SHORT VERSION: I am a tabula-rasa policy debate judge. I value detailed analysis of the arguments presented.

I am new to this years topic (Education). Please provide additional explanation/analysis in regards to complex, topic-specific subject matter.

BACKGROUND INFO:

I debated 3.5 yrs. in High School (Los Alamitos HS).

I attended the University of Michigan National Debate Institute multiple years and was elected for the 7 Week Senior Lab (Repko-Skiermont).

I debated approx. 2 years in college, NDT. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Notable accomplishment: I was invited to the NDT my freshman year.

I have judged debate, but I am not a seasoned judge (I will cite Sherry Hall, Dallas Perkins, and Will Repko as seasoned judges). I also have coaching experience.

LONG VERSION: To clarify my paradigm: If you choose to present a deliberately non-topical affirmative kritik in the 1AC, that is fine...yes, that would actually be ok with me. However, PLEASE explain why your are choosing to advocate such an extraordinary position. I would prefer that your reasoning for advocating such a controversial, deconstructive, and potentially educationally destructive argument (as it may erode the basic structures of debate) reflects intellectual/educational value and integrity. In other words, I am open-minded to any argument, but appreciate arguments that are well-constructed, well-presented, and thought-provoking. Remember, voting for an extraordinary position does impact the debate community as a whole. So, if you deviate from the norm, please help the debate communicate progress in a positive direction by allowing me to proudly and eagerly complete my ballot, knowing that the intellectual and logical justification for the endorsement is sound.

Most negative positions should be fine and will be evaluated with an open-mind. On the negative (or affirmative for that matter); if you deliberately present contradictory arguments, that is ok, but perhaps explain why you are presenting contradictory arguments (at some point in the debate). In other words, if you are hypothesis testing and/or presenting contradictory positions, I would prefer that by the 2NR you either: a. Have chosen a cohesive and logical advocacy , or b. Provide analysis as to why your final advocacy is deliberately contradictory.

Please read the sections of your evidence which provide sufficient warrant to your claim(s). I will base my decision on the evidence read aloud in the debate, not the unread portions.

SPEED: I have extensive debate experience and know how to flow a quick debate round. Please utilize your speaking and spreading skillsets. BUT....please be intelligible. If I need you to slow down or to be clearer, I will communicate as necessary mid-round. I believe that it is of utmost importance that I do not miss your arguments on the flow and that I understand your arguments to the best of my ability. I believe that it is my duty as a judge to not be out-debated, as it is not fair to the debaters nor to the debate community.

I consider myself to be kind and approachable. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to ask. This offer extends to debaters, parents, judges, coaches, etc. I love debate! It is a pleasure and joy to give back to the activity which has allowed me to experience tremendous success in my academic and professional life. I am here to help you and your squad succeed!

Thank you for reading my paradigm.

Background Info

I debated for 4 years for Downtown Magnets High School (LAMDL) and I am currently a sophomore JV debater at the University of Southern California.

Misc. Debate Information

Please include me in the email chain using: victor.briseno21@gmail.com

Write my ballot for me

I do not take prep time for flashing or emailing, but please make it quick. Please inform me if you're having technical difficulties.

Overviews are not necessary, but if you want to point out an important concession or something of the sort by all means go ahead, but please make sure that you point this out again real quick on the line by line. Overviews do make my job easier as they high light the arguments that you want me to focus on. Just assume judge are lazy when it comes to making decisions, WRITE MY BALLOT FOR ME DURING YOUR LAST REBUTTAL. Tell me exactly why I vote for your side, concessions and impacts that win you the debate etc.

Framing is very important, especially if the framing is reasonable. Telling me how I should evaluate the round in terms of your impacts and other framing issues is key!

I will try my best to give constructive criticism at the end of the debate, I will disclose my decision, but I will not disclose speaker points.

I'm okay with tag-team during cross x but please make sure that cross x is even among partners because it will definitely impact speaker points if one partner does all the talking when it is not their turn.

I think that I'm a fairly middle of the road type of judge. Will vote on policy and critical impacts.

Debate

Case

Case is very important so make sure that case is always extended and not dropped by the end of the debate. Teams sometimes focus so much on off cases that they forget to use their case offensively. Furthermore, the negative needs address the arguments made on case to some extent. I prefer policy affirmatives that have both terminal and structural impacts because it provides for a strategic diversity of arguments.

DAs

DAs need to do one or two of these. Exponentially more impactful in the debate if you have a CP that resolves the DA AND is mutually exclusive with the affirmative:

1) Have a strong link and have an impact that outweighs the affirmative

2) Serve as a net benefit for a CP

CPs

CPs are cool but please make sure that it has a net benefit so that it can actually be competitive with the affirmative's plan. I'm okay with any type of CP, but I may be more lenient towards the affirmative if the CP is just a consult CP or an agent CP that has no specific, clear application to the affirmative's plan.

Ks

The link and impact debate are the most important for me when it comes to the K debate. Specific links are preferred, especially impactful if you can make a link in the context of what is actually happening in a specific debate. However, the alternative should still be present throughout the debate and explained. If you're going for K solves case arguments, it's better for the alternative to advocate a specific action.

Framework/T

I grouped these two arguments because my comments for these are generally the same. These debates should always be specific to the round. They should have a substantial impact that outweighs what is going on in the round and the aff. Furthermore, these arguments should always be telling me how I should view the round and debate as a whole. An important thing to note is that I will see fairness as its own impact, but I think education is probably a better impact if you're reading other off cases. As someone who doesn't automatically reject K Affs, I hold the negative to a higher standard when it comes to proving these arguments against a policy aff. I rather not judge a procedural debate against a policy aff, but will vote when there are a lot of concessions.

Speaker Points

Just don't be mean or overly-sassy you will most likely not get something lower than a 27.5. However, being assertive while not being a jerk will probably get you good speaks. Cross examination is taken into consideration for speaker points, both based on how you answer questions and the questions you ask. Nicely done impact turns, warrant more speaker points.

UCLA '21

Email: cruzchristian.007@gmail.com

Background: 4 years in Policy, PD, and LD.

Current profession: Program Manager in Public Education.

General Preferences:

• Open to all styles: tricks, theory, K’s, policy. Prioritize well-warranted, weighted, and intriguing arguments.
• Avoid enforcing dress code-based arguments; it's an instant loss.
• I appreciate judge guidance, clarity, and clear round framing.
• Tech over truth. Vote based on clear round progression.
• Spreading is okay. Respect is paramount.
• Speak ratings: Humor, unique arguments, and clarity boost scores. Offensive behavior will lower them.
• Provide trigger/content warnings.
• I won't usually comb through evidence unless prompted.

Preferences by Style:

1. K's/performance/planless aff's, T, policy: I'm your judge.
2. Normative phil/framework, tricks, fringe theory: Slow down and consolidate arguments for clarity.
3. Traditional/LD debate styles: Perhaps consider another judge.

In Essence: Your round clarity is key. Give me structure, weigh impacts, and simplify your arguments for me. Be passionate, well-researched, and strategic. Presenting arguments I need to labor over less is advantageous. Avoid jargon without explanation. Make your round memorable, not mundane.

Specific Preferences:

1. Policy/LARP:

• Foundation rooted in defending plan aff's, DA's; familiar with west coast debates and policy strategies.
• Keen on thorough weighing and warrant comparison.
• Advocate for defending policy aff's against k's or philosophy. Justify your stance coherently and develop strong link-turn strategies.
• Have a predilection for specific politics scenarios, from Congress bills to international relations.
• 2 conditional CP's are the limit; answer potential theory arguments.

2. Philosophy:

• Acquainted with Kantian Ethics, Virtue Ethics, Pragmatism, Particularism, Agonism, Butler, and Social Contract Theories.
• Phil vs. K interactions intrigue me, but specific warranting is key.
• Skeptical about author indicts but can be swayed with strong arguments.
• Default to epistemic confidence; open to epistemic modesty if justified.

3. Tricks:

• Open to trick arguments if well-warranted and impactful.
• Emphasize creative approaches and clear ballot stories.
• Advocates for inventive strategies, seeking fresh perspectives.

4. Theory:

• Experience ranges from solvency advocate theory to body politics.
• Ensure arguments aren't overtly violent or excessively frivolous.
• Default preferences: competing interpretations, drop the debater, no RVI's. However, open to changes if justified.
• Emphasize impact turns aren't RVIs, recommending thorough engagement with the flow rather than outright dismissals.

Counterplans:

I appreciate a well-thought-out counterplan. I'm very familiar with process, agent, and advantage counterplans. If you're running a PIC (plan-inclusive counterplan), be ready to defend its theoretical legitimacy. Solvency advocates are crucial. The more specific your counterplan is to the aff, the better.

I generally believe that the aff should get some form of permutation to test the competition of the counterplan. If you’re going for a perm, have a clear explanation of what the perm does and why it resolves the net benefit. I'm not automatically against conditionality, but excessive or abusive condo might be problematic.

Disads:

Clear link stories are a must. Generic links can be okay, but specific link evidence will always be more persuasive. Make sure to weigh impacts and do comparison throughout the debate. It's crucial to have a clear internal link story, and I appreciate teams that take the time to break it down and explain. Impact calculus should happen early and often, not just in the 2NR/2AR.

Miscellaneous:

Cross-ex: I view cross-ex as binding and an essential part of the debate. It's not just a time to clarify positions but also an opportunity to set traps, build your own case, or break down your opponent's arguments. Be strategic.

Style/Speed: Speed is okay, but clarity is paramount. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you. Be especially clear when reading tags, authors, and theory arguments.

Prep time: I'm pretty traditional when it comes to prep time. Once you've called for a card or piece of evidence, the clock should stop, but frequent or long evidence exchanges can be disruptive. Be efficient.

Notes on Decorum: I believe in respect in the round. You can be passionate, assertive, even aggressive in making your points, but there's a line. Personal attacks, discrimination, or any form of harassment has no place in debate.

Final Thoughts:

Debate is an educational activity and a game. Play hard, have fun, and learn something along the way. I'm here to adjudicate rounds to the best of my ability, and I want all debaters to feel like they had a fair shot when they debated in front of me. Always feel free to ask questions before or after the round to clarify my thoughts or decision. Good luck!

Homewood Flossmoor High School 2011-2015

Pomona College 2015-2019 (not debating)

Meta Level

The more work you do, the happier you will be with my decision. By this I don’t just mean that I reward smart strategies, research, etc. (I do), but rather that the better you explain and unpack an argument and tell me how to evaluate it, the less likely my own biases and preferences will affect the decision. With this in mind, there are a couple takeaways

-          Framing is important. At a certain point, this seems redundant to say (obviously impact calc is important), but all too often debaters fail to “tie up” the debate in a way that is easy to evaluate. What impacts matter? What arguments should I look to first? How should I think about making decisions? Leaving these calls up to my gut may not work out well for you. Do not assume that I will put together the pieces of your argument in the way that is most favorable to you, or the way that you they should be viewed. Your best bet is to do this for me. As a general rule of thumb, your likelihood of picking up my ballot is directly proportional to the number of “even if” statements you make.

-          truth and tech are both important and the divisions between them are far more arbitrary and vacuous than it is usually given credit for. That being said, it is up to you to give me a metric for evaluating what claims are true. What types of evidence should I look to? Should I view that evidence through a certain lens? How should I treat dropped/under covered arguments? Obviously I have some personal proclivities that may be harder to overcome than others

o   I will always tend to evaluate dropped arguments far less than extended arguments. This does not mean that dropped arguments are automatically “true” or that truth claims made earlier in the debate are suddenly gone (that may well require more work on my part), but it does mean that I am less likely to give these arguments weight.

o   Although they can be important parts of a speech, I am not inclined to give as much weight to solipsistic narratives as evidence. This is not a hard or fast preference, and some smart framing arguments about the way I should evaluate narratives will go a long way, but do not assume I will immediately evaluate a narrative as evidence in its own right sans an evidenced claim that I should evaluate them this way.

o   Make smart analytic arguments, these can often be better than reading yet another terrible uniqueness card on the politics disad. The more I see you thinking for yourself and making creative and smart arguments in a debate, the better speaks you will get.

I appreciate creative and innovative strategies, maybe more than others. If you want to bust out that weird impact turn or super cheating counterplan or sweet ass new K, you should do that. You will always be better at doing what you do best. Please don’t feel deterred from reading a strategy in front of me because the community has generally frowned on it (spark, death good, etc.), I’m down to hear things outside of the norm. That being said, I included a few notes about how I feel/debated like in high school, you can take these preferences however you want, they are subject to change within a round.

As a caveat, Debate should be a space where everyone feels welcome. Please do not read racist/sexist/anti-queer/ableist/ or otherwise offensive arguments in front of me.

Please add me on the email chain: Jacob.a.fontana@gmail.com.

Framework

I debated both sides of this extensively in high school. I will not “penalize” you for reading framework; I think it is a smart and strategic argument. Similarly, do not assume that because you read framework you have my ballot, I am very middle of the road on these issues. You should treat this as any other K/CP strategy you have read. Too often teams miss nuance in these debates and read a bunch of state good/bad evidence while neglecting the smaller moving pieces, I tend to think those are important, and the more you address the internal link level of the debate, the better off you will be.

T

Affirmatives should find ways to leverage offense against the negatives interpretation. Playing some light defense and reading some reasonability blacks is not going to win you my ballot. I generally tend to default to competing interpretations. Furthermore, teams need to treat this debate more like disad, you should do impact calc, read impact, link, or internal link turns, explain why your interp solves a portion of their offense, etc. I greatly enjoy smart T debates and will reward you handsomely in speaker points if you execute it well.

Disads

Absolute defense (or defense to the point where I should cease to evaluate the disad outside of the noise of status quo) is a thing and far too few debaters go for. 90 percent of disads are absolute garbage and you shouldn’t be afraid to point that out. More broadly, Offense defense tends to be a heavily neg biased model of debate and contributes to a lot (in my eyes) to the denigration of the activity towards the most reality-divorced hyperbolic impact claims, and I will not default to it. Obviously this is subject to change in a given round, but you should be conscious of the weight I tend to give to defensive arguments. In general, I think link controls the direction of uniqueness, but I can easily be persuaded otherwise

Please, if you have it, read something different than politics. I don’t hate the politics disad, but it is an often overused strategy and I will reward your innovation with speaker points

Counterplans

Any argument is legitimate until it is not, don’t hesitate to read your cheating counterplans in front of me, but be ready to defend them. Theory debates are good and valuable, but I do not want to listen to you read your blocks at 400 words a minute. Slow down, make smart arguments, and go for what you’re ahead on. Less is often more in these situations. I actually very much enjoy good theory debates and find them quite interesting. You should treat these like any other type of debate, you should do impact calc, flesh out internal links, etc.

Kritiks

I have a reasonable familiarity with most mainstream critiques and greatly enjoy these debates. In high school, I would most often read the security or the cap K, but this should not be interpreted as an exclusionary list. You do you and I’ll likely jive with it. I will reward innovation, reading a tailored critique is far more interesting to me than rereading the same Spanos block your team has had for the last 8 years. The one caveat here is that my familiarity with certain “high theory” authors (Bataille, Deleuze, etc.) is rather passing. I am more than certainly open to hearing these arguments and don’t have any prejudices against them (I debated on the same team as Carter Levinson for 3 years), but this does mean that you may need to take extra time to unpack arguments and contextualize them in terms of the debate.

Topic Notes

I have not worked on the China Topic, for you this means you probably want to slow down on, and possibly explain, acronyms the first couple times.

Ethics violations

Ethic violations are deliberate, not accidental. Missing a few words or accidentally skipping a line isn’t a big deal, but repeatedly doing that or doing it in a way that is clearly intentional is. If you believe that someone has committed an ethics violation, please start recording the round, I also reserve the right to do this. If I think you are clipping, I may start a recording of my own, I will also try read along in the speech docs whenever possible. If I do determine you’ve committed a violation, you will lose the debate and receive 0 speaks, I will also speak to your coaches. Clipping is a serious offense and I will treat it with the attention it deserves.

Gabrielino High School 2011-2015

tech>truth

Speech times are set, one team wins

I will ask for what you are reading (if it is electronic), and I will follow at random intervals. My email is matthew.graca@gmail.com

However, will (attempt to) not reevaluate this evidence post-round, I don't want to do that work for you.

Don't be afraid to use analytics to take out bad arguments. Just because you need a warrant for everything, doesn't mean you always need a card for it.

Explanatory overviews are much appreciated, especially for nuanced strategies and positions.

If I'm confused, I will look confused. Take advantage of this.

I don't believe in debating for anyone. If you can justify it, you can run it. I believe if someone makes a truly despicable argument, you should clap back and make them regret it.

DO IMPACT CALC OR I WILL GOT FOR THE LOWEST HANGING FRUIT. I AM ACTUALLY AN IDIOT SO PLEASE MAKE MY LIFE EASY

*CHRIST ALMIGHTY SLOW DOWN ON ANALYTICS/THEORY*

I am VERY bad at catching blippy arguments. if you spend less than a sentence on the arg, i probably won't catch it. beat me over the head with it tyvm.

honestly i didn't actually believe i was really tabula rasa until i recently voted for a tragically underanswered spreading bad arg do you understand what that does to a man i don't play NO GAMES MANG

GENERAL STUFF

Topic Familiarity: I probably won't research the topic and most likely won't judge it enough to know the meta. I would avoid using acronyms that have previously not been defined

Delivery: Not really used to speed anymore tbh. Using audible cues such as increasing the volume of your voice and slowing down instinctively puts my pen to paper. Do so for things you want me to flow.

Cheap shots: If it has a voter, they are voters. It's up to the other team to say why they don't count. but again, don't count on me to catch blippy args

CP threshold: Honestly I don't have much experience with deeper CP theory. but as long as you keep your theory organized, i will likely be able to follow

PROCEDURAL STUFF

tag team cx is fine

having your partner speak for you is ok, but if it occurs enough times say bye bye to your speaks

prep ends when the flashdrive leaves the computer / the email is sent

time each other's prep, i will not keep track

FRAMEWORK

Frame the framework by indicating what interpretation of debate you desire and why that is net beneficial for debate. I think of fw like a cp - give me your interp of debate, how you solve it, and hit me with those nice and clear net benz to your vision of debate.

you can frame the impacts of your fw. i love filtering since it makes my decision easier

KRITIK

I dig it. I’m as dense as a brick, so regardless of the K I’m gonna need a good overview explaining your jam.

ALTS

Everyone has a spicy alt like "giving back the land" or "revolutionary suicide" What i need to know is HOW YOU PERFORM YOUR ALT. Are you literally giving land back? what is revolutionary suicide supposed to mean? this stuff should be explained.

Even if you're not performing your alt (which is ok i guess i mean how else are we gonna spread the gospel of death good), why is your method good/better than the other team's method?

btw, if your alt is literally just "reject the aff" and that will spillover to 100% capitalism solvency with no further explanation, i may involuntarily gag

THOUGHTS ON SPECIFIC TYPES OF Ks

Nietzsche: I was the 1n that spent his time finding links for my partner that can literally (literally.) only go for Nietzsche. At the last leg of our careers wanted to run death good, but ever could :(

Race: probs the one I’m most comfortable with, ran a myth of the model minority/antiblackness aff senior year.

French philosopher soup of the day: i hope you write good overviews and explain your buzzwords. if not, the other team could prob say "lol whatre you even saying" as an effective response. i do not like being pressured to vote for something that is incoherent.

etc (queer, ableism, things i can't think of): no real experience, but i have no reason to dislike these args at all so go for it

THEORY THEORY THEORY

For the love of all that is holy, slow down on this crap... I have a very hard time following theory debates that are just blasting at full speed. If you do this and ask why my decision is incomplete, this will be why.

note for ld: i've never voted for an rvi and god willing i never will. unless it gets egregiously dropped

For organizational purposes I would follow much easier if you put your theory in this fashion:

Interpretation -> violation -> standards -> voters

This will also let me know if you’re serious or if you’re going for some dirty communist cheap shot - I see so many theory debates where y'all are just blasting lines at each other, doing no form of impact calc to your theory. It's pure nonsense and a headache to adjudicate where one side had 5 lines of DAs to the interp and the other had 6 lines and it's just throwing crap at the wall (aka ME >:|) and seeing what sticks.

Some violations aren’t big enough to warrant a loss; rather, a concession. I will totally buy your strategy setup where you say “ok, we’ll kick T if they drop their no link arguments”, but hey everything's gotta be a friggen voter doesn't it, huh.

As you may be able to tell, I am a big fan of theory that DOES NOT operate in a vacuum. T-subs and a spending DA hits different.

In-round abuse stories are very convincing. Potential abuse is fairly weak for me tbh, but if it's there i'll evaluate it the best i can

judge kicking: the more autonomy you give me over our RFD the more unhappy you'll be with my decision :P. "the status quo is always an option" makes me uncomfortable b/c you're making me do it. commit to something.

SPEAKER POINTS

Speaks = organization + ethos + clarity

I don't know how judges are able to make the tenth's distinction, so this will be a ballpark estimate. Speed does not play a role in speaks; audibility and fluidity is first and foremost, followed by the funnies. HAVE SOME PERSONALITY, THAT HELPS YOUR SPEAKS LOTS.

I am impartial to all spreading styles except for the "booming and committing verbal genocide" style and the "spread at 0.05dB for the card text so no one can possibly tell I'm clipping xD" style, please respect the local volume.

I should be able to coherently hear the texts of your cards btw.

Breakdown:

30: i don't know what you did to get this but it's gonna be a helluva story innit

29: hey you should get a speaker award in this tourney

28: not likely to get a speaker award but i like the cut a ya jib

27: delivery is incoherent at key moments or made life hell playing flow hopscotch

26: it is possible that words were spoken but i can neither confirm nor deny

25: i don't know what you did to get this but it's gonna be a helluva story innit

I did LD for 1 year in my high school career. I am typically a policy judge that has a background of league and circuit debate.
With that said, I lean towards the traditional style of LD debate.
I will flow and listen to arguments and cards. I typically will vote on any argument as long as it's sound. If you're going for a more circuit/policy type of argument, there needs to be a good reason for it.

As for speed, I am moderate. Once my pen stops flowing, your argument is not on the flow.

Affiliations and History:
Please email (damiendebate47@gmail.com and tjlewis1919@gmail.com) me all of the speeches before you begin.
I am the Director of Debate at Damien High School in La Verne, CA.
I was the Director of Debate for Hebron High School in Carrollton, TX from 2020-2021.
I was an Assistant Coach at Damien from 2017-2020.
I debated on the national circuit for Damien from 2009-2013.
I graduated from Occidental College in Los Angeles with a BA in Critical Theory and Social Justice.
I completed my Master's degree in Social Justice in Higher Education Administration at The University of La Verne.
My academic work involves critical university studies, Georges Bataille, poetics, and post-colonialism.
Author of Suburba(in)e Surrealism (2021).

Yearly Round Numbers:
I try to judge a fair bit each year.
Fiscal Redistribution Round Count: About 40 rounds
I judged 75 rounds or more on the NATO Topic.
I judged over 50 rounds on the Water Topic.
I judged around 40 rounds on the CJR topic.
I judged 30 rounds on the Arms topic (2019-2020)
I judged a bit of LD (32 debates) on the Jan-Feb Topic (nuke disarm) in '19/'20.
I judged around 25 debates on the Immigration topic (2018-2019) on the national circuit.
I judged around 50 rounds on the Education topic (2017-2018) on the national circuit.
LD Protocol:I have a 100% record voting against teams that only read Phil args/Phil v. Policy debates. Adapt or lose.
NDT Protocol: I will rarely have any familiarity with the current college topic and will usually only judge 12-15 rounds pre-NDT.
Please make your T and CP acronyms understandable.

Front Matter Elements:
If you need an accommodation of any kind, please email me before the round starts.
I want everyone to feel safe and able to debate- this is my number one priority as a judge.
I don't run prep time while you email the speech doc. Put the whole speech into one speech doc.
I flow 1AC impact framing, inherency, and solvency straight down on the same page nowadays.
Speed is not an issue for me, but I will ask you to slow down (CLEAR) if you are needlessly sacrificing clarity for quantity--especially if you are reading T or theory arguments.

I will not evaluate evidence identifiable as being produced by software, bots, algorithms etc. Human involvement in the card’s production must be evident unique to the team, individual, and card. This means that evidence you directly take from open source must be re-highlighted at a minimum. You should change the tags and underlining anyways to better fit with your argument’s coherency.

Decision-making:
I privilege technical debating and the flow. I try to get as much down as I possibly can and the little that I miss usually is a result of a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker or because the actual causal chain of the idea does not make consistent sense for me (I usually express this on my face). Your technical skill should make me believe/be able to determine that your argument is the truth. That means warrants. Explain them, impact them, and don't make me fish for them in the un-underlined portion of the six paragraph card that your coach cut for you at a camp you weren't attending. I find myself more and more dissatisfied with debating that operates only on the link claim level. I tend to take a formal, academic approach to the evaluation of ideas, so discussions of source, author intentions and 'true' meaning, and citation are both important to me and something that I hope to see in more debates.

The best debates for me to judge are ones where the last few rebuttals focus on giving me instructions on what the core controversies of the round are, how to evaluate them, and what mode of thinking I should apply to the flow as a history of the round. This means that I'm not going to do things unless you tell me to do them on the flow (judge kick, theory 'traps' etc.). When instructions are not provided or articulated, I will tend to use (what I consider to be) basic, causal logic (i.e. judicial notice) to find connections, contradictions, and gaps/absences. Sometimes this happens on my face--you should be paying attention to the physical impact of the content of your speech act.

I believe in the importance of topicality and theory. No affs are topical until proven otherwise.
Non-impacted theory arguments don't go a long way for me; establish a warranted theory argument that when dropped will make me auto-vote for you. This is not an invitation for arbitrary and non-educational theory arguments being read in front of me, but if you are going to read no neg fiat (for example), then you better understand (and be able to explain to me) the history of the argument and why it is important for the debate and the community.

Reading evidence only happens if you do not make the debate legible and winnable at the level of argument (which is the only reason I would have to defer to evidentiary details).

I find framework to be a boring/unhelpful/poorly debated style of argument on both sides. I want to hear about the ballot-- what is it, what is its role, and what are your warrants for it (especially why your warrants matter!). I want to know what kind of individual you think the judge is (academic, analyst, intellectual etc.). I want to hear about the debate community and the round's relationship within it. These are the most salient questions in a framework debate for me. If you are conducting a performance in the round and/or debate space, you need to have specific, solvable, and demonstrable actions, results, and evidences of success. These are the questions we have to be thinking about in substantial and concrete terms if we are really thinking about them with any authenticity/honesty/care (sorge). I do not think the act of reading FW is necessarily constitutive of a violent act. You can try to convince me of this, but I do start from the position that FW is an argument about what the affirmative should do in the 1AC.

If you are going to go for Fairness, then you need a metric. Not just a caselist, not just a hypothetical ground dispensation, but a functional method to measure the idea of fairness in the round/outside the round i.e. why are the internal components (ground, caselist, etc.) a good representation of a team's burden and what do these components do for individuals/why does that matter. I am not sure what that metric/method is, but my job is not to create it for you. A framework debate that talks about competing theories for how fairness/education should be structured and analyzed will make me very happy i.e. engaging the warrants that constitute ideas of procedural/structural fairness and critical education. Subject formation has really come into vogue as a key element for teams and honestly rare is the debate where people engage the questions meaningfully--keep that in mind if you go for subject formation args in front of me.

In-round Performance and Speaker Points:
An easy way to get better speaker points in front of me is by showing me that you actually understand how the debate is going, the arguments involved, and the path to victory. Every debater has their own style of doing this (humor, time allocation, etc.), but I will not compromise detailed, content-based analysis for the ballot.

I believe that there is a case for in-round violence/damage winning the ballot. Folks need to be considerate of their behavior and language. You should be doing this all of the time anyways.

While I believe that high school students should not be held to a standard of intellectual purity with critical literature, I do expect you to know the body of scholarship that your K revolves around: For example, if you are reading a capitalism K, you should know who Marx, Engels, and Gramsci are; if you are reading a feminism k, you should know what school of feminism (second wave, psychoanalytic, WOC, etc.) your author belongs to. If you try and make things up about the historical aspects/philosophical links of your K, I will reflect my unhappiness in your speaker points and probably not give you much leeway on your link/alt analysis. I will often have a more in-depth discussion with you about the K after the round, so please understand that my post-round comments are designed to be educational and informative, instead of determining your quality/capability as a debater.

I am 100% DONE with teams not showing up on time to disclose. A handful of minutes or so late is different than showing up 3-5 min before the round begins. Punish these folks with disclosure theory and my ears will be open.

CX ends when the timer rings. I will put my fingers in my ears if you do not understand this. I deeply dislike the trend of debaters asking questions about 'did you read X card etc.' in cross-x and I believe this contributes to the decline of flowing skills in debate. While I have not established a metric for how many speaker points an individual will lose each time they say that phrase, know that it is something on my mind. I will not allow questions outside of cross-x outside of core procedural things ('can you give the order again?,' 'everyone ready?' etc.). Asking 'did you read X card' or 'theoretical reasons to reject the team' outside of CX are NOT 'core procedural things.'

Do not read these types of arguments in front of me:
Arguments that directly call an individual's humanity into account
Arguments based in directly insulting your opponents
Arguments that you do not understand

My name is William Melton. I have judged policy debate for three years on the local and National Circuit. I am a Professional Engineer and an adjunct professor at several community colleges. I understand most arguments and prefer traditional policy debate. Please read the exceptions because I rarely vote for certain types of arguments.

I prefer debaters who are authentic in their arguments, are polite to each other, and have good form. I make my decisions based on the quality of the arguments. This means that I prefer that you prove to me why you should win the debate round. If you spread unintelligibly, I can not vote for unintelligible arguments.

Traditional AFF: I prefer this form of debating. Please extend your arguments effectively through the debate round and it will be a good round.

K aff: I do not prefer this type of debate, I do not find many of these arguments persuasive or well developed. If you use this type of argument you must persuade me and impact your argument. Be clear why you want me to vote for you. Just uttering the words “role of the ballot” is not sufficient---why should the role of the ballot be what you have suggested it to be? Affs should also argue why the aff is sufficiently debatable (negs should argue to the contrary), not merely why the aff is important to discuss.

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

Theory: Convince me. I will vote to reject an argument over a team. If this argument is not made, I'll defer to the other team's interpretation on what I should do with the suspect arg (ie, reject the team).

CP/DA's: I like counter plans and clear disad debates and will be persuaded by convincing arguments. Just make sure that it is competitive with the Affirmative and that you do prove to me why I should vote on it. This also applies to the affirmative team, persuade me as to why your affirmative is better.

K: I will vote on K if it is clearly explained. I prefer to be convinced by the team running the K. Any kritik you read must be persuasive, not just power tagging. I encourage underviews for the cards and overviews in the block to straighten out the debate. Any argument on a kritik that is not explained will not be preferred over a well explained argument, as policy is not tagline debate. Make sure that you do impact calculus so that I can know whether to prefer the impacts of the aff or the K first. Explain the framework and why your K's impacts come before the Affs. Also, make sure that the Alternative and Links are explained throughout the debate round, this makes the round flow smoother. I do not vote for vague alternatives, arguments should be flushed out and explained. I believe in a debate that is based on an intellectual level, not one of the "you're bad"/"Truth isn't real" debates. This does not mean that I won't vote for high level arguments, but I prefer more the well explained thoughtful intellectual discussions.

Make sure to include me on the email chain: Wmelton@portofsandiego.org. Any arguments you make need to be on the email chain, including analytics. Otherwise, those arguments will not be considered.

Ryan Mills - Archbishop Mitty High School, CA

Competitor: Damien HS 1980-1984, Loyola Marymount University (LMU) 1984-1987

Coach: Loyola HS (Los Angeles) 1989-1994, Pinewood 1994-1995, College Prep 1995-2000, Archbishop Mitty 2016 - Present

Please put me on the email chain: rmills1916@gmail.com

[My] Framework - Or how do we achieve our best selves by doing this thing called 'debate'?

I approach debate as an educator so for me the primary reason we spend our nights and weekends together is our appreciation of the activity's ability to help us improve our critical thinking skills and articulate complex concepts in a logical and persuasive way. To that end

• Tell the story - the team who ends the debate with a coherent, compelling narrative is generally rewarded. Resolve, rather than merely extend, arguments in the 2nr/2ar.
• 'Debate the debate we're in.' Reading canned blocks, especially through rebuttals, means you're not clashing (or listening, or flowing) which also means I'm left to resolve the debate myself - no one's happy in that scenario.
• I'll be on the email chain, but I'm not reading along and won't fill in my flow from the speech doc what I don't hear comprehensibly. I prioritize flowing the card verbiage over the (very often overpowered) tag, so please don't do the slow tag line/incomprehensible high-speed card read routine. I flow, on paper, which is my detailed record of what transpires in the debate and is what I reference when rendering a decision. If it's not on my flow, it's not considered, so please make sure you tell me where your 2nr/2ar extension originates earlier on in the debate.
• Card clipping is cheating - loss and zeroes if caught.
• If the debate centers around whose evidence is better on a particular argument, best you do the evidence comparison work for me because...
• If you *do* ask me to read a piece of evidence, you are inviting my intervention in the debate regarding the 'quality' of the evidence (whether it actually says what you claim it says). Once you invite me (or any critic) into *your* space, you've lost control of how far that critic engages your invitation.
• Overtly racist, sexist, misogynistic, anti-LGBTQ discourse, etc. results in a loss and zero points.
• I welcome a spirited discussion during the RFD, but sometimes we simply won't agree on the outcome. Most judges make decisions on 'meta' arguments governing the overall direction of the debate, not some claim buried in the quickly-spewed third-level subpoint in a block. Even if you come away from my RFD thinking I'm a complete idiot, the best way to approach any critic is to ask probing questions about how we arrived at our conclusions. That way next time you debate in front of me you have a beat on how I think and can craft your approach accordingly (or decide my view is just so antithetical to yours that you strike me, which is fine too). If you treat these exchanges as a training ground for successful future, much higher stakes exchanges you'll have both personally and professionally, you'll have absorbed the best of what this activity has to offer.

That's my framework. Now, a few words on how I default if you leave me to my own devices.

Overview - 'You do you' as long as you warrant it

I do my best to suspend my predilections: whether I love or hate a particular argument, I'll vote for you if you win it unless it's fundamentally reprehensible (genocide good, etc.).

Primary guidance: debate the debate we're in rather than read canned blocks written months ago in a land far far away from the round we're sitting in. Clash is paramount.

Default views on argument types

Topicality

I prefer to understand what specific ground the negative is rightfully entitled to that the affirmative interpretation precludes access to. I care more about what you do than what you might allow. Conversely, I am also receptive to arguments around T as language policing resulting in the exclusion of marginalized voices, so don't be afraid to go for that either. I'm a former English teacher, so to me words matter in both directions.

Plans/Counterplans/Permutations: Words Matter!

Document the exact plan/counterplan/permutation(s) wording before engaging. If there is a real grammatical flaw in the text, don't be afraid to stake the debate on it, properly impacted (the 2003 ToC was decided on a plan flaw argument so it's a thing, at least to me).

Won't 'judge-kick.' It's up to the negative to make strategic decisions about advocacy in the 2NR.

Disads

No link means no link. Offense always helps, but I will easily vote on a well-executed no link/internal link/low risk of impact approach.

I lean toward probability over magnitude. Focus on uniqueness and the link/internal link whether on aff or neg. Debate solvency on case and do the work to weigh impact vs. aff advantage remaining in the rebuttals. Extend impacts in rebuttals and tell the comparative story (again resolve, don't just extend).

Accordingly on the neg, your time is better spent making the link bulletproof than reading impact extensions unless the aff is impact-turning the disad/k. If you want to win on framing/framework invest time there.

Critiques

• Read extensively in the literature of the criticism you're advocating and compile your own positions. CX can be devastating with these arguments, so if you've read the literature you can tease out nuances that teams who take the lazy way out won't be able to account for.
• I'm receptive to specific link and impact assessment. Better to establish how this particular affirmative triggers a unique link to this specific criticism rather than rely on a generic indictment of a particular normative framework or 'you use the USFG' - i.e. a link to the status quo. Advocate an alternative and explain how you access it. 'Refuse' isn't a great option since that just puts the resister on a pedestal divorced from efforts to materially improve the lives of the marginalized, but I'll (reluctantly) vote on it if well defended.
• If your strategy is 'high theory' I'm not the best judge for you so please pref me accordingly. I strive to read enough critical literature to be conversant, but I have a day job so will not be PhD-level familiar with any critical argument. Please debate with this level of familiarity in mind or risk disappointment with the outcome.
• Critical affs/planless affs/Performance: Fine, again just want to understand what I'm endorsing if you're asking for the ballot.

If you have questions about something I haven't covered, please ask before the debate starts.. The activity is meant to be educational, fun, and inclusive - if it's not, we should all be doing something else.

Updated for Economic Inequality Topic

Overview

E-Mail Chain: Yes, add me (chris.paredes@gmail.com) & my school mail (damiendebate47@gmail.com). I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.

Experience: Damien 05, Amherst College 09, Emory Law 13L. This will be my seventh year as the Assistant Director at Damien (part-time), and my second year as Director at St. Lucy's Priory (full-time). I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) are influenced by debating in the 00s.

This Year's Topic: I believe that the point of the resolution is to force debaters to learn about a different topic each year. So I think that debaters who develop good topic knowledge -- i.e., debaters who understand economics as a complex field of academic study and can analyze how different policies would affect the economy at different levels -- will have a massive advantage on internal link debating and are better equipped to win my ballot.

Debate: I am open to voting for almost any argument or style so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. Debate is a game. Rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, standards of the game (condo, competition, limits of fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate, either more fair or more pedagogically valuable, compared to your opponent's. My ballot always is awarded to whoever debated better; I will not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the round, whether that was at camp or a previous round.

I run a planess aff; should I strike you?: As a matter of truth I am predisposed to the neg, but I try to leave bias at the door. I do end up voting aff about half the time. I will hold a planless aff to the same standard as a K alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, I will "hack" out on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) are non-factors until you contextualize and justify why they are solvency mechanisms for the aff in the debate space.

Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is easier to debate well when using true arguments and better cards. In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however I read critically. Cards are meaningless without highlighted warrants; you are better off fewer painted cards than multiple under-highlighted cards. Well-explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, can beat bad/under-highlighted cards.

Debate Ideologies: I think that judges should reward good debating over ideology, so almost all of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents. You can limit the chance that I intervene by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions; the 2NR and 2AR are competing pitches trying to sell me a ballot.

Accommodations: Please email me ahead of time if you believe you will need an accommodation that cannot be facilitated in round so that I can work with tab on your issue. Any accommodation that has any potential competitive implications (limiting content or speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary.

Argument by argument breakdown below.

Topicality

Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive impact debate. You win my ballot when you are the team that proves their interpretation is best for debate -- usually by proving that you have the best internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to a terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I love judging a good T round and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses. I would much rather hear a well-articulated 2NR on why I need to enforce a limited vision of the topic than a K with state/omission links or a Frankenstein process CP that results in the aff.

I default to competing interpretations, but reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable (e.g., "The aff interp only imposes a reasonable additional research burden of two more cases") versus vague generalities ("Good is good enough").

I believe that many resolutions (especially domestic topics) are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that preserving topicality as a viable generic negative strategy is important. I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if I think that the aff is/should be topical in a truth sense. I am also a judge who will actually vote on T-Substantial (substantial as in size, not subsets) because I think there should be a mechanism to check small affs.

Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are impacted as independent voters. However, I believe they are internal links to the original violation and standards (i.e. you don't meet if you only meet effectually). The neg is best off introducing Fx/Xtra early with me in the back; I give the 1ARs more leeway to answer new Fx/Xtra extrapolations than I will give the 2AC for undercovering Fx/Xtra.

Framework / T-USFG

For an aff to win framework they must articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model. Procedural fairness starts as an impact by default and the aff must prove why it should not be. I can and will vote on education outweighs fairness, or that substantive fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but the aff must win these arguments. The TVA is an education argument and not a fairness argument; affs are not entitled to the best version of the case (policy affs do not get extra-topical solvency mechanisms), so I don't care if the TVA is worse than the planless version from a competitive standpoint.

For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or a better type of education). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for -- I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both -- it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss in the round, but why neg ground loss under the aff's model is inevitable and uniquely worse. When going for education, deploy arguments for why plan-based debate is a better internal link to positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. Empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable, or how policy-focused debate scales up better than planless debate, are extremely persuasive in front of me.

Procedurals/Theory

I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy, therefore I believe that the best iteration of debate is one that teaches people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae about process. I have MUCH less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case and the negative is entitled to test that implementation strategy. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I will hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why they should be considered competitive with the aff.

That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you absent actual line-by-line refutation that includes a coherent abuse story which would be solved by your interpretation.

Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time; you cannot spread a block of analytics at me like they were a card and expect me to catch everything. I will be very unapologetic in saying I didn't catch parts of the theory debate on my flow because you were spreading too fast.

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

- Condo is good (but should have limitations, esp. to check perf cons and skew).

- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate if they prove competition; a specific solvency advocate proves competitiveness but the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates high risk of a solvency deficit and/or no competition.

- The aff gets normal means or whatever they specify; they are not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) due to the lack of specificity.

- The neg is not entitled to intrinsic processes that result in the aff (i.e. ConCon, NGA, League of Democracies).

- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

My defaults that are UNLIKELY to change or CANNOT be changed:

- CX is binding.

- Lit checks/justifies (debate is primarily a research and strategic activity).

- OSPEC is never a voter (except fiating something contradictory to ev or a contradiction between different authors).

- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth).

- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg.

- Teams should disclose previously run arguments; breaking new doesn't require disclosure.

- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms), but specific instances of behavior outside the room/round that are not verifiable are not relevant in this round.

- Condo is not the same thing as severance of the discourse/rhetoric. You can win severance of your reps, but it is not a default entitlement from condo.

- ASPEC is checked by cross. The neg should ask and if the aff answers and doesn't spike, I will not vote on ASPEC. If the aff does not answer, the neg can win by proving abuse. Potential ground loss is abuse.

Kritiks

TL;DR: I would much rather hear a good K than a bad politics disad, so if you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid doing specific case research and brute force ballots with links of omission or reusing generic criticisms about the state/fiat, I am a bad judge for you. If I'm in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, reconsider your prefs/strategy.

A kritik must be presented as a comprehensible argument in round. To me, that means that a K must not only explain the scholarship and its relevance (links and impacts), but it must function as a coherent call for the ballot (through the alt). A link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff and/or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you cannot explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt then I will have an extremely low threshold for treating the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as there is a coherent explanation for why I should do that beyond the mere fact the aff links (for example, if the K turns case). If the alt solves back for the implications of the K, whether it is a material alt or a debate space alt, the solvency process should be explained and contrasted with the plan/perm. Links of omission are very uncompelling. Links are not disads to the perm unless you have a (re-)contextualization to why the link implicates perm solvency. Ks can solve the aff, but the mechanism shouldn't be that the world of the alt results in the plan (i.e. floating PIK).

Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to weigh the impacts vs. labeling your discourse as a link. Being extremely good at historical analysis is the best way to win a link turn or impact turn. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm, especially if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relates directly to the impacts.

Against K affs, you should leverage fairness and education offensive as a way to shape the process by which I should evaluate the kritik. I'm more likely to give you "No perms without a plan text" because cheating should be mutual than I am to give it to you because epistemology and pedagogy is important.

Counterplans

I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of your net benefit is evaluated inversely proportional to the quality of the counterplan is. Generic PICs are more vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits and carry much higher threshold burden on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias by rewarding negs who who diligent in research. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg has a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.

- Process CPs: I am extremely unfriendly to process counterplans where the process is entirely intrinsic; I have a very low threshold for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test opportunity cost. I am extremely friendly to process counterplans that test a distinct implementation method compared to the aff. Intentionally vague plan texts do not give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan (Perm Do the CP). The neg can define normal means for the aff if the aff refuses to, but the neg has an equally high burden to defend the competitiveness of the CP process vs. normal means. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases; I will vote aff on CP flaws if the neg's attempt to hot-swap between these processes produces a structural defect.

I do not judge kick by default, but 2NRs can easily convince me to do so as an extension of condo. Superior solvency for the aff case alone is sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. the aff has no competition arguments in the 2AR).

I am very likely to err neg on sufficiency framing; the aff absolutely needs either a solvency deficit or arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative (and why that outweighs).

Disadvantages

I value defense more than most judges and am willing to assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not when you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force past near zero risk. I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense.

Misc.

Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments will have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.

Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5 in speaks. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. If online please keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear through Zoom than in person.

Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.

Strategy Points: I will reward good practices in research and preparation. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Capital on a courts counterplan is a disad but CP gets circumvented is not). Negative teams with case negs (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks.

Include me on the email chain: ptdebate21@gmail.com

I'm a parent judge with some knowledge of policy debate. I'll do my best to evaluate without judge intervention, but it will be within the parameters of my experience, obviously.

Some tips:

Don't spread unless you don't mind me flowing a blank space for your speech.

Convince me.

"I read a card" is not actually an argument. Show me why it matters. If you just read cards at each other and don't explain how it interacts with your opponent's arguments, you didn't do anything but read a card. I can have a computer read out a card to me, but I'm not going to evaluate it for the computer, or you.

Impact Calc is your friend.

Be respectful and ethical (do not make false statements about your opponent, or yourself).

Extra speaks if you can effectively leverage The Borg, or Star Wars in anything from an analogy to a full on Kritik. (Key word: Effectively)

NOTE: Rudeness, ad hominems, cussing, lying, and acting like a jerk is unprofessional and will cost you--don't even think about it. Hate speech, racism, and bigotry will make things even worse for the offending debater.

Otherwise, have a great time debating.

LD:

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

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

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

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

Policy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.