Do what you do best.

Authors I've read: Agamben, Foucault, Marx, Freud, Giroux, Camus, Heidegger, Hegel, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. feel free to ask me if I've read X author before the round.

Policy Affirmative Case- If it’s a traditional policy aff I can follow it no problem.

Kritikal Aff- Defend something. Try to be related to the topic in some way please. I prolly haven’t read your philosophy so make it clear, I personally ran Kritikal Affirmatives my Junior and Senior year, so I’m pretty cool with this. Try to give me a clear picture of what my ballot is/does and what exactly I am voting for especially in the 2AR

DA- I’m cool with whatever

CP- On the theory debate Impact it out. The negative should have a specific solvency advocate, I'll still listen to it if it doesn't but I'm likely to buy that it doesn't actually solve if the aff makes that argument.

Theory/T- Impact the voters, tell me what the T/Theory Interp provides us in the real world. T “substantial” or T “its” aren’t super compelling arguments, and they are less so if you don’t give me voter analysis. Education isn’t an Impact, Advocacy Skills and Decision making are. Education is only an Internal Link to a real impact

Kritiks

General - K's are fine. Just a few notes on how I view K's: The alternative is an advocacy, so prove that the alternative is better than the affirmative. When going for the perm be sure to explain how the perm is able to solve the Impact/Link level of the flow- if the perm still links and causes the impact of the K then I'm not gonna vote for the perm. I default that the aff gets to weigh the 1AC, but if the negative wins on the flow that they don't get to weigh it then I won't weigh it.

Impact Turns- I've noticed a lot of K debaters have trouble answering Heg/Cap good in response to their K's. These are real arguments that you need to be able to answer.

In round Discourse links: If the link is in round discourse then you HAVE to explain how the perm overcomes the in round link & Impact otherwise you probably lose the perm debate.

Impact framing: I've seen a few teams going for the "future bad" framing, be sure to extend this throughout the round and cover it in your final speech- and if you're debating against these kind of arguments be sure to answer them. In short, be sure you extend and explain impact framing throughout the round and if you're the opposing team be sure to answer these kinds of arguments

Note: In the past few years I've seen negatives read K's that the rest of their strategy links too. I'm not a fan of this and am likely to vote a team down for doing this. If you don't know what I mean here are the examples from rounds I've judged:

Example 1: Negative team reads Set Col and argues that native erasure is the biggest impact, and then kicks the K in the 2NR.

Example 2: Negative team reads Fem K w/ USFG link and a counterplan that uses the USFG.

Misc:

Speed is cool, be clear. I like Impact Analysis. Be creative.

Timing Stuff- prep ends when jump drive is in the opponents hand, Cross Ex starts immediately when the speech ends. For online debate prep ends when email is sent.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round!

Add tyrossow@gmail.com to the email chain.

Background: I debated on the national circuit in CX (three years) and LD (one year) for Union HS (OK). I am now a sophomore at Baylor University pursuing majors in economics, philosophy, and political science. I was previously an LD instructor at VBI and taught debate this summer as well.

***General Thoughts***

--- Debate is a game. That does not mean the game should be exclusionary or lack educational value.

--- Tech determines truth. I’m not comfortable imposing my beliefs about the world onto the debate, unless the debate is offensive to a group of people.

----- I enjoy highly technical debates.

------- Speed is fine but be clear.

------- Evidence quality matters, but not if you don’t explain the warrants in said evidence. I’ll call for cards if there is a dispute about what a piece of evidence says, but I won’t vote on warrants in your evidence that are neglected in the debate.

------ If you clip cards or say something offensive about a group of people, I will give you zero speaks and an automatic loss.

----- Tl;dr for the rest of the paradigm: Like all judges, I have preferences, but I am generally comfortable with voting for anything. Win the arguments on the flow and you will almost certainly win my ballot.

***Policy Paradigm***

Policy AFFs: I like them.

*** Against the K: Don’t shy away from defending what you do. I’m more than comfortable with voting for a heg good + util 2AR if that’s the direction your aff takes you.

K AFFs: I have experience reading them and will vote for them. Performance is also fine if you communicate the importance of it. Framework specific preferences are addressed below.

Disads: Yes. Read lots of cards.

CPs: Yes. My views on “judge kicking” aren’t particularly strong either way; give me a warrant and I will evaluate it.

K: Yes. I have a fairly extensive background in K debates. This is mostly on the identity side, but I am okay with continental philosophy as well. In addition:

*** More specific link argumentation is always better. That doesn’t mean I won’t vote for a generic link, but I’ll be much friendlier to your K if you can tie it to the 1AC.

*** On questions of framework, I lean towards the middle ground; the aff can weigh the 1AC, but the neg can garner links external to the plan.

*** The block and 2NR need to clearly articulate the alt for me to vote on it.

*** I will vote for a floating PIK, but if the aff calls it out, I will strongly lean aff on the theory debate.

T: Yes. Don’t be afraid to go for it if you’re winning the flow.

*** I default towards an offense-defense paradigm over reasonability, but can be persuaded otherwise.

Theory: It’s fine. I’m not a huge fan but I’ll vote for it.

*** I was a 2N so I lean neg on most theory debates, including condo, PICs, process CPs, consult CPs, and international fiat.

*** On condo: one counterplan is almost certainly acceptable, two counterplans is probably acceptable, three counterplans is debatably acceptable, and four counterplans is really pushing it.

*** I’ll vote on a perf con arg if it is impacted out and turns the K.

Framework:

*** I lean neg. That does not mean you should be afraid to read a K aff in front of me; I will fully evaluate it like any other argument. Instead, it just means that you need to be going for the right arguments (under my paradigm) to win the debate.

*** On the neg, I am most persuaded by clash and procedural fairness arguments.

*** It helps me greatly if you have some way to suck up most of the aff offense. A TVA, truth testing, impact turns to the aff’s method, or some combination of these will greatly benefit your 2NR.

*** On the aff, I am most persuaded by arguments about how framework creates a poor educational model and/or necessitates exclusion.

*** You need to be defending your aff as a debatable argument. I'm not a good judge for impact turns to clash and fairness. Defensive arguments about how to preserve limits, ground, predictability, etc., coupled with your offense, are a much better strategy in front of me.

*** I would greatly appreciate seeing impact comparison from both sides. I feel that the neg is often ahead on questions of fairness, and the aff is often ahead on questions of education. Determining which impact outweighs is critical.

***LD Paradigm***

General Thoughts:

---- Spreading is fine, but be clear.

---- I am fine with progressive and traditional LD, and I have experience in both.

K AFFs/CP/DA/Framework/Ks: These are all good and addressed in my policy paradigm. Other thoughts I have specific to LD are:

*** I am more lenient towards CP theory in LD rounds due to the time structure. One condo CP or K is probably fine, but anything beyond that is probably abusive.

*** Comparative analysis that typically happens in the policy 2NC needs to be in the LD NC.

Plans: These are acceptable and I enjoy these debates.

*** I am willing to vote on Nebel T, and I am interested in hearing more of these debates.

Phil: Despite my primarily policy background, I enjoy these arguments quite a bit. I find philosophy fascinating, and these cases are the heart of LD, so please don’t hesitate to read them if this is your A strat.

*** Giving examples that prove your philosophy is vital.

Theory: My receptiveness to your shell will largely hinge on a personal “gut check.” If legitimate abuse has clearly occurred in the round, I will grant you more leeway on the theory debate. However, I will be frustrated if it seems as if you are fishing for a theory violation to run from substantive debate. This also means that I lean strongly towards reasonability on theory, not T; I think most experienced debaters intuitively know whether their strat (or shell) is reasonable.

*** This does not mean I won’t vote for frivolous theory. If you win the arg, I will vote for it. However, I cannot promise that you will be happy with your speaks.

*** I am fine with metatheory in instances where there is legitimate abuse.

*** RVIs are possibly fine. I will vote on it if you win the flow.

*** It helps me when you give a title for your warrants. For example, instead of saying “a) x b) y ” say “a) Time skew (or whatever warrant) – x b) (separate warrant) etc.”