I have debated four years of policy in high school. I was able to attend 2 National Forensics League Tournaments and 2 National Association of Urban Debate Leagues Tournamens and have even done this Harvard tournament before.

I am comfortable with most arguments such as K's, T's, and DA's, however prefer debates with high levels of clash and spefic links of negative arguments to the affirmative. The debate always comes down to the rebuttals for me... whichever team is  able to persuade me that their impacts outweigh their opponents should have the win. 

Side note: I have not judged too often this year so not use to the resolution that well. Also be careful when you spread, I prefer you not go all out and take time on your tags so I can catch them. 

I am formally a policy judge however I love all arguments I am well versed with K debate CP and all formalities of debate my paradigm is simple convince me why your argument is valid and makes sense and should be weighed above the other team and I will vote for you you be it policy, kritik, E.T.C. I mostly look at the rebuttals, this is where you should be able to sell your point, bring everything together and convince me that your arguments outweighed the other team's.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO SPREAD PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU GO SLOWLY ON YOUR TAG LINES AND YOUR PLAN OR ELSE I CANNOT FLOW THEM AND IT WILL END UP HURTING YOU!!! IF YOU DO NOT, AND I MISS KEY ARGUMENTS IT WILL BE ON YOU

More details, take notice.

Flashing- not very picky with the flashing cards or whatever, but just try to not waste too much time flashing or I will start running prep.

Line by line - I do pay close attention to specific arguments being made on the flow, that being said I hate judge intervention and will not draw any lines for you. I advice that you specify which arguments you want me to weigh in particular and its importance in the round

Topicality - I think that topicality is a strategic argument and will look at it as a disad, and pay particular attention to the 'impact" of the affirmative to both the fairness and education of the round. If you plan to go for topicality I want to see you prove abuse in the round without purposely opting out of potential arguments. Highly doubt that anyone will ever persuade me that it is a reverse voter or it's not a voting issue. *Love a great T debate*

Kritiks -- I think the best teams tend to look for more specific links outside of the generics read in the 1NC, if you can extract really good links from the evidence the aff presents, or the words that they use, it makes the K more powerful and decreases the chance of the aff swindling their way out. Also, having a pretty SOLID alternative really helps proves that their is a different non problematic approach, and gives neg some credibility. I think affirmative should always have a framework asking to weigh their case impacts against the Kritik, makes your case "matter" when it comes decision making.

Theory - not a huge fan, but I am not against using this as a strategy for whatever... using theory alone to get the ballot is ill advised. I mostly likely will vote down the argument, unless you can prove that somehow they skewed your education or ability to debate failrly.

Case - self explanatory. for the aff team - Take good care of your aff throughout the round. Weigh it against everything, its your best defense mechanism.

Counter Plan - try to make it topic specific, and have a counter plan text

Framework - totally open to new ways of thinking/voting in rounds, I think its important that we question how we debate. I will go with whatever framework is presented and warranted the best in the round. If no framework is established in the round I will traditionally go with aff having to meet the burden of proof, and neg defending the status quo or a competitive policy action. Tips for running Framework - prove why your framework is best not only for you, but for the opposing team and for any other potential debate. The more inclusive and fair your framework to higher the chance I go with it.

Any further questions, ask away when you see me.

Affiliation: Brookings HS, Brighton HS
Debate Experience: Four years of high school policy for Brookings HS in South Dakota, four years of college parliamentary for Boston University, two years coaching high school policy for New Mission HS in Massachusetts, one year coaching high school policy for Brookings HS, one year coaching high school policy for Brighton HS, four years coaching college parli for Brandeis University and Wellesley College.

I haven't judged much this year, but I'm somewhat familiar with the topic literature through cutting files for the BDL.

Judging Philosophy:
For the most part, this is up for you to determine. I try to enter the round as tabula rasa as possible, but there are a few things you can do to improve your odds:

1. Clash, warrant, and weigh.

2. Have a coherent story. Unless you set up a framework telling me otherwise, I'll default to weighing probability more than the average policy judge.

3. Tell me what to vote on and why. During your rebuttals, write the RFD for me. Be explicit: what do you have to do to win, and how have you achieved that? What did your opponents fail to do that should cost them the round?

4. As far as speed, you need to know your own limits. For me it's not an issue of speed but one of clarity; I don't care how fast you go as long as you're still actually saying words. The only time I've had trouble keeping up is when people speed through analytical blocks that pack 10 distinct arguments in a span of 15 seconds.

I'm fine with just about anything as long as it's clearly and persuasively explained. Feel free to ask me if you have any specific questions. And have fun!

Tell me what you advocate.

tell me why it is not being done

tell me why it needs to be done

tell me why it is the best thing we should do

email- dewhurst.benjamin2@gmail.com

Boston College '21. Currently I'm a law student, and I judge occasionally for BC, but I don't cut cards or work on the topic outside of tournaments, so my topic knowledge is limited.

Many of my thoughts below are related to kritik issues, since I debated and judge those debates a lot. When it comes to policy, I am generally agnostic on argument content but happy to answer specific questions if you have them.

Top Level

I'm no longer following along in the speech doc. I think it will make me a better judge, but it also means clarity is very important. Slow down on tags, take a brief pause in between cards.

By default, the role of the ballot is to decide a winner in the debate and the role of the judge is to vote for the team that does the better debating.

I start by answering prior questions like framework, rotb, etc. Then, I weigh each team's risk of offense. It's more likely that neither team has won their top level claims in a slam dunk fashion, so defensive arguments often influence my decision. To what extent can you access solvency in a world where the other team wins the top level issues?

Framework and K Aff Stuff

1. Affs should propose a method that has some relation to the topic.

2. I presume that something is good about debate because all of us are doing it. This means that arguments that talk about the function of debate have inherent weight and K affs need to impact turn the form of education endorsed by the neg. Alternatively, you can always impact turn debate but that's generally a harder argument to win.

3. Framework is most persuasive when you contextualize the abstract arguments about debate to the specific aff. "Their counterinterp explodes limits because it's not predictable" <<<< "Their counterinterp is not predictable because it specifically justifies doing x y and z on the aff which makes debate bad because of x y and z"

4. I often find myself voting for neg teams on framework because the aff hasnt contextualized their ontology claims to the function of debate itself. The world can be bad and "topical" debate can still be good within that context. Affs need an argument for how debate should be.

5. Affs impact turning framework should distinguish it from other types of arguments. Negs often beat that offense on characterizing it as just another form of negation.

Other General Thoughts

1. Quality of link explanation matters a lot, especially on this topic where a lot of the common internal links are closely related. Eg, what's unique about first use capability? Why is that specifically important to the link?

2. Perms need to be fleshed out, the earlier the better. I can't vote on a perm if I don't understand what it does.

3. Kritiks against a plan:

--- I almost always give the most weight to the link explanation. Pulling lines from the 1AC's evidence is always a great move.

--- Kritiks can impact turn the aff's method and never need an alternative, but they're usually better off with one.

--- Don't just read a 4 minute K overview and then cross apply it to everything on the line by line. I don't view that as persuasive.

4. I don't appreciate card dump neg blocks. By that I don't mean not to read cards, but extending and explaining your 1NC link evidence is better than reading 3 new link cards that argue the same thing. New cards should have a specific purpose.

5. I am open to any theory against counterplans, but I am unlikely to vote on any theory arguments that aren't contextualized to the round.

6. I have a hard time seeing something as an "independent voting issue" when you spend less than 10 seconds on it in the last rebuttal.

7. Right now, I think this topic is severely limited against the aff, which makes topicality a harder sell.

8. I think politics disads lead to fun and interesting debates. I do think the old school "politics is not germane" argument has some merit. I'll give extra speaks to anyone who actually goes for that argument.

.

Good luck, have fun, and feel free to ask any questions. I always aim to become a better judge, and I don't always phrase things perfectly so I'm happy to explain more on any issue.

I participated in Open division high school debate for 2 years and college debate for one semester. I am most familiar with policy debate. I have since been judging Policy Debate for the last 3 years. 

My judging style is could be described as Tabula Rasa, however on Kritique and Debate Theory arguments, I require that these be well developed, or they are easily defeated with Topicality and Fairness counter arguments.  If you do run a Kritik, I encourage you to know the philosophy to some depth.  There have been a number of rounds where I have had to begrudgingly vote for a K, even though it was clear that the team running it was not well versed in, say Nihilism.  As a Tabula Rasa judge, it is up to you to properly define the framework within which the round should be judged.

I prefer a few, well reasoned arguments that are carried, developed, and built upon throughout the round.  Most rounds typically come down to the rebuttals, where the debaters tell me the important issues, how, and why I should vote in their favor.  I like to have a clear, concise summary of the issues you believe are important, and where you stand.

Roadmaps and sign posts are a key component, and especially necessary if you spread.  Spreading should be done in a way that still conveys your arguments and logic. While communication skill is important, I will weigh issues more heavily in a decision. 

Hey folks! Super excited to judge you all this weekend. This is my paradigm if you don't feel like reading it I have bolded the important info!

My experience is I am a former policy debater and I have taught Public Forum

As someone who spent the majority of their time in Policy debate, I've grown accustomed to the steady pace and clear diction of policy debaters; while I am capable of understanding speed, I prefer arguments made that are slow with elegance over speedy deliver of cards, and firmly believe that repeated citation of an author does not an argument make. Given my recent experiences with people claiming they can spread (and being laughably bad at it), I've decided that it's best to err on the side of caution and simply say no spreading. (basically no speed reading)

Fewer arguments explained thoroughly are preferential over a multitude of shallow attacks that are just snippets of evidence with little debate connection. I weigh rounds on impact calculus unless otherwise directed to do so explicitly by debaters- if you wish for me to use another weighing mechanism, I expect to be told why your mechanism is preferential over impact calc and your opponent's. There's nothing I really have trouble following; I'm familiar with k's and the semantics of debate. I have no problem with unorthodox strategies or progressive argumentation.

More details, take head.

Flashing- not very picky with the flashing cards or whatever, but just try to not waste too much time flashing or I will start running prep.

Line by line - I do pay close attention to specific arguments being made on the flow, that being said I hate judge intervention and will not draw any lines for you. I advice that you specify which arguments you want me to weigh in particular and its importance in the round

Topicality - I think that topicality is a strategic argument and will look at it as a disad, and pay particular attention to the 'impact" of the affirmative to both the fairness and educationof the round. If you plan to go for topicality Iwant to see you prove abuse in the round without purposely opting out of potential arguments. Highly doubt that anyone will ever persuade me that it is a reverse voter or it's not a voting issue. *Love a great T debate*

Kritiks -- I think the best teams tend to look for more specific links outside of the generics read in the 1NC, if you can extract really good links from the evidence the aff presents, or the words that they use, it makes the K more powerful and decreases the chance of the affswindling their way out. Also, having a pretty SOLIDalternative really helps proves that their is a different non problematic approach, and gives negsome credibility. I think affirmative should always have a framework asking to weightheir case impacts against the Kritik, makes your case "matter" when it comes decision making.

Theory - not a huge fan, but I am against using this as a strategy for whatever... using theory alone to get the ballot is ill advised. I mostly likely will vote down the argument, unless you can prove that somehow they skewed your education or ability to debate failrly.

Case - self explanatory. for the affteam - Take good care of your affthroughout the round. Weigh it against everything, its your best defense mechanism.

Counter Plan - try to make it topic specific, and have a counter plan text

Framework - totally open to new ways of thinking/voting in rounds, I think its important that we question how we debate. I will go with whatever framework is presented and warranted the best in the round. If no framework is established in the round I will traditionally go with aff having to meet the burden of proof, and neg defending the status quo or a competitive policy action. Tips for running Framework - prove why your framework is best not only for you, but for the opposing team and for any other potential debate. The more inclusive and fair your framework to higher the chance I go with it.

Any further questions, ask away when you see me.

Debated at: Brighton, Excel (Boston Debate League)

Competed at NAUDL and NFL 

As a judge I think debate is an activity where you can defend or advocate for something that your confident and passionate about. I try to walk in the debate round with no predispositions so don't worry about having to change what you talk about and how you do because of me. But I also realize debate is a subjective activity.

Speed: For the most part I can understand people when they go fast the problem usually is with clarity. If you are not cleat I will yell cleat 3 times after that I will only flow what I can hear.

The most important thing for me is that you have clash in the debate round. Saying things like "they dropped our smith evidence" isn't an argumen yout must have a claim and a warrant.

I debated policy in high school in the early 2000s.  During that time, I debated on both my regional circuit and the national circuit.

Stylistic preferences (in order of preference)

1. Speed and Clarity - I'm usually okay with speed if you are clear.  I won't flow it if I can't understand it.  It will be very apparent to everyone if I am not flowing, so make sure that you look up occasionally to evaluate the situation.  In all my years of judging, I've never encountered anyone that was too fast, only people who are unclear.
2. Evidence vs. Analysis - Good evidence makes for a good debate round, but good analysis makes for a great debate round.  I want to hear true, substantive clash about the warrants of the evidence, not just low-level clash on the claims level.
3. Clear Signposting - If I can't easily figure out where to put your particular argument on the flow, then it might not appear on the flow.  In particular, I HATE it when teams just read off prepared blocks without some attempt at matching up where their arguments interact with their opponents' arguments.  I've been known to give really low speaks for teams who do this.  Be warned.

Argument Preferences (in order of favorability)

1. Kritiks - I love kritiks, because I think that they represent how the debate space provides challenges that allows high schoolers to think beyond the norm of what is offered in school.  As an educator, I really admire students who try to grapple with difficult academic content.  That being said, the bar for me to vote negative on a Kritik is really high.  A few specifics:
• No Links of Omission - I rarely vote for links of omission, unless the specific warrants for why the affirmative's omission is intrinsic to the argument.  Even so, the bar to prove that is really high.
• Intervention - There are a few instances where I will intervene if the prevailing moral philosophy behind the K is something I find offensive.  Ks predicated on racist/sexist ideology will usually be rejected without much explanation.
• Hanlon's Razor - A recent aphorism that basically says: "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance."  I like to assume the best about people, and that leaks into my judging.  You don't have to prove intentionality in your link analysis, necessarily, but it helps your case.
• Try to stay germane to the topic.  You COULD just run Cap Bad every round, but there so much more interesting stuff out there. 
2. Counterplans - Not much to say here... CPs are fun?  I do believe that CPs really kind of operate as opportunity-cost disadvantages, but if you offer differing theory, I am more than willing to entertain that.  
3. Disadvantages - I have just one thing to say here: Risk.  The shorter the linkage between plan action and terminal impact, the higher the risk.  And risk, for me, is an undervalued analysis in policy debate.  I hate the "try-or-die" argument, as it attempts to short-circuit risk analysis through intellectually dishonest analysis.
4. T and Theory - I don't really have fun listening to these.  I'll vote on them.  Making a T argument against a clearly topical case might be a good tactical decision, but I think it cheapens the game of debate.  Honestly, we're all here to win, but we're all here to receive an education.  I'd rather receive an educational experience by hearing good debate on the actual substantive parts of the topic than hear 5 minutes of ASPEC in the 2NR.  I don't really vote on potential abuse.

I don’t have any expectations on what will happen in the round, so I tend to vote directly on the flow. Also, I recommend that you assume that I don't know anything about any of your case so explain it well or don't argue when I vote you down. I am fine with both policy and K's so it doesn't matter to me. I did debate for 6 years, varsity for three years.

Do you and you will be fine, as will I.

Don't go for Racism or Anti-blackness Good, FYI.

Email:davmac98@gmail.com. Do put me on the email chain and email me any questions, concerns o complaints.

I don’t have any expectations on what will happen in the round, so I tend to vote directly on the flow. Also, I recommend that you assume that I don't know anything about any of your case so explain it well or don't argue when I vote you down. I am fine with both policy and K's so it doesn't matter to me. I did debate for 6 years, varsity for three years.

Do you and you will be fine, as will I.

Don't go for Racism or Anti-blackness Good, FYI.

Email:davmac98@gmail.com. Do put me on the email chain and email me any questions, concerns o complaints.

Good with anything, speeed- make sure that you are clear and I can hear what you say.

Topicality: 

Explain why its abusive in the round and why it matters to the debate as a whole.

Policy/fiat/USGF affs:

tell me why policy making is the best thing ever/ why it's preferable to the Neg's roll of the judge and ballot/etc. Explain your permutations, what they look like, how they work, why it functions.

Case:

Case Debate is important, make sure that you engage in it!

K/DA

Give good link analysis, the more links that you have specific to the case the aff is running the better, if you only have generic links then I probably will not vote for it so make sure you focus on the link and alternative debate.

Last substantial edit: Jan 2018

Hello!

My name is Jen! I currently work in nonprofit communications in Boston, MA. Before that, I spent two years as a graduate assistant debate coach for Vanderbilt Univerisity's policy team. I have experience judging for both BP and Policy at the college level, as well as middle and high school policy formats.

For BDL high school tournaments:

- Remember to explain the cards, do not just read them to me with their tags. This will be particularly important when you're giving your rebuttal speeches.

- Be as clear as possible as to why you win. For example, why your evidence is better or why your impacts are better, etc.

- If the debate is messy, it's okay to point that out to me, and why your speeches are more organized or better argued, despite the messiness.

- You do not have to keep all of the advantages or disadvantages throughout the round. By the rebuttal speeches, you should be focusing on the arguments that you are winning, and telling me why those arguments are strong.

- I am totally fine with speed. Caveat: don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it I can't flow it, if I can't flow it you're not going to win on it.

- I like Ks. I am also super familiar with most of this material so I will know if you do not know it. Be specific on framework, and if you're aff be specific about what your aff does. What are the impacts of thinking this way? Or doing this thing? etc. Also if you want me to evaluate the round differently than a typical policy judge, set that up from the beginning and be extremely clear and consistent.

- I also like policy debates! More below...

- I don't have a "preference" per say about theory args. I generally vote on theory based on the strength of the responses on the aff.

- Be clear about having a claim, a warrant, and an impact to your arguments. If you're running a K or a performance aff where this may not apply, be explicit as to why not.

- If you want to win on a tech policy debate, here is how with me:

1. Be clear about what your turns, straight turns, double turns, perms, etc. It's not enough for me to say you "turned" the DA. Tell me what you get with that and why that helps your case. I'm not likely to vote on something obscure you did just because you said you did it. That's not how I see the activity.

2. If you want me to vote on something that was dropped, make it clear that it matters to the debate round and why you win on it.

3. I will vote for theory things if they're not answered. Feel free to explain to me in detail why negative counterplans are bad for 6 minutes in the 2AR if they dropped it. Just remember to explain why that outweighs.

4. Don't tell me something is an a priori voter and move on. Explain why it should be.

T

- There are in fact policy affirmatives that I think aren't topical. I won't vote on this unless the other team drops it. If they drop all or part of this, I'd go for it. I do think T is an a priori voter (but still need to hear the fully explained T argument, please).

- Affs, don't drop this.

Ks

- So, a few things:

1. I'm open to anything. I hold as open a posture as possible for what can be argued in a debate round.

2. HOWEVER, I think that it is important to have negative ground in a debate round. To me, "ground" means that they have a variety of options for offense against the case and that the negative is not forced into arguing for a status quo that the affirmative identifies as racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. or just arguing framework. I have voted on framework in a K debate for there not being enough ground for the Neg.

3. Make sure I can tell what I am voting FOR. Don't make the Role of the Ballot something that the neg could never argue against. If it's something other than what is typical for the topic then explain exactly what that ballot should be, what the debate should be about and what my role as a judge is in this round.

4. I am not a fan of vague cross-x answers during K debates. If the other team is asking you what your aff is about, I would prefer you not make remarks demeaning the other team's intelligence for not understanding your aff. Give a CLEAR explanation of your advocacy statement. If you are asked what a word means, I want you to explain it (I might already know what the term means, but this is good for clarity of your argument and good to make sure I know what YOU mean by that term). Do everything you can to help the other team understand during cross-x if they ask so that we can have a better debate.

5. Do not have a shifty advocacy. Be clear and consistent with what you are advocating. If your advocacy shifts, my ballot may shift with it.

6. To teams on the neg in a K aff round: I HAVE voted on framework but I have also done the opposite. Going for framework in the end may be the equivalent of tossing a coin with my ballot. There are arguments out there like critical conformity that provide more clash in these debates. However, if they're being abusive for one or more of the reasons I listed below, feel free to point that out. It may be worth going for.

______

For college tournaments:

My pronouns are she/her/hers. I expect all debaters to either use gender-neutral terms for the other debaters in the round or use each debater's preferred pronouns (which can be made known at each debaters' discretion through Tabroom). Speaker points are at stake.

* Please send documents to jennifer.elizabeth.newman@gmail.com *

My judging philosophy...

- I am open to hearing arguments of all types, but I feel strongly that the debate space needs to be inclusive. That's my bias. Other than that, I am pretty chill. Just be considerate.

- Although I have these listed by division, it may be a good idea for debaters to read all the sections.

I. Novice - with the packet

- Be sure to answer every argument. There are cards in there to answer all of the arguments for every affirmative case.

- Remember to explain the cards, do not just read them to me with their tags. This will be particularly important when you're giving your rebuttal speeches.

- Be as clear as possible as to why you win. For example, why your evidence is better or why your impacts are better, etc.

- If the debate is messy, it's okay to point that out to me, and why your speeches are more organized or better argued, despite the messiness.

- You do not have to keep all of the advantages or disadvantages throughout the round. By the rebuttal speeches, you should be focusing on the arguments that you are winning, and telling me why those arguments are strong.

II. JV

Some things to note:

- I like Ks. I am also super familiar with most of this material so I will know if you do not know it. Be specific on framework, and if you're aff be specific about what your aff does. What are the impacts of thinking this way? Or doing this thing? etc. Also if you want me to evaluate the round differently than a typical policy judge, set that up from the beginning and be extremely clear and consistent.

- I also like policy debates. In fact, I think this topic lends itself to some incredibly interesting potential policy affs. I don't have a "preference" per say about theory args. I generally vote on theory based on the strength of the responses on the aff.

- Be clear about having a claim, a warrant, and an impact to your arguments. If you're running a K or a performance aff where this may not apply, be explicit as to why not.

III. OPEN

- I am totally fine with speed. Caveat: don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it I can't flow it, if I can't flow it you're not going to win on it.

Framework

- Hard Framework (aka we should be debating government policy action): I don't typically vote on this. I attribute this to seeing K debates where the K team is well-prepared for this. It could also be that I am just not persuaded by it because I think K debates are really important to the debate space.

- Soft Framework (aka you have to DO something, and/or you have to engage the state in some way. You don't have to use the state but you have to engage it): I am actually likely to vote on this. The ground argument, or a version of that, is really compelling to me for Affs that have shifty ground and no-link out of other Ks or DAs. I'd say it's a good thing to go for when you don't have anything else. For the Aff, be ready to explain to me exactly what ground the neg had that they failed to see and go for.

T

- There are in fact policy affirmatives that I think aren't topical. I won't vote on this unless the other team drops it. If they drop all or part of this, I'd go for it. I do think T is an a priori voter.

- Affs, don't drop this.

- I am less likely to vote on T for Carbon Tax than I am for cellulosic ethanol. I think it's difficult for most affirmatives to actually BE topical (insert disgruntled comments about the resolution here). I think you should be able to justify your aff is topical.

- Effects T is a thing I will vote on if you go all in and the other team doesn't provide satisfactory answers. In a K debate, I'm less likely to vote on effects T if there are Aff answers like effects T bad or something like that.

Techy Stuff

- If you want to win on a tech policy debate, here is how with me:

1. Be clear about what your turns, straight turns, double turns, perms, etc. DO. It's not enough for me to say you "turned" the DA. Tell me what you get with that and why that helps your case. I know that sounds super rudimentary but really teams miss doing this in the rebuttals. I'm not likely to vote on something obscure you did just because you said you did it. That's not how I see the activity.

2. If you want me to vote on something that was dropped, make it clear that it matters to the debate round and why you win on it.

3. I will vote for theory things if they're not answered. Feel free to explain to me in detail why negative counterplans are bad for 6 minutes in the 2AR if they dropped it. Just remember to explain why that outweighs.

4. Don't tell me something is an a priori voter and move on. Explain why it should be.

Ks

- So, a few things:

1. I'm open to anything. I hold as open a posture as possible for what can be argued in a debate round.

2. HOWEVER, I think that it is important to have negative ground in a debate round. To me, "ground" means that they have a variety of options for offense against the case and that the negative is not forced into arguing for a status quo that the affirmative identifies as racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. or just arguing framework. I have voted on framework in a K debate for there not being enough ground for the Neg.

3. Make sure I can tell what I am voting FOR. Don't make the Role of the Ballot something that the neg could never argue against. If it's something other than what is typical for the topic (this year, whether a specific climate policy is good) then explain exactly what that ballot should be, what the debate should be about (the problematic) and what my role as a judge is in this round.

4. I am not a fan of vague cross-x answers during K debates. If the other team is asking you what your aff is about, I would prefer you not make remarks demeaning the other team's intelligence for not understanding your aff. Give a CLEAR explanation of your advocacy statement. If you are asked what a word means, I want you to explain it (I might already know what the term means, but this is good for clarity of your argument and good to make sure I know what YOU mean by that term). Do everything you can to help the other team understand during cross-x if they ask so that we can have a better debate.

5. Do not have a shifty advocacy. Be clear and consistent with what you are advocating. If your advocacy shifts, my ballot may shift with it.

6. To teams on the neg in a K aff round: I HAVE voted on framework but I have also done the opposite. Going for framework in the end may be the equivalent of tossing a coin with my ballot. There are arguments out there like critical conformity that provide more clash in these debates. However, if they're being abusive for one or more of the reasons I listed below, feel free to point that out. It may be worth going for.

If you got this far (for all divisions)

1. Go prep with your team.

2. JK here's some fun ways to win speaks (I'll only give you credit for two times).

- Beyoncé quotes (or that Beyoncé should have won album of the year) +0.1 speaks

- Disney animated movie quotes (Particularly from the 90s-early 2000s, like Aladin, the Lion King, Beauty and the Beast...) +0.1 speaks

- I will change this up a bit each tournament.

GOOD LUCK!!!

Feel free to ask me questions, or seek further explanation of my reasonings after the round! :)

Best of luck!

J

P.S. If something isn't in here that you think should be, please let me know!

I went to McCallie (TN) and did primarily Public Forum for 5 years and I worked for Capitol for a summer. While I debated mostly regionally (GA-AL) I competed occasionally on the national circuit when school constraints allowed and did fairly well. I've done limited amounts of WSD and currently do APDA and BP at Northeastern, where I'm studying Economics and Finance. Important stuff is listed below:

Preferences

These are probably the only things you care about. Here's the rundown:

1) Arguments need to be extended fully for me to evaluate them.

2) It's a lot easier for you to illustrate a path to victory based on your offense rather than your defense. (There are exceptions, but this generally holds)

3) I want to sign a ballot of minimum intervention. This means that you should weigh early and often. One of the biggest things that messes up rounds is lack of weighing between mutually exclusive warrants that are trying to link into the same piece of offense. Be clear about why I ought prefer your conception.

4) Use crossfire strategically, but don't be an asshole. If you're a dick, your speaks will be lowered.

5) DO NOT EXTEND THROUGH INK. This is probably my biggest pet peeve.

6) Arguments premised on logic are more sound than arguments premised on author's names. Tell me what your evidence is saying (if you need the card) and why it's more credible than the version of reality I'm getting from your opponents.

7) Theory is fine to check abuse. It should be run as a last resort, only in conditions where it is not possible/extremely difficult to engage normally with the resolution, or in cases where a team has created a structural disadvantage.

8) Do you feel like giving me a roadmap? If you're not doing something atypical, please don't. This being said, do signpost during speeches.

9) Coin flip, side selection, and speaking order can all be decided if I'm not there, and I prefer teams to take care of this before entering the room at flighted tournaments.

If you have any questions about anything here (or things not mentioned here), shoot me a message on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/tpatri10).