Middle School TOC hosted by UK
2018 — KY/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
University of Kentucky 2018/Assistant Debate Coach for UK 2018-2019
Northwestern Law 2022
email@example.com - put this one on the chain for high school debate
firstname.lastname@example.org - put this one and the above on the chain for college debate. Label the subject line as: Tournament - Round # - Aff Team vs Neg Team
*UPDATE For UK Tournament 2021*
I have been removed from the debate community since 2019. I have never participated or judged a virtual debate prior to this tournament. Take that as you will, but make sure to place an emphasis on clarity.
I find that while judging, if the debaters can isolate and clearly articulate the nexus questions of the round, it becomes easier to judge, regardless of any predilections. While I try to adopt the ideology of a 'tabula rasa' I find that it is not entirely successful. Some arguments can be more persuasive to me than others, and I will try my best to avoid any intervention on my part, and I feel that you as a debater should do what you feel is best. If you have good cards to substantiate your args that goes a long way and matters for me. Explain how you want me to evaluate the debate.
I like T when it is debated well. That means good impact analysis, good explanations of standards and how I should evaluate each team's vision of the topic.
Theory: I resolve these debates much like topicality. The impact level needs to be clearly articulated, especially by the affirmative if you want my ballot. I feel that counter interpretations are largely self serving (not a reason to not make one) and that interpretations on theory debates are much more persuasive when your offense is centered around your interpretation, which I feel has become largely lacking (ex. teams read the same conditionality block regardless if they have read one or four conditional options). I believe strongly in technical debating, but a conceded blimpy theoretical objection won't be a reason to reject the team. Rather, I will just reject the argument if the theoretical objection is well argued and explained. This is because most of these scenarios are where the theory "arguments" are not arguments. See ex. vague alternatives are a voting issue.
I think K affs tend to lose more of these debates when they adopt a middle ground perspective in which they try to do something with the topic but not affirm the entirety of the resolution. It makes it easier in my mind for neg teams to win that the resolution is compatible with the aff's offense and that resolutional debates are good as the aff is already half of the way there. I think teams are more successful at impact turning framework, and making reasons why only the aff's model of debate is beneficial.
I prefer these debates to clash about what model of debate is best, to conduct impact comparison, and to tell me what matters and how to evaluate certain arguments. Debate it like a t debate with violations, standards, and impacts.
Love them. The more specific to the aff the better and helps drive competition.
There is zero risk of a disad, and it happens. I feel that the impact level of disadvantages (as well as advantages) are way to often the focus of the debate, and I find that debates about a solid link defense/turn or internal link defense can win a round more often than other things.
With that being said, I feel that a disadvantage with a lot of explanation of how it accesses case, why I should prefer it, and why it comes first are persuasive, but I don't feel that its an automatic negative ballot if the 1AR just drops them because they sat on another argument on the flow. The status squo I feel has become a debate that is less willing to be had and I think that a good case/disad debate can be very strategic at times.
Make the debate about the aff, and contextualize it, or I think it is easier for the aff to win a perm. Doing this doesn't necessarily mean reading new aff specific cards, but it does mean doing the work to contextualize your generic 1nc args to the specifics of the aff.
I am not entirely well versed in a very broad scope of the literature, but as long as you aren't too out there and can explain it I should be fine. You should be well versed enough in the literature to explain your argument to those not in the lit base, just like you should be able to explain a complex counter plan to someone who hasn't done the research on it.
highland park (MN) '16
university of kentucky '20
put me on the email chain: danbann55 at gmail
--short version: bad for Ks, high threshold for T vs policy affs, author quals matter a LOT, best debates are DA vs case, condo is fine, you can't insert re-highlighting, "framing" contentions are not answers to DAs, i will never vote for death good
--i’m finding I care a lot more about truth over tech when an argument isn’t based in evidence or is facially stupid. tech is still almost always over truth - but don’t expect me to care about your “dropped” half sentence analytic that contravenes basic knowledge about the world/debate
--won't vote for any argument that promotes sedition
--both high school and college have this stupid thing where both sides read a million cards about revisionism at each other. this sucks. states aren't yes/no revisionist, revisionism is a strategy that actors within states sometimes use, and the only reason it would ever matter is in the context of a more specific link argument to explicate the scope of a state's revisionism in a given context. so instead of reading 6 "yes china is revisionist" cards, just read more links - it will be infinitely more useful.
--we all need be much more aware of the sharp decline in participation in college debate. at the 2012 wake tournament, there were teams from 71 schools participating in the open division. at the 2018 one, there were only 50 programs represented. it was even worse at GSU this year. that's 20 programs that decided they didn't want to have a policy debate team anymore. where will debate be in 10 years?
--i'd rather play in traffic than vote for "t: pearson". by the way, please stop referring to args by author names, it is like nails on a chalkboard
it will be nearly impossible to get me to vote against framework with a fairness impact. fairness is an impact -- saying otherwise is akin to saying eating food is just an internal link to not being hungry, which is just an internal link to not being dead... etc. absent a course correction, college debate is highly unsustainable given current trends. the activity would be in a much better place if everyone read a plan.
neg Ks need to have links to the plan OR invest heavily in framework arguments that make me think differently -- BUT, I will say that in an evenly debated round, I haven't heard a persuasive reason why i should disregard the plan yet.
not going to evaluate arguments about stuff that happened outside the round/in other debates.
I don't care that fiat isn't real.
POLICY STUFF: I'm way less ideological about policy things, but here's most of the things I think are worth mentioning.
--something i keep seeing 2acs say: "process CPs are a voting issue", "CPs that could result in the aff are a voting issue". neither of these are arguments. every CP is a process CP -- what's a CP that doesn't involve a process? and every CP except "ban the plan" COULD result in the aff. i wish neg teams would point this out more. you can make theory-based objections to CPs, aff teams, but you have to have a real interpretation.
--other CP theory: debating controls everything. BUT, in an evenly debated round (which almost never happens), here's the way i lean. pics out of topic words in the plan are great especially when functionally competitive, "ctrl+f the 1ac" word pics are ridiculously bad, states CP is fine, international counterplans bad, CPs that compete off "resolved" and "should" bad, consult probably bad, offsets CP probably good, lopez CP probably very bad
--conditionality almost definitely good but i'm starting to change my mind -- lots of CPs, amending stuff in the block, kicking planks, fiating out of straight turns... all of that makes me think condo can be bad, BUT, it has to be really egregious because it's really obvious when people go for conditionality just because they're losing substance, and that is stupid.
--I'm not very good for neg teams going for T against a policy aff (although I understand it’s sometimes necessary). we have so few debates about the topic these days, why waste them on having a T debate? again, if the aff really is ridiculous, I get it, but c'mon...
--1ar doesn't get new args without explicit justification of those args. If the block reads a new impact, you obvi get new answers, but you can't just read new arguments about the content of the 1nc without a reason why that's okay.
--framing contentions are silly when they're used to avoid answering DAs -- but neg teams need to devote some time to telling me why this is the case
--"insert this re-highlighting" is not a thing, you need to read it in the speech/in CX
--judgekick is default if the neg says their CP is conditional. however, aff teams are welcome to make judgekick bad arguments, I just am not going to stick them with the CP unless you say something.
--you'll get good points for debating the case -- it's an underdeveloped skill that seems to have sorta fallen by the wayside.
I have taught Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate since 2011 on the Illinois High School circuit, including a state champion. I am open to theory arguments and am a squarely flow-based judge. I can handle 'moderate' speed, but not full out spreading especially if I haven't heard the argument before. I have a relatively high requirement for terminal impact arguments, but will certainly consider them.
FOR EVERYONE: do NOT bring up victims of police brutality just for your intros or as an additional piece of evidence you immediately move on from. people's lives should not be used as a piece of 'gotcha' evidence or a card to win a judge. if you are ignoring people's humanity to win a round you are not doing this activity correctly.
LD paradigm: I’ve judged novice and varsity high school LD infrequently for the past 5 years but have never coached it or competed it in. My experience is with Congress and PF, so I need framework, clear impacts, and weighing. Keep your speeches structured and signpost so your opponent (and me) can find things in the flow. I can handle speed as long as you don’t need a breathing pattern (you can “spread”, but don’t SPREAD)/if you plan to spread email me and your opponent your case. If you run a K you need to know what it means, be able to explain it clearly and provide context, and be able to link it back in to argue for why it matters. Feel free to ask me specifics in round.
60% presentation, 40% content. There MUST be refutation in every speech after the authorship. If you speak twice on the same bill I will drop you. If you refer to male competitors as 'representative' and female competitors as 'Ms.' I will drop you. If you are aggressive in direct cross I will want to drop you. Please give me impacts and ask questions often.
I'm not going to time you. I'm not going to flow cross. As long as you're not an LD or Policy debater turned PF debater, I'll be fine with your speed. I need impacts and clear taglines. Organization is a huge thing for me. It is not my job to weigh the round for you, so you need to be doing impact calculus and giving me key voters all the way through. SIGNPOST. If you are rude in cross I will give you low speaks and I will want to drop you. Also I do not flow the authors of your cards are so if you refer to cards by the author only I am not going to be able to find it on my ballot-give me a source name, a key word or phrase, something.
University of Kentucky ‘20
add me to the email chain: genevieveelise1028 at gmail dot com
Currently a part time coach at the University of Kentucky. I know very little about the topic so please take that into account.
I don't like it. That is obviously not your fault, but to help be 5% slower and 50% clearer than you might usually be. I find it more difficult to flow when I can't see you talk as easily as an in-person debate, so you should take that into account and really adjust accordingly.
I am frustrated by the number of teams who have given orders, started speeches, etc without checking to make sure I am there. I am trying my best by keeping my camera on & only turning it off when I leave the room, and occasionally I even leave the camera on when I leave the room to make it particularly obvious that I am not present (even though I *really* don't like leaving you staring at my room) and people are still doing this. I know online debate is hard, but please! make sure I am here! I want to hear what you have to say!
Disad and case is awesome, more case analysis that is smart will be rewarded in points. I think smart and specific counterplans are cool. The more specific and in grounded in the literature your CP is, the less likely I am to care about theory.
I think a limited topic is good and care immensely about the comparison of one version of the topic to another when it comes to T. If you cannot explain coherently what the difference between the two topics are, I am much less likely to care about your very abstract appeals to the notion of limits or ground.
I judge K's as I would any other argument - I think they need to have a clearly explained link, internal link, impact, and alternative. I default to being a policymaker unless I am convinced I should do something else. Being more specific about the topic is far better than some random backfile check about Baudrillard. You should explain your arguments clearly vs using buzz words because I be much more likely to understand what you are trying to communicate.
I have found myself voting both ways in framework debates, but am usually persuaded by the benefits of clash, procedural fairness, etc. However, I think I find myself voting aff most often when the aff has a well articulated impact turn to the resolution that beats the topical version of the aff. I generally find that if you defend that the direction of the resolution is a good idea, having a very concrete defense of why defending the resolution itself is bad is going to be the crucial focal point of the debate. Clash is a terminal impact.
Misc Quirks/Things that could impact points:
I think conditionality is good. I very much believe proliferation is bad (whether or not it might occur due to the plan is a different question!).
Be efficient about your time: don't waste time between ending prep and giving a speech
Time your own speech and prep
My facial expressions are likely unrelated to the things you are saying.
Evidence ethics (out of context? straw-person? lied about quals? cut in middle of paragraph?) should be debated out like any other theory argument. Claiming you said words you did not say is an L.
Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is is entirely up to me.
Policy Debate- I am a very flexible judge. I am willing to listen to anything as long as it is impacted well. I am open to K affs, but if it is not explained well enough I will vote you down. I would rather not call for cards, but I will if I have to. Another thing, I really want to hear impacts. I do not like debates that are like two ships passing by in the night. It turns into who I think did better, but as debaters you should write the ballot out for me. Please try to keep email chains and or flashing time to a decent time. If it takes too long I will start taking prep away unless, there are tech issues. Clipping cards is not okay with me, if I catch you clipping card I will vote you down. If you steal prep I will take away a lot of speaker points. Please be clear if you are spreading!
LD- My experience is mainly in policy debate. I don't mind how fast that you read, but make sure that you are reading loud and clearly. I also evaluate things based on the flow pretty much. Make sure things are extended and analyzed well. Also, make sure there is clash in the round! I cannot stand under views -_- There is no reason to have one because you spend so much time in it and never go back to it in the round. That analysis can be done somewhere else like in one of your other contentions or adding a whole new contention. Impact analysis is something that is very important to me! You should be writing my ballot for me and much as possible!
Phoenix Military Academy 16
University of Kentucky 20
I measure a debate based off of how well you interact with one another. Clash is important and if you’re not engaging you’re opponent you’re not debating. The more evidence comparison the better.
You should do your best to frame the debate round for me. Tell me how I should sign my ballot.
I don’t take time for flashing, and yes, put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Except consult and process CPs. These counterplans are infinitely regressive to the point where you can just say "Consult my neighbor then do the plan." If you want to go for one of these CPs you have to have pretty great cards saying why your specific process is detrimental to the success or failure of the aff. I will vote on it but very rarely.
The weirder they get the more explanation you’re going to have to give. I am accustomed to the more mainstream identity and anti-state Ks such as: Eco-fem, Neolib, Anthro, and Wilderson.
I will not kick an alt and use it as a DA toward the case. If you want to win on a K you have to win why the alternative is a better option than the aff.
I will most likely always grant you a link, but you have to properly contextualize it the aff.
Clash is important, and I’m docking your speaks if half of the 2NC is an overview.
Aff Ks are cool. You need to show me how your aff interacts with the neg as well.
If it follows the rez: cool
If it doesn't defend anything: cool
If it does defend things: cool
If it doesn’t follow the rez: You need explain why your model of debate is a better than the resolution. In other words, why should I evaluate your form of the debate? You also need a reason as to why it can’t be done under the resolution.
Usually not convincing
You have to go all in for me to vote on it, but keep in mind 17 DA’s are as shitty as 3 CPs/Ks
Clipping will be dealt with accordingly
Any hurtful comments referring to (but not limited to) gender, sexuality, or race is not going to be tolerated.
My name is Stephani not judge.
My pronouns are she/her.
Puns are highly encouraged. Here's my favorite: Why did the bicycle fall over? Because it was too tired! Hah Also Ill boost your speaker points if you reference My Hero Academia as I am currently obsessed with it.
If you have any questions or want more feedback about a round shoot me an email!
I spent 9 years as a debater at the college( Diablo Valley College and CSU Long Beach) and high school ( De La Salle HS, Concord, Ca) levels. I am now in my 7th year of coaching and my 9th year of judging. So I've heard almost every argument out there. I mostly competed in parli and policy, but I did some LD as well. I am ok with Kritiks, Counter Plans, and plans. I like good framework and value debate. I am cool with spreading but articulation is key!!! I am a flow judge so sign posting and organization is important. Please weigh impacts and give me voters. In LD make sure you link to a framework and a value and explain why you win under those guidelines. I prefer a more traditional LD debate and I defiantly prefer truth over tech.
Niles West High School '14
University of Kentucky '18
Coach at Northwestern University
Put me on the chain firstname.lastname@example.org
I decide debates by re-organizing my flow around the issues prioritized in the 2nr and 2ar, going back on my flow to chart the progression of the argument, reading the relevant evidence, then resolving that mini-debate. Tell me what I should care about in the final speeches. Use the earlier speeches to set up your final rebuttals.
I try not to consider personal biases when judging policy or k debates. Debates hinge on link, impact, and solvency questions that have to be argued whether its plan/cp, perm/alt, fw/advocacy.
I believe the most important skill a debater should have is the ability to do good comparative analysis.
I'll read evidence during and after the debate. Evidence quality influences my perception of the argument's strength. Bad evidence means there's a lower bar for answering the argument and vice versa.
When trying to resolve questions about how the world works, I defer to expert evidence introduced in the debate. When trying to resolve questions about how the debate in front of me should work, I defer to the arguments of the debaters.
The debates I enjoy the most are the ones where students demonstrate that they are active participants in the thinking through and construction of their arguments. Don't be on auto-pilot. Show me you know what's going on.
Have an appropriate level of respect for opponents and arguments.
I would strongly prefer not to judge debates about why death is good that may force an ethical debate about whether life is worth living.
There is a place in debate for affirmatives that don't affirm the resolution. I will not vote for or against framework in these situations based on ideological preferences alone. I wish we had clearer rules for what we considered fair game in terms of links to negative offense/competitive advocacies against affs that don't affirm the resolution/read a plan text because I enjoy debates over specifics more than rehashed abstractions. But I am sympathetic to neg arguments about how the aff precluded those good debates from occuring, depending on what the aff defends in the 1ac.
I would prefer neg teams only go for topicality when the aff is very clearly attempting to skirt the core premises of the resolution. Going for silly T arguments against super core affirmatives is a waste of everyone's time.
I feel similarly about theory. It's hard for me to take theory arguments seriously when they're not in response to some seriously problematic practice. Debate is supposed to be hard. People are way too quick to claim something made debate 'impossible'.
When the neg is going for a kritik, I find the framework debating from both sides largely unnecessary. The easiest and most common way I end up resolving framework debates is to allow the aff to weigh their advantages and the neg to weigh their kritik. You'd be better served spending time on the link/impact/alt.
When judging process counterplans, I'm most interested in whether there are cards a) tying the counterplan to the resolution b) tying the net benefit to the plan. This is what usually pushes me aff or neg on theory and perm arguments.
I usually think the link is the most important part of an argument
Whitney Young ‘15
University of Kentucky ‘19
Cornell Law '23 and coaching UK
I will reward smart teams that can effectively and efficiently communicate their arguments to me. Engaging with your opponent, having a well-thought out strategy, and demonstrating that you’re doing consistent, hard work is what this activity is about.
Slow down a bit - remember we are debating online
I'm pretty expressive when I'm judging so I would look up every once in a while to know how I feel about particular arguments.
First things first- Everyone is always so angry and doesn’t want to be in these debates. No one ENJOYS clash debates. Please be nicer. Substance wise, I really do believe that affs should have a tie to the topic and should be in the direction of the topic. I am not the judge for an aff that has a couple cards that say a theory and then pretend to say something about the topic. I also believe that debate is an inherently good activity so indicting the entirety of the activity we participate in is not great for me. I think this matters a lot for the way some teams answer framework so be cognizant of this. The only thing that my ballot decides is the winner.
Links should be causal, specific and about the plan. They NEED to be contextualized to what the aff actually did. I have too often judged debates where a team presents a theory of the world but have not explained what the aff has done to implicate that. Explanation is key. That applies to all Ks cause if you are just spitting jargon at me and the other team, you aren’t gonna have a good time. I am not persuaded by arguments that the aff just doesn’t get fiat.
Love them. Obviously better the more specific to the aff they are
I default to judge kick unless expressly informed not to
There can be zero risk of a DA
Conditionality is good.
Random Policy Things
You can insert a re-highlighting of a card- you shouldn’t have to waste time re-reading a card if they suck at research
Impact turn debates are some of my favorite
Ethics violations (ex. Clipping, a card being cut in the middle of the paragraph, etc.) should just have the debate staked on it. It is a bad form of education and should be rejected. No point in drawing it out.
Further questions- email me at email@example.com
CX @ Newton High School 2012 - 2016
NFA LD @ WKU 2016 - 2020
NFA: If your strategy has fewer than 3 topic specific cards, your ceiling for speaks is a 27.
Debate at its core is a game of strategy and persuasion. If your arguments are strategic and persuasive, they are a fine path to the ballot. Paradigms can overly restrict that game and force you into a strategy you are less comfortable with, therefore my paradigm probably only matters in close rounds - if you decimate someone on an argument that I despise (ASPEC), I won't arbitrarily throw it from the debate (although I may look for ways to not vote for it). But know that my opinions about arguments will start to influence my decisions when claims are more robustly tested.
NFA-LD Disclosure: Your speaker points will never be higher than a 27 if you are not fully disclosed on both the AFF and the NEG. This does not include arguments you have not broken of course.
Speaks: They are rewarded based on bold strategic maneuvers, clever argumentation, persuasiveness, quality time allocation, showing a commitment to good research, and not saying things that are egregiously offensive.
You Should Read: DAs, Condo CPs, T, Ks, Case Defense, Impact Turns, and Good Impacts.
You Can Read: Non-T AFFs, Delay CP Bad Theory, Consult CP Bad Theory, and I guess ESPEC.
Don't Read: RVIs, Non-Resolutional AFFs, Slimy Spikes, Bad Impacts supported by an old structural violence framing card, and basically most Random Theory Arguments.
Favorite Debates to Judge: Impact turns, Kritiks, Case + DA.
Where my decision begins: I tend to believe that the ballot does nothing but reward a win to the better debater. The better debater is the person who convinced me that the resolution was either desirable or not desirable through superior argumentation/persuasion. Arguments that do not answer the question of the resolution are almost always illogical and I do not find them particularly compelling. For example, a "control F" word kritik of some phrase in a card is not a logical answer to the resolution, it's an evidence indict, but a word PIC that puts offense on a certain word or phrase in the plan text is logical to me because it disproves the desirability of the plan.
Speed: Clarity is really important to me, but I do not have problems with speed itself. Blipping through theory/analytics with no clarity, pen time, or sign posting is an easy way for me to miss key arguments. Speed is probably never a voter although it is technically possible to convince me otherwise. I believe people can incorporate criticisms of speed into a kritik that answers the desirability of resolutional action, simply make better arguments than your opponent, or punish horizontal strategies with turns.
Kritiks: If you are interested in specific link arguments and well thought out alternatives, I will be one of the better judges for you on these arguments. I tend to be well read on this literature unless you are venturing into pure metaphysics, abstract aesthetics, or heavy ethics. If your link to a big stick heg AFF is a dusty edelman 95 state bad link card, you're in a rough spot. I believe that links are the only way to describe how the alt relates to the affirmative. The more general your links are, the easier it is for the AFF to beat you on contextual nuance.
DAs: They win debates. 1NR depth is highly rewarded, although I'm open to debates over what cards or extrapolations the 1NR gets, considering that these 2 card tix DAs that morph into 9 card scenarios with specific links feel kind of new.
T: Although technical superiority matters, I often think that people lack persuasiveness with T collapses and it hurts the argument quite a bit. I need a vision for the topic to really hang my hat on. While definition distinction and clarity will make for the cleanest win (I love to see a lot of 1NR cards on definition distinctions), more generic T arguments are fine as well. With the event time constraints, the AFF is often likely to lose a good T debate unless they go all in on a couple arguments in the 2AR, so I would suggest that they do so.
Case: I am somewhat of a case connoisseur. It is an underdeveloped skill that often make or breaks rounds. You always need offense to win, although it doesn't have to be much if your case debate is really clean. Terminal defense can exist, but probably won't trigger presumption.
CPs: I don't think that all NBs need to be consistent with every CP in your strategy (ie you can read a states CP with its own NB and also read an ADV CP with its own NB). I will judge kick if I think the squo is a better option unless explicitly told I should not do so.
Conditionality: Neg probably gets multiple conditional positions plus the squo, although I can be convinced otherwise. With the time constraints of this event, I really feel for the AFF with 3 or more conditional positions. I don't think that 1NR uniqueness CPs are legitimate since a rebuttal is not another constructive, but if the AFF isn't interested in debating that, go for it.
Non-T AFFs: I think that topicality is probably good for the game of debate. I like affirmatives that find ways to use literature within the resolution by utilizing revolutionary fiat powers. Whether or not the affirmative gets to fiat large structural changes within the topic to the United States is often a question of fiat power, not topicality. AFFs that disregard the resolution to talk about a whole other topic, I am not very sympathetic to. AFFs that talk about the topic, but critique strict topicality or governmental action as a procedural constraint I tend to worry about the sustainability of, although I am not unfair to them in the debate. I am not convinced that non-topical AFFs get perms, but that has to be debated for me to care.
FW: I often find myself being more persuaded by framework standards like fairness far more than standards like portable skills. TVAs aren't necessary to win FW debates. The best FW strategies in my opinion tend to be unapologetic in their exclusion of the affirmative - tell me why their AFF just can't be in the topic instead of some "half in, half out" mental acrobatic.
Impact Turns: Probably one of my favorite debates to watch when executed well. I don't find human death good to be particularly persuasive unless outweighed by some larger utilitarian impact (which preferably is some larger event of human death).
1NC Theory: It's mostly frivolous. The only time its somewhat persuasive is when it answers something about the resolution. I guess plan specification arguments are Ok sometimes, although you really have to have some evidence that explains how incoherent their plan is instead of weird arbitrary standards of specificity.
1AR Theory: I'm not going to say that I like it, but sometimes CP theory is necessary to protect yourself from some weird strategies. Ranked from best shells to worst shells: Consult Bad, Delay Bad, Condo Bad, Agent Bad, PICs Bad, some weird perf con theory arg.
Spikes: I don't think they are actually as strategic as people think since it essentially trades more AFF offense for defense that may not answer anything. I will evaluate them unless they are blippy and spread out through the doc where I can't really flow them. If you read a "no war" spike out of the AFF and the NEG reads a DA with a war impact, the NEG did not concede the AFF argument, they are reading a "yes - war does happen" card. Odds are, their topic DA will be much more contextual to the question of war concerning the topic than the AFF's one card will be. However, it does clarify the situation if the NEG explains that their card answers the AFF card. It doesn't affect the round much, but I must say that spikes really ruin the persuasive narrative of the AFF and oftentimes just seem slimy. NEGs are encouraged to simply dismiss RVIs or arguments that suggest that the NEG doesn't get to read topicality because there is no chance I am voting on them.
Performative Aspects of Debate: To be frank, I was never a debater who cared much about the aggressiveness of my opponent in the round, so debaters ought to speak up about things like CX getting too heated because my bar might be a lot different. Nobody should feel so uncomfortable by the tone of a round that they want to leave. With that being said, there is nothing wrong with debaters performing their confidence and throwing a bit of shade at each other. I tend to think that a large part of persuasiveness is perceptually winning.
Post-Rounding: Not offended by it if it's reasonable. Probably a good practice for holding judges accountable.
Hey y'all, I'm Claire (she/her/hers). I'm an assistant for NFA-LD debate at Lafayette College. I previously coached LD & CX for Ridge HS (NJ), and at Western Kentucky University. I competed successfully in NFA-LD (1-person policy) & limited preps @ WKU, and in a multitude of formats for Blaine HS (MN). I hold a B.A. in Communication Studies.
I consider my self as tab as possible, and familiar with the conventions of all debate events beside PF. I spend nearly all of my time in the world of NFA-LD, though I still like to keep up with HS debate as much as is reasonable.
Treat others as you would want them to treat you. Stand up for yourself and others when others violate that expectation. I'll do the same. Forensics should be accessible and comfortable.
Performance skills matter and boost speaks/determine ranks, but of course it's different what that looks like in each event. Speed is fine, but be cognizant of your opponent, other judges, and which event you are actually competing in (Policy is policy, local LD is not circuit LD, and congress & extemp require public address skills). If you can't/don't want to stand, go for it.
Strategic execution (tech) always comes first, but any page can only be won with superior warrant analysis (truth) under an offense/defense paradigm. After that, weigh everything. Weigh dropped arguments, don't just extend them. While clearly dropped arguments can be devastating, if it's simply a poorly constructed argument then it probably won't factor heavily for me.
Don't advocate for fascist, racist, sexually violent, ableist, or otherwise bigoted arguments. I don't want to hear death good, skep, or religion. Other than that, you do you - Mearsheimer to Moten, I'll listen - but it's still your prerogative to properly articulate your argument. T/Theory is fine.
I read/went for the following most often (in order): big advantages & topic DAs, politics, impacts turns, T/Theory, advantage & agent CPs, post-structuralism, cap, a range of environment literature. I'm academically experienced (in order of depth) on semiotics, discourse theory, normative ethics, Marxist theory, post-structuralism, and existentialism. I pursue a personal reading interest in IR theory, criminal justice, environmental issues, and the milieu of national politics.
Event specific -
Specificity of plan text and quality of solvency evidence matter to me. If the neg ultimately defends the status quo but doesn't have good case args, it's likely the neg will lose. It's surprising I have to say these things, but it happens more often than one might expect.
Kritikal and Performance affs are fine, topical or not. This does not imply I won't vote on framework if won by the neg. That, however, does not imply i automatically vote neg on framework every time. I hold the advocacy to the same scrutiny I would for a plan.
I enjoy framing & weighing out of the 1AC.
I most often see DA debate as a question of who controls the direction of the link offense. Obviously weighing is a must, but I put a lot of stock into this - that or impact turns. Solely defensive strategies, even with impact framing tend to be non-persuasive. Some terminal defense exists (like bill already passed, etc.) - definitely an exception.
I went for politics A LOT, and really enjoy these debates.
I'm open to most strategies.
It's pretty uncommon for me to vote on condo bad. I'm more open to positions like PICs or States bad.
Presumption doesn't necessarily flip to the aff - specifically if the 2NR has good case arguments with DA/Turns.
CP solvency/text should be at least as detailed than the 1AC's, if not more. That said, the CP doesn't necessarily need to solve 100% - whether on probability or scope, if CP has a high risk of solving the most of the aff that can be sufficient if the DA/Turns outweigh.
I enjoy good K debates the same as any other strategy. As a judge I end up seeing this debate a lot, and have no real preferences for or against any given strand of literature or in-round execution.
I'm most familiar with literature stemming from the continental branch of philosophy. Some of my personal favorite authors include Baudrillard, Bookchin, Butler, Deleuze, Debord, Foucault, Luxembourg, Marx, Morton, & Zizek. That said, the majority of K debates I judge tend to be questions of identity and security (respectively) - which I also enjoy. I feel comfortable evaluating most anything.
I don't think the neg must absolutely go for/win the alternative, so long as the neg has good framing. Really, though, the neg should always be winning framing.
I generally find pure theory to be unpersuasive as an aff response. Perms are usually the best route, so are researched defenses of contemporary policy-making.
I've been finding lately that really close K debates have come down to who better presents empirical examples of the link and alt to contextualize theoretical warrants.
I particularly enjoy good topicality debates. I default to competing interps & jurisdiction voters.
I like theory debate so long as it relates to a Plan/CP/Alt/RoB text, or another theory text (a good RVI is rare but persuasive). In other words, ASPEC is cool - bracket theory is meh. Strike me if you're going to complain about your opponent's attire.
I'm neutral when it comes to FW debates - I'll vote for performance/sans-plan K affs as much as I vote for Framework. I generally place a high value on arguments over the academic & personal value of one's scholarship. Fairness is important, but I see these debates as ultimately a question of who wins (in the context of the round) that their educational/pedagogical praxis is preferable.
Clear & specific wording of interpretations is critical. Same with contextualized violations. If you're going to go for it, make it clean.
Great 2NRs/2ARs go all-in, and put voting issues at the top of the speech.
I don't like abstract reasonability arguments - my likeliness to vote for reasonability is entirely based on either the strength of a legitimate I-meet or the counter-interp's ability to resolve a substantial portion of the neg standards.
Outside of framework, I generally think fairness comes first.
Please use speechdrop. Prep stops when everything is put in your document. Don't steal prep.
Flex prep is fine.
CX is binding. I pay attention to CX. Excellent CX will boost your speaks.
Always weigh everything. Excellent weighing will boost your speaks.
Always collapse the debate. Excellent collapses will boost your speaks.
If the round is left unresolved, I will intervene and do my own comparison. I will be as fair as I can do each side and will let you know if this happens.
I'll always disclose unless told otherwise. More than happy to answer questions.
Bonus speaks for 'Good' Anarchism, DeDev, & Extraterrestrials arguments.
HS LD --
You can really just check my CX paradigm for most of my substantive preferences. Here are some event specific thoughts:
>Please justify your framework.
>I have a low threshold for 1AR/2AR extensions given the time, but warrants are still a must. I hate tag fights more than anything. 2AR impact weighing is fine.
>spending ~2:00 extending the aff card-by-card will likely lose you the round and tank your speaks. Part of the game is parsimony and efficiency. Have an overview for a page and do line-by-line.
>I will evaluate and occasionally vote on 1AR theory, but the stupider the argument, the less likely I am to vote on it. Things like CP theory, and RVIs against super abusive T/Theory NCs are infinitely better than, say "pre- or post-fiat, but not both" or "my opponent is wearing a tie". Even when 1ar theory is good (rare), there's usually not enough time to develop and win.
> The 1NC should have framework comparison - waiting until the NR rarely pays off. 2NR impact weighing is fine.
> Please collapse in the NR - don't go for everything. Winning/high speaks NRs usually go all in on T/Theory or the K, or go for case and/or CP with a DA. Leaving yourself multiple outs is smart, but this should be done in reference to whatever you go for ('case or CP' or 'turns or DA') - not wildly extending everything in the NC.
>80% of my rounds end up being Policy-making or K debates, and I don't have any event specific thoughts here. K framing work should be done in the NC, though this seems obvious.
>'Phil' debate: I think ethics debates are super fun, and really enjoy the literature. I will evaluate these debates, though I have two thoughts: (1) Just because it's LD doesn't mean I have to/will automatically default to ethical theory over policy-making or the K (2) extending 5-second blips you label 'a prioris' without warrants and spewing jargon without explanation is not a winning strategy - understand your ethic and interact it.
> Again, T/Theory is fine, but the dumber the argument, the less likely I am to vote on it. I enjoy actual T debates over words in the res, and theory debates over writing of the plan (ASPEC, Vagueness, etc.). I can't stand 'formal dress theory' or 'bracket theory' - do some prep and make real arguments.
> I'm slightly more likely to vote on condo bad in LD than CX. Same thing with reasonability - though this is all relative.
Do your thing - I'm super tab, keep a good flow, and am fairly well read. I've invested a lot of time into this style of the event as a coach and really enjoy it. I don't have many thoughts here - I'd check my tl:dr section for general debate things.
> Please justify your framework - it's shocking the proportion of debaters who don't or do so poorly.
> Warrant and weigh - the earlier the better.
> Don't take excessive prep for early speeches (NC/1AR).
> If you want to kick framework and go for case, go for it. These debates are often the most fun.
I have been competing in debate for six years. I competed in Policy Debate in highschool and then competed in Parli debate in college. I currently compete with Concordia University Irvine. I have been coaching policy, parli, and LD at the middle and highschool level for two years now.
I am arguably most comfortable with a policy style of debate, since I’ve done so much of it in both policy and parli. That being said, if you’re not introducing a plan, doesn’t mean I won’t enjoy the debate just as much. If you are introducing a plan, I really wanna make sure you have specific solvency for the plan; don’t just say you’re going to do x thing and then not tell me exactly what that thing does. If you’re passing a bill, give me a summary of what the bill does. As far as counterplans go, I'm fine with any of them. I like PICs. I think that the negative always has the right to introduce a counterplan, as long as it's competitive.
I really enjoy value debates. But if you’re going to defend a value, you better know REALLY well what that value means. I don’t want to hear you defend deontology and then not know how deontology functions through your contentions and what it means in the framing of the round.
The tl;dr: I’m good with the K but give me a bit of background on the author you’re reading.
I don’t enjoy the kritik when I’m competing, but I enjoy judging them. I have a lot of experience in kiritical debate and I’ve read a lot of authors and seen a lot of Ks, so I’d like to think I’m pretty well versed. Authors I’ve read that I’d say I’m very comfortable with: Foucault, Baudrillard, hooks, Marx, and Tickner. I’ve read a lot of feminist lit so I’m pretty comfortable with any sort of fem K, and I’ve read a handful of other miscellaneous books as well. That being said, if you’re defending a certain author, be sure to know that author backwards and forwards and be able to explain it to me if I look confused. Approach me like a judge that is good on the K and I’ll keep up, but my non-verbals will tell you if I’m lost. If I’m shaking my head, my head is cocked to the side, or I look confused, please clarify what your thesis is – I haven’t read every book ever and for a lot of Ks I’ll need at least a bit of background. Also, please explain how the alt solves – I don’t care if your alt is political or not, just give me clear solvency for whatever it is.
The tl;dr: I love theory and will vote on it if you give me a good reason to.
I was always a theory debater. I think it can be the fastest and best way to win the round for both sides. I will definitely take into consideration any theory coming out of any speech as long as there’s a substantiated reason for it. But if you’re going to run theory, make sure you have a clear interp and competitive standards. I’ve seen and run pretty much every type of theory imaginable so I understand when there’s a reason for it and will have a pretty low threshold if you defend it well – I’ve run theory in the last speech of the round based on what someone did in the speech before me, so I’m willing to vote on something like that – but if you’re gonna go for it, go for it. Collapse to theory or I won’t buy it. I have run RVIs before and I don’t see them as abusive as long as you give a good defense for why this is a situation when I should vote on an RVI. Don’t just tell me “they ran theory so they should lose,” explain how that situation specifically is an abusive use of theory and why that warrants me dropping them. I love condo debates but I don’t necessarily think that condo is good or bad; I vote for the team that makes the better argument on that. As far as speed procedurals go, run them if you think it’s warranted but if you’re gonna run a speed procedural, you better have called clear at least 3 times and the other team has not slowed down. Basically, as long as you give me substantiated abuse on theory I’ll vote on it but if you give me a reasonable explanation of why you’re not being abusive I’m just as likely to vote for you.
IF YOU RUN A K OR PROCEDURAL ABOUT ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, ie TRIGGER WARNINGS BEING ABUSED, I WILL STOP THE ROUND TO MAKE SURE ALL THE DEBATERS FEEL SAFE AND ARE WILLING TO CONTINUE. I don’t want to make anyone feel like they are unsafe when they are debating, so PLEASE bring that to my attention and I will do what I can to make you feel safe.
Things I want to see:
The tl;dr: Clash, impacts, and good impact analysis.
If someone argues something and you drop it; it’s unrefuted offense for the other team and I will consider that in my decision. But I won’t always catch every dropped argument so if you see it, call it out. But make sure you’re directly clashing with your opponents’ points. I like seeing good clash in the round and I’d rather see ya’ll collapse to one argument that has good clash on both sides then to see you stick to your blocks and have the round be like two ships passing in the night.
I also realllllllly want to see good impacts. Explain to me why your arguments matter. If you don’t give me a way to evaluate your arguments against what the other team is saying then that leaves me with a ton of responsibility at the end of the round and I’ll pick the argument I like better. I don’t care how big or small your impact is, just tell me why it matters.
I also really want to see impact analysis at the end of the round. Weigh your impacts on probability, timeframe, magnitude, and probability. I need you to compare your impacts to the other side’s a tell me why I should vote for you (and I much prefer to see that then voting issues since the impacts are what matters).
Be nice. People call me a point fairy and I typically am but I have no problem dropping your speaks if you’re rude in round. I have no tolerance for abusive behavior in round and if you’re a total jerk I’ll drop you.
Speed is fine; I can keep up as long as the other team can, and if I can’t I’ll call clear. And if you're a debater and someone is going too fast for you, please call clear or slow - I won't evaluate an argument about speed unless you attempt to get the other team to slow down first.
If you’re reading an argument about sexual assault, violence, or anything similar, please give a content warning at the beginning of the round so everyone is prepared.
I think debate is a game and I vote for the team that does the best debating, so I try not to have hard and fast opinions on debate. The round is what you make it and I’ll adapt to that unless extenuating circumstances force me to otherwise. Good luck!
Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS
if I have judged you in the past/if I judge you, feel free to fill out this form and I will post responses at the bottom.
TLDR version: no strong ideological debate dispositions, link/perm analysis is good, tech > truth, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. Everything below is insight into how I view/adjudicate debates, its questionably useful and certainly malleable.
**prep time stops when the email is sent, too many teams steal prep while 'saving the doc'**
*If you are an LD debater, this should give you a good idea of how to debate in front of me. Feel free to ask more specific questions before the round.*
Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. Sure, some debates I may find more interesting than others, but honestly the most interesting rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy.
This being said, if I am judging you in LD, here are a few things I've realized about myself that you should know: I find myself seeing most 'traditional/phil' strategies to be lacking in offense and largely ill explained; I think bad theory arguments are wildly unpersuasive and generally default to drop the arg; I think 'spikes' (especially when undisclosed) are not arguments and generally give the neg decent amount of leeway to make responses once they actually become warranted arguments.
-Truth v Tech: I find myself more frequently deciding close debates based on questions of truth/solid evidence rather than purely technical skills. This also bleeds into policy v policy debates, as I get older I find myself much more willing to vote on probability/link analysis than magnitude/timeframe; taking claims of "policy discussions good" seriously also means we need to give probability of impacts/solvency more weight.
-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I often find this to be the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and permutation evidence for kritiks.
-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow. If I say clear it is because I cannot hear/flow you and you probably want me to have your arguments, if you hear me say clear and your opponent doesnt get more clear, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to ask me before CX what arguments I did/did not get on my flow because I don't see why you should have to answer arguments that I didn't even have flowed. this seems to be a problem that is especially true in LD.
-Permutation/Link Analysis: this is becoming an increasingly important issue that I am noticing with kritik debates. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses leaves the door wide open for the negative to justify strategic cross applications and the grouping of permutations since said grouping will still probably contain more analysis than the 1AR/2AR.
Speaker points: average = 28, I generally adjust relative to the pool when considering how I rank speakers.
-Things that will earn you speaker points: being organized, confidence, well-placed humor, politeness, well executed strategies/arguments.
-Things that will lose you speaker points: arrogance, rudeness, humor at the expense of your opponent, stealing prep, pointless cross examination, running things you don’t understand/just reading blocks
Prep time stops when the email is sent
If you had to give advice to a team who had this judge in the back of the room, what would you tell them?
--Do whatever you’re good at, he’ll be down for it.
--Read your normal arguments, but make sure you explain them correctly and are able to connect your arguments to the 2nr/2ar explanation.
--read what you feel comfortable explaining and is most strategic in your eyes
--Focus on providing a lens/framing for the judge to view the debate through--if you're making an argument, be sure to explain why that argument (or groups of arguments) are relevant given the context of other arguments. For instance, explain why x section of the case debate is important to y section of the K debate (or something similar).
On a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the least similar and 10 being the most similar, rate how you thought the round went down matched up to this judge's assessment of the round based on the RFD
What was the quality of this judge's RFD?
What was the quality of this judge's post-round comments?
What areas of scholarship do you feel this judge is familiar with?
--I feel like he has a wide base of knowledge over a broad range of literature, which helps a lot in both Policy v Policy debates and Policy v K debates.
--Topic specific literature of policy affs/DA's and mostly familiar with the literature in the round
--Policy and Kritik
What areas of scholarship do you feel this judge is unfamiliar with?
--Maybe the pomo bs people have are reading (baudrillard, bataille, etc.)
--This was only for a specific post-round question, but the judge wasn't 100% sure about ontology cards to read when aff vs settler colonialism.
--LD Moral Frameworks/LD Analytic Philosophy debates
Do you have any additional comments?
--Very thorough and helpful RFD!
--Make sure to be explicit in not allowing judge intervention, ie "dont kick this for them"
Currently a coach for GMU, former debater at Liberty University, 7 years debating experience overall, NDT 2x, 2019 1st round, 2019 CEDA Top Speaker, and have judged all the tingz. After doing both policy and performance debate, I have learned that the most important thing for me is to create a space for myself and the arguments I want to read. Even though I think this is an educational and competitive activity that pays the bills (#schmoney), I still think it should be fun! That being said, my hope is that you will run what you are passionate about! If that's the Econ DA, Anti-blackness K, Fem K, or USFG, then let's get it! DO YOU BOO! This also means that yes debate is a game, but its full of real people and real consequences so we should keep that in mind as we play.
The above thoughts are still true, but thought it's probably time to update this thing in the case people actually read it. The biggest update is making sure y'all know that I want to be a puppet. I don't want to do more work than I have to, I don't want to have to read your evidence, I don't want to have to find pieces across the flow to make my decision, and I just don't want to intervene. So, please stop card dumping and just explain the warrants you have, please give me a clear ballot you want me to repeat back to you, and please talk about you really cool concepts in relation to the other team's arguments and not just as rants (even though they are really smart rants).
Now, that that's been said, I've found myself mostly in the back of the room of either KvK or clash debates, with the very rare appearance of a policy v policy round (minus novice and so my rant on theory doesn't apply to them), it may help to unpack my thoughts based on type of round.
K v K (jv/open):
There seems to be a lack of explanation burden for affs and alts recently. As a result, it normally ends up hurting the aff on presumption because the neg can kick the alt but the aff can't kick the aff. A few recommendations -
For the aff, make sure you know what your aff does and that you can explain the i/l to resolve your impacts. It really isn't enough to use words within your method to explain your method because it becomes circular logic very quickly. The second is to find ways to make it harder for the negative to kick out of the alt or have less burden to prove solvency than you do.
For the neg, take advantage if the aff has a lack of explanation. You should be pressing them to explain every impact in the aff even if they don't flag it as the big impact. I am very persuaded by presumption when its read offensively so make the aff do their job.
Other comments for k v k include the permutation debate. A lot of neg teams make the argument about no perms in a method debate and the only reason I am persuaded by that is 1ars never answer it and the 2ar answer is so new and lacks depth. As a result, aff's should probably have a better prepared answer and then I would be more open to your perm.
I vote on who wins the round which means one round I may vote on fmwk against a k aff, the next on the k aff. Each round is different so please, innovate! Even with the same argument, you should be searching for ways to re-articulate arguments. Seeing the same 1nc/2n/1nr read off same blocks is not a good look and this is speaking to both sides policy and k.
In these debates, I normally end up siding with tech over truth insofar as it has let me do the least amount of judge intervention. I want to be very clear about what I mean by this, truth normally requires me to read cards for people which if you're not explaining cards I don't want to do the work for you, which is why I say I tend to lean towards clash. I'm saying this to reassure K teams that tech > truth is not automatically a bad thing for you. Ultimately, the best debaters find a good balance between tech and truth, but again I'm a puppet so if you want me to lean a certain way, tell me to do so and why I should.
Policy v Policy (jv/open):
Again, I am rarely in these but the few I have been in tend to come down to the most random theory arguments and I have to be honest - condo is not bad. Whenever I hear condo read in front of me, it just feels like policy teams whining cause I'm like - this is literally the ground you want when you read fmwk, but now its abusive? 5 off is abusive? 3 off is abusive? I meaaaaan ... it just ain't clicking for me because its mostly teams who are absolutely losing other flows because the other team is better and theory is your hail mary. But that means I reward you for avoiding the fight? ok... That being said, people will continue to read condo and I get that - I don't want neg to read this and be like "bri says condo isn't bad in paradigm therfore I don't have to do a lot of work" - no. Please answer it accordingly. What I'm saying is I do not want to vote for condo so neg please don't create a world in which I end up voting for condo - close that door for the aff and I will forever appreciate you.
The only theory arg I find persuasive is perf con - because it means reading a k with something that contradicts makes you a fake radical. Do with that what you will.
End of update.
Now I know some debaters still like to worry about what the person in the back of the room thinks so I'll break down some key points.
-I used to say spreading is fine, but in the era of online debate, folks be more unclear than usual. Spread at your own risk because if you don't pace yourself, then it may not get on my flow.
-Explanation > reading more cards
-Organization is key. Even if the other team is messy, it puts you in a better position to clear things up for the judge so line by line can help
-I'm a very expressive person so look at my face cause my visual cues might help you out (and I oop...)
-More people should pref Tyler Wiseman.
-At the end of the debate, be sure to tell me why I should vote for you; if you don't, then you can't get big mad when I don't ... periodt
I love running the K and the moment I was able to get into critical literature in my debate career, I dived right in. That being said, two important conclusions: One, I understand the foundations of most literature bases so feel free to run them if that is the style of argumentation you prefer.
Two, I have a larger threshold for the K because I expect you to explain the link story and the alternative with warrants so don't assume that just because I know the theory means you don't have to put in the work for the ballot. Links should be contextualized to the aff - please don't restate your tags and author, but pull lines from 1ac/2ac. I would also warn against just running a K because you think I'm only a K debater. Again, DO YOU BOO! If your heart is in the K, go for it! If its not, don't force yourself.
I love performative links not personal attacks so if you are unsure what that line is, talk to your coaches or email me before you dive in. With performative links, just make sure to give a warranted analysis as to why I should vote on it and what the impact is.
Love them! I do prefer K aff's to be in the direction of the topic or make some attempt to include a discussion of the resolution, but if you are not, then at least give me a warranted explanation as to why you have chosen that route. For those that are in the topic of the resolution, have a clear impact and solvency story. Many times, debaters will get so caught up in the negative arguments that they lose sight of what is important...their aff! So make sure to keep a story line going throughout the entirety of the debate.
When you get into FMWk/T debates, be sure to extend and explain your counter-interpretation. What is your model and why is it good? That plus impact turns = a pretty easy ballot from me.
It's a strategy that is read against K aff's, it's a strategy I have won against, a strategy I have lost to, a strategy I have voted on and against. My personal outlook - debate is a game but it has real impacts that can help or harm certain individuals. While it is a competitive strategy, I do not think it is an excuse to not engage the affirmative because most of the time, your lack of engagement is what the aff will use to link turn the performance of reading fmwk (hint hint to K debaters reading this).
PSA - fairness is not an impact... at best, its an internal link to education. That being said, unless the aff has no justification for their aff, then you will have a 2% of getting my ballot by reading fairness. I find it most compelling when you prove in round abuse so be on the lookout and don't miss opportunities if you really down for that fairness life. I like the impact of education a lot more because it has better spill over claims. I also don't think you need a role of the ballot because I think fmwk is a counter RoB, but you should probably indicate that. Don't be shifty with your interp, but I believe a capable 2N will be able to accurately counter the 2AC shift and reframe the debate through the same interp in the 1nc. Please have a TVA! No, it does not need to solve the entirety of the aff because that is neg ground, but it should be able to solve the main impacts they go for. Lastly, defend your model of debate and explain why it would be better for the debate community writ large. If you are only focusing on the one round, then explain why that is better.
I don't have a preference meaning I am open to all types of CPs. What I do ask is that you have a net benefit and explain how your CP solves the aff. It's also nice if your CP is competitive...
I'm down for some good old throw downs on the DA flow, but make sure you have a clear and warranted link story and awesome impact calc for ya girl.
I think theory is procedural just make sure you explain very clearly and slowly what the violation is and why that matters...if you are going to go for theory, I expect the 2n or 2a to spend a good amount of time on it which means not just 30 sec or 1 min.
Policy Affs vs K:
Engage the K! Too many times policy teams just write over the K with their fmwk thinking that is the only work they have to do but it's just like debating a DA or CP. Do the link work and the more specific answers you have to the alt, the better position you are in. Don't just say Perm DB or Perm aff then alt, but really explain what that means and looks like in the world of the aff. I think you do need fmwk to get to weigh your aff but that is all the fmwk will get you which means don't forget to extend your aff and the impact story. A really good way to engage the K is to prove how the plan not only outweighs but resolves the specific impacts.
I think cross-ex is a really good place to assert your arguments and point out key flaws in the other team's arguments. This means you should take advantage of the time to really prove to me why the entire speech they just gave don't matter. While I think cross-ex is binding, you still have to bring it into a speech to explain why that moment was so important and the impact of it.
UK, GBN, ADL
Add me: firstname.lastname@example.org
College people, add: email@example.com
Please put useful info about the round in the subject of the email.
Key Things to Know
I will flow and vote on things you said. NEGs can say whatever but the less it says the plan is bad the more annoying it is. Conditionality and judge kick are good. Ks are good if they are secretly DAs. AFFs should be T and are likely to lose if they aren't. If you say death good you lose.
If my camera is off, assume I am away from my computer and don't start talking.
I will probably vote quickly. This does not necessarily mean the debate was lopsided or bad; more likely, it is a sign that the teams clearly communicated the relationships between their arguments, allowing me to perform evaluations as the debate is happening. If I take a long time that means I am confused.
I STRONGLY prefer that your camera be on at all times, but I understand if internet or other tech considerations prevent this.
Here is how to successfully adjust to the online setting:
- inflect more when you are talking
- put your face in frame
- get a microphone, put it close to your face, talk into it, make sure there is an unobstructed line between it and your mouth
- talk one at a time
Tech determines truth unless your argument is an affront to obvious reality or it's death good. If you tell me to embrace death because life is bad I will vote against you even if you do not go for the argument.
Ethical systems that are okay with indiscriminate murder as an end in itself are not for me.
Otherwise, unless my role as a judge is changed, I will attempt to write the least interventionary ballot. This means:
1. What is conceded is absolutely true, but will only have the implications that you say it has. I will not assume what is not obvious. For example, I will not cross apply arguments from one flow to another, will not assume impact D applies to impacts you didn't say it applies to, will not assume a CP solves something you didn't say it solves, etc.
2. I will intervene if there is no non-interventionary decision.
3. When something is thorny or annoying I have often found myself starting the decision by looking for ways to vote without resolving that thing. With proper framing and argument choice you can rig this process in your favor.
For whatever reason the stats say I really like the NEG.
High schoolers - BEFORE THE DEBATE, if you think your wiki is good (has cites/open source for every card you have read OR detailed descriptions of arguments that are not card reliant) tell me and if I agree both debaters get +1 speaker point.
The following are my inclinations - if you don't like them you can change them.
Your DAs should clash with the AFF. The bar for getting me to care about fake politics arguments is high. I think I like intrinsicness, although no one has actually tested this out yet.
I care about the DA turning the case a lot.
"Framing pages" are dumb. Maybe they could be smart? I have yet to see a proof of concept for this that I care about.
My favorite "framing" arguments are those that raise epistemological questions about NEG claims or kritik NEG assumptions or representations. There are impact frames that are neither utilitarian nor deontological; find a point between these extremes. Pointing out that 1% risk logic is bad matters only if you have reduced the NEG's argument to 1% risk. This means your time should be allocated overwhelmingly to normal DA debating rather than ranting about the conjunctive fallacy or whatever.
90% of the time your 1AC minutes are better spent preempting core NEG arguments like the courts CP or specific DAs, rather than talking about DAs in the abstract.
Case offense is strategic and funny.
CP'ing in offense is underrated.
My default is judge kick. It is very hard to use theory to stop me from thinking about the status quo.
The AFF should be able to win a process CP doesn't compete if they are competent and don't drop things. Granting competition makes the theory debate more difficult because it proves your CP is an opportunity cost.
Good for the NEG on theory, especially condo. I care the most about clash as a theory impact. Nothing but condo is a voting issue.
Intrinsic perms can be ok depending on the counterplan.
Vagueness in all its forms probably not a VI but can implicate internal links and solvency.
Argue by analogy and comparison to other affs, especially in CX. I think this is one of the best way to find inconsistencies in neg interpretations which you can exploit to your advantage in rebuttals.
Cards matter - all else being equal, if you read more cards supporting/fleshing out your interpretation and demonstrating why the aff doesn't meet I will be more likely to vote for you. I am unlikely to care about a cardless T 2NC.
I am a pedant myself so I am more sympathetic to pedantic T arguments than most.
OK for specific Ks on the NEG, bad for random backfile trash, bad for K AFFs, death good = L.
I think I am better for AFFs without plans than usual on the CJR topic. FW vs abolish AFF that defends actual abolition might require a change in the NEG's usual approach.
If your K is closer to a DA I am more likely to care about it. So - links should be specific, causal, and about the plan.
AFFs' path to victory is proving that the K does not do these things. Therefore, reductionism DA + perm is the most persuasive approach to answering most K arguments.
Same thing if there is no plan text - in a FW debate, the AFF wins by demonstrating that engaging in resolutional debate/being forced to do so intrinsically causes something bad, the NEG wins by demonstrating that the AFF's offense is not intrinsic to resolutional debate and theirs is.
I am open to different understandings of what it means for things to compete if there is no plan.
If the AFF has negated the resolution and the NEG responds with a topical proposal, shouldn't the NEG be the one that gets perms? Isn't that already how we evaluate TVAs? Just a thought. Be creative.
The only effect of my ballot is to decide the winner.
Most of my points have been between 28.4 and 28.9. This seems to be below the curve so I am adjusting.
Wrong strategic choices, being stupid about substance, CXs annoying/pointless, arguments were bad, being needlessly mean, being a mumbler... = lower speaks. Strong strategy, fun/engaging to watch, being smart, being classy, being clear = higher speaks.
Other arg stuff
Evidence ethics (out of context? straw-person? lied about quals? cut in middle of paragraph?) should be debated out like any other theory argument. Don't see why any of that would be an auto-VI in a world where paraphrasing with footnotes or excerpting poetry is commonplace and accepted. Claiming you said words you did not say is an L.
Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is is entirely up to me.
I have extensive experience as a Public Forum debate competitor and judge, however my first LD round today will be my first LD round ever. I am okay with reasonable speed (but not spreading). I will do my best to judge the round fairly, however it will largely be based on the flow and impact weighing. Write my ballot for me, tell me throughout the round why your team has won and your arguments are better. If you don't do that, I will have to make the analysis for you.
No, you don't have to have a plan.
Yes, kritiks are fine. But you better be able to explain your theory (especially high theory) well and do specific link work.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last updated for Apple Valley
I am a grad assistant at UW and an LD coach at Apple Valley. My background is mostly in LD with some PF and policy experience.
Email for the chain: lwzhou10 at gmail.com
Online Procedural Concerns
1. Follow tournament procedure regarding online competition best practices.
2. Record your speeches locally. If you cut out and don't have a local backup, that's a you problem.
3. Keep your camera on when you speak, I don't care if it's on otherwise. Only exception is if there are tech or internet issues- keeping the camera off for the entirety of the debate otherwise is a good way to lose speaker points.
4. I'll keep my camera off for prep time, but I'll verbally indicate I'm ready before each speech and turn on the camera for your speeches. If you don't hear me say I'm ready and see my camera on, don't start.
5. Yes, I'll say clear and stuff for online rounds.
I've judged over 1000 LD and policy rounds from novice locals to (e)TOC elims. I am not particularly partial to a style in which you debate the topic, e.g. philosophical, kritikal, traditional, etc., but I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the question of the debate start a few steps behind for me.
I have not thought much about the right to strike.
Ideological stances that might influence prefs:
1. Fairness and logic are good- args to the contrary are self-defeating.
2. The aff should defend the topic; the neg should disprove the aff- I've voted against framework/for Ks a decent amount too but it's just a tougher route to take in front of me.
3. Some tricks are fine, most stretch the definition of what counts as an argument- anything that relies almost entirely on your opponent dropping it probably isn't even worth making in front of me.
4. I think Nebel T is true, but tech > truth. I have grown tired of adjudicating Nebel T rounds. I will give you extra speaks if you either (A) don't read Nebel T against a plan or (B) read 1 off Nebel T against a plan. If you think Nebel T is true, defend it. Short 1NC T shells are near impossible to judge because so much of the debate is late-breaking. I'd rather you went all in or just didn't read it in the first place.
5. Conditionality is probably bad in LD, but it's not that hard to defend condo good; most other counterplan issues are best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
6. I'm inclined to think that everything other than conditionality and T should be a reason to reject the arg. Most other theoretical objections aren't particularly persuasive to me.
7. I'm generally against sandbagging both in the 1NC and 1AR. I would rather the 1NC read 1 less off case position in favor of more developed case analysis, impact calc, or fully complete arguments. I would rather the 1AR make 1 less theory argument in favor of actually explaining what the words "perm do both" mean. How much "new-ness" is allowed in the 2NR or 2AR is obviously contextual but the default is that it's determined by how new your opponent was.
8. Ev ethics are important- I'll default to the NSDA Evidence Guide.
9. I'd prefer not to read your cards- I'd rather you explain them to me.
None of these biases are locked in- in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy. I'm not sure I have strong opinions about much else. Like most other judges, I like evidence quality, impact calculus, and strategic choices. Like most other judges, I dislike cheating, unclarity, and impropriety.
I debated for OU back in the day but you shouldn't read too much into that- I wasn't ever particularly good or invested when I was competing. I lean more towards the policy side than the K side and I'm probably going to be unfamiliar with a lot of the ins-and-outs of most kritiks, although I will do my best to fairly evaluate the debate as it happens.
Despite coaching on this topic, I do not consider myself particularly informed about the meta or relatively insular things like which acronyms are popular or what the various flavors of antitrust are. I also have not thought much about T.
1. I tend to think the role of the aff is to demonstrate that the benefits of a topical plan outweigh its costs and that the role of the neg is to demonstrate that the costs and/or opportunity costs of the aff's plan outweigh its benefits.
2. I find variations of "fairness bad" or "logic/reasoning bad," to be incredibly difficult to win given that I think those are fundamental presuppositions of debate itself. Similarly, I find procedural fairness impacts to be the best 2NRs on T/Framework.
3. Conditionality seems obviously good but I'm not opposed to a 2AR on condo. Most other theory arguments seem reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I lean towards reasonability. Most counterplan issues seem best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
4. Warrant depth is good. Argument comparison is good. Both together- even better.
None of these biases are locked in- in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.
LOCAL WYOMING/OKLAHOMA DEBATES
1. Please time yourselves.
2. Yes, off-time roadmaps are good.
3. Offense (why you win) is superior to defense (why you don't lose). I'm much more interested in the former; don't spend so much time on the latter.
4. The criterion is not a voting issue. If you say it is, I'll make a big sad face.
5. I prefer more principled and philosophical arguments in debate. If the debate does become a question about the consequences of adopting some policy, I prefer empirical studies and examples over random predictions without evidence.
1. Give judge instruction. Tell me how to evaluate the debate.
2. Do argument comparison.
3. Email chains are good.
4. Fast debate is good debate.
I know almost nothing about the water topic.