Hey y'all. My name is James Allan. My email is jpa6644@gmail.com if there's anything here that's not clear. Please put me on the email chain.

Experience:

4 years at Lakeland Central School District, 4 years at Binghamton University, 2 years of grad fellowship at Baylor University, 1 year coaching Desert Vista, third year coaching for the University of Houston.

I received a first round at large bid to the NDT my senior year, the first in binghamton university history.

Previously coached at/conflicted with: Lakeland, Binghamton University, McQueen, various ADL debaters, Baylor University, Desert Vista, University of Houston.

how i make decisions

I used to flow on paper but have transitioned to flowing on my computer. it is still in your best interest to go at about 85% of what others would consider "top speed" in front of me so i can catch more warrants, examples and analysis for your argument.

i like judge instruction, i like well engaged framework debates that tell me how to view how the debate is going down, i like rebuttals that start with "vote (aff/neg) to (explanation of what the aff/neg ballot does/means/signifies) which solves these impacts. these impacts outweigh and turn my opponents' impacts because..." you catch my drift.

i determine the competing thesis-level/key/framing/whatever-you-want-to-call-it questions presented and determine which team sufficiently answered theirs/their opponents' framing questions and work backwards from there.

i generally give more weight to dropped arguments if the impact to the argument is adequately contextualized (you can say i lean towards tech over truth but it's debatable obviously).

randomly how i feel about different arguments

k aff v. framework: debate is cool because you get to actively debate about the rules

i am indifferent about framework as a strategy to negate affs that don't hypothetically defend a topical plan text. in my mind, if negatives don't successfully insulate the framework page from case offense (win a convincing "framework comes first" arg, in other words) or use standards to turn the aff method or impact, i very rarely vote negative in those debates. i like standards that defend the topic, not just topical debate in the abstract. i am pretty sympathetic to the very simple argument "don't maintain fairness, if fair debate produces X bad thing". both teams should point out that the other team is grossly misrepresenting how their model of debate actually doesn't go down the way it is described.

k aff v. k neg: debate is cool because you get to test different explanations of how power is distributed and how it operates

presumption is an underutilized neg argument in these debates and too easily dismissed by affs. how does competition function and why should i care/not care about it? what is your theory of power and how does it differ/overlap with your opponents'? explain, analyze and develop in your constructives but you should be crystallizing your big dense words for me in your rebuttals in terms of impacts and impact comparison. what is your method/theoretical approach/critical approach/alternative and how should i think about "solvency".

policy aff v. policy neg: debate is cool because even seemingly hyperbolic and contrived internal link chains teach the participants about logic processing and decision-making

show me unique, topic research that is specific and interesting. i'm slowly gaining more sympathy for cheaty counterplans. i have a low threshold for voting on presumption or inherency, with smart, warranted analytical arguments even without cards. i like politics disads. i don't like cp's that randomly first strike asian countries. i like T.

policy aff v. k neg: debate is cool because forms of rhetoric and knowledge employed by the debaters is up for debate.

neg teams usually win debates by impact turning the education/worldview/representations/justifications introduced by the affirmative (framework) or by winning that the plan emboldens/worsens/justifies the impact/social system that outweighs and turns the affirmative. i very much make sense of the world of policy aff v. k neg debates in terms of pre/post fiat debates. policy affs should be ready and willing to defend the scholarly underpinnings of their affirmative. i am very susceptible to aff tricks (util, negative state action link turns, alt solvency presses). i am very susceptible to neg tricks (floating pik, framework turns, epistemology indicts, serial policy failure). judge instruction is a necessity in these debates.

random list of great debate minds i have learned from, competed against, was judged by, worked with:

(basically who shaped the way i think about debate to give you a better insight into how i make decisions)

Amber Kelsie, Vida Chiri, Tj Buttgereit, Jeff Yan, Geoff Lundeen, Ben Hagwood, Stefan Bauschard, Carlos Astacio, Willie Johnson, Kevin Clarke, Jesse Smith, Reed Van Schenk, Brianna Thomas, Michael Harrington, Jacob Hegna.

I really like debate

this is my tenth year in the activity and i love participating and learning and teaching in every individual debate. what i am now realizing from the grad student side of things is how much the community is dependent on unrecognized and uncompensated labor from grad students, mostly feminized bodies, people of color, black people and disabled people. be nice to grad students, we are trying our best lmao

I do not time speeches, always time yourself because it's better to have it in front of you, rather than stopping in the middle of your speech to ask how much time you left.

I want to be able to understand and flow your arguments; speed reading is fine as long as you can articulate your arguments clearly. If I cannot understand you, I'm not flowing.

Otherwise, just don't curse in speeches or cross ex, and be polite. Debate is more fun when everyone is polite. Don't expect high speaker points if you do either.

I have judged lots of DC-area tournaments and about half a dozen national circuit tournaments over the past two years after more than two decades away from competitive debate.

Here's what I would want to know about me if I were you:

1. I am open to - and have voted for - just about every kind of strategy, even though my default position is still that affs should defend a topical proposal for action. If you don't read a plan you need to explain the role of the ballot.

2. My assumption (in the absence of argument to the contrary) is that the neg has to defend whatever they do or advocate as functionally competitive/net beneficial. This means that answering a permutation by just saying, "severs their reps" and moving on is not going to be very persuasive to me.

3. I presume that debate is an educational game and that competitive fairness is an impact unless someone suggests an alternative way of looking at what we're doing.

4. You need to be able to explain and defend the claims and warrants in your evidence. If the other team points out that your evidence does not actually say what you represent it as saying, I am willing to assign the argument zero weight/probability.

5. The electronic exchange of speech files is not an excuse for being incomprehensible. I also appreciate it when arguments and cards have short, clear labels.

6. Please be nice (or at least polite) to each other. I don't like watching debates where debaters are cocky, condescending, or rude, and I will punish this kind of behavior harshly via speaker points.

Hi everyone,

Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions before the round, in case I am not clear. I am a former Public Forum debater, and debated PF for four years. I also now coach Public Forum for three schools around the US. I went to invitationals and the state and national championships while I was a debater, and was very involved in debate. I would consider myself a flow judge, with 2 notable deviations from that category:

1. I will flow crossfire. Many flow judges don't do this, but crossfire is part of the debate, so I'll flow it.

2. In general, I'm less concerned with you extending cards through summary/final focus and more concerned with you extending points, responses, and ideas. While I won't necessarily disregard anything that is dropped in summary, if it is very important, it should be extended.

I hope that this paradigm gives you a sense of how I will be as a judge. Please note that, while I am a flow judge, I do like teams that are able to speak clearly and convey ideas well. I DO NOT LIKE OFFTIME ROADMAPS. IF IT IS WORTH SAYING, USE TIME TO SAY IT. If you are a lay team, don't worry, I won't hold it against you. Debate to your talents, and may the best team win!

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

About me:

· - I debated at Notre Dame High School in Sherman Oaks, California and am currently a sophomore at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

· -I read a heg aff and consider myself very policy-oriented, but I will to listen to whatever you are prepared to read

· - I will reward debaters who explain their arguments well, engage their opponents’ arguments, and resolve my ballot in the 2ar/2nr with high speaker points

· - Clarity and line by line > pure speed

· -I was a 2A throughout high school I lean aff on most theory questions (specifics are explained below)

Specific preferences-

Topicality: T debates are either the best or worst types of debates, it is up to you in the round to determine which side of this you will fall on. To have a good T debate you must explain what the topic looks like under your interpretation. On the aff generic counter-interps are usually fine, but it is best if you have a counter-interp that is contextual to your aff. I will evaluate T debates similarly to disad debates. Your violation is the link and you must explain an internal link and impact. Simply saying “prefer our interpretation because we limit the topic”, will not win my ballot. Instead, you should tell me how your counter-interp accesses limits/ground and why that outweighs the aff’s offense. I think of reasonability as a question of aff predictability and I will vote on it, but this requires the aff to explain why they are reasonable in the context of the specific debate instead of reading generic blocks through rebuttals.

T vs. K affs: Fairness is an impact. I fundamentally believe that debate is a game and that attaching survival strategies to the ballot is problematic. As a judge, it is not within my jurisdiction to affirm or reject your personal experience. This does not mean that I will always vote against k affs, but if you do read one in front of me you must explain your form of education and know your lit base. Do not assume that I am deep in the lit on your Vampiric Capitalist Princess affirmative, I am not.

Disads: If you do not know why the disad outweighs and/or turns the case then you should not read it. The 2nr/2ar should generally spend the majority of their time on this part of the debate. Additionally, if the 1nc is 7 off and one of those off is a one or two card disad that you then develop in the block then the aff will always get new answers in the 1ar. Neg strategies focused on tricking the other team are silly and show me that you are not confident in your ability to win the debate. The link to the aff should be clear and the 2ac should flag generic/uncontextualized links.

Counterplans/Counterplan theory: Specific counterplans with strategic net benefits show that you have thought about the aff and spent time prepping. These are my favorite types of debates to judge. If theory is your only 2ar choice, then go for it. Word PICs, Commissions CPs, and Consult CPs are probably abusive, but that does not mean I will automatically vote aff if you go for theory. You must explain why the neg has made it impossible for you to debate by reading their abusive CP. I think that specific PIC’s are a good way to test the aff and lead to more in-depth topic education.

Kritiks: To win the K in front of me you should have a robust explanation of the importance of your form of education on the framework debate and/or provide a clear vision of an alternative. The K should also be specifically applied to the affirmative. The K’s I am most familiar with/give 1nr’s on often are security, neolib, and university. Read whatever you want in front of me, just explain it well.

Theory: 2 conditional worlds are probably fine. If they are contradictory and you can point to in-round abuse, then I may be convinced to vote aff. 3 or more conditional worlds are probably abusive. To win on condo it must be the entire 2ar. Simply getting to the condo debate with 20 seconds left and saying “also you could vote aff on condo because they made it impossible for us to debate”, will not win my ballot. Vague alts and utopian alts are reasons to reject the argument, not the team. This section is pretty brief, if you have any specific questions feel free to ask me before the round :)

Impact turns: Go for it. Impact turn debates are great if you understand the lit base and can explain it well. I will vote on even the most absurd impact turns if you win the rest of the debate. That being said, I will not vote on racism good or patriarchy good.

Hi! I'm Raja Archie (my preferred pronouns: she/her/hers)

My email is rrarchie98@gmail.com and I’d love to be added to the email chain

Full Disclosure: This judge is black, disabled, and queer (be mindful of what you say around her and in her rounds)

My rounds are a safe places. Which means you are required to respect preferred pronouns. I encourage you to ask before the round starts and if you don’t get the chance to ask before the round avoid the use of gendered language. Homophobia, discrimination, racism, xenophobia, ableism, transphobia, sexism, and all other awful prejudices in any form is not tolerated in my rounds and I won’t hesitate to vote you down and end the round early if an unsafe environment is created. Just be a nice human :)

My Background: Former Policy and Congressional debate coach for ETHS. Former NatCirc + local circuit congress (1yr) and policy debater (5yrs) for 4yrs at ETHS (c/o 2016). Judging since 2015 and have experience in judging Congress, Policy, and LD.

My Philosophy: I don’t believe in telling debaters how they should debate, or what arguments they should read. As a judge I just decide who did the better debating at the end of the round.

A note for Congressional Debaters: Remember it's Congressional Debate, key word 'debate' that's the one really important aspect that separates this type of debate from a speech event so please please please remember to debate, clash really is critical. Also, try not to obsessively rehash which can be avoided by remembering to review your flow and trying to refute line by line. Lastly, the speakers who stick out to me the most aren't just the ones who sound good or present well they're the ones who can structure a speech and debate well on top of those things.

Important FYI! Please refrain from using gendered language in session, especially if everyone hasn't gone around and introduced themselves along with their preferred pronouns. Fortunately in Congress everyone has a title of either 'Rep. [insert last name]' or 'Sen. [insert last name]' which makes avoiding gendered language like 'she'/'he'/'her'/'miss'/etc. even easier :)

For Policy Debaters

• Read arguments that YOU think are rad. Just do you. If you have a plan text that’s cool..but like also no plan text no problem because framework makes the game work. I'm not going to evaluate problematic or offensive arguments (i.e. ‘racism good’, ‘heteronormativity good’, ‘patriarchy good’, etc.) because that not only requires my brain power as a judge but also emotional labor that I won't be compensated for so just no. Note that problematic or offensive arguments does not mean problematic or offensive execution of an argument. Everyone is ignorant about some thing at some point and I am willing to educate if you’re willing to take an L, respectfully listen to what I have to say, and learn.

• Speaking - When it comes to speaking speed is not an issue I can flow by ear exceptionally well but clarity is a must especially if you want high speaker points from me

• Debaters love to ask me before round, ‘What types of arguments do you like judge?’ So to answer that simply, I like good arguments. What I'm not going to do is list which arguments I read as a debater because I don’t want you to read my paradigm then poorly execute an argument in front of me as a desperate attempt to secure a W. I do understand the importance of prefs though so full disclosure I’m probably not the preferred judge for you if your neg strat doesn’t contain a K

• No matter what types of arguments you read, if I’ve judged you in the past, if I’m cool with your school or coach, what types of teams I’ve coached, what kind of debater I was or what lit I’ve read..I won’t do any of the work for you. That means don’t debate lazily. That means even if it’s the 6th prelim round give it your all still. That means clear breakdowns of arguments (i.e. solid overviews, answering those direct CX questions about your argument’s content, etc.). That also means crystal clear breakdowns of how your side has won the debate within rebuttal speeches is a necessity.

Remember, education comes first always, be kind to one another, spread positive vibes among your fellow debaters, and good luck!

For the legalization topic:

Very little topic knowledge. I will probably need some help in speeches and cross-x on the operational relationship between the laws, concepts, and categories you're referencing.

Argument stuff:

There is such a thing as zero risk

T – Clear distinctions supported by grammar/government definitions are usually more compelling than limits, but rarely backed up by good evidence – ergo, cards are a big deal

Links must be unique, but uniqueness does not “determine” or necessarily strengthen the link argument

Conditionality – 2 is fine, 3 is pushing it, 4 is dumb

Aff leaning on counterplan competition, neg leaning on counterplan legitimacy
2a’s should talk about 1 – what the basis for competition should be, 2 – what the negative justifies and why that’s bad, 3 – why the neg’s model of opportunity cost is rigged

2n’s should 1 – read definitions of words in the plan text, not just the resolution, 2 – establish the relevance of the difference between the plan and the counterplan to the topic, 3 – establish the desirability of testing the difference between the plan and the counterplan to debate

Word PICs – seem trivial unless the aff makes an argument that discourse is important to their advocacy

Performance – I’m pretty good for the neg on framework, but negative teams often advance standards that are easily impact turned – e.g. limits, policy education, etc. – one way the 2n can hedge his or her bets is to extend impact defense to the case

Stuff you shouldn’t drop no matter what – value to life, turns case, role of the ballot

Speaker point stuff:

Be nice (or polite if you can’t manage nice), act like you want to be there
Cross-x – reference it in speeches, ask about relevant issues
Go for defense – talk about what their cards say, don’t say, why that matters
Don’t steal prep – this means stop writing/typing while the jump drive is being passed around
Even ifs – recognizing where you’re behind and adjusting
Blowing off stupidity – A-spec comes to mind
Clarity is very very important, excessive volume is just annoying

My email: tk.asarpota@gmail.com

General Comments:

- Please signpost and emphasize tags

- Line by line is extremely helpful!

- To extend a card properly, must do more than just say tagline, analytics are expected

- Clear and convincing Impact Calc is extremely important.

Policy Affs: I like policy affs and am very comfortable judging them.

DA: I like DAs but should link to the aff and be well explained.

CP: I like CPS but need solvency advocates and should have a clearly articulated net benefit

K Affs: I am not extremely well versed in K’s but I am willing to listen to K affs as long as they are well explained in cross-x and in the speeches.

K: I do enjoy judging K’s as long as the alts are clear and well extended. I WILL NOT vote for a K if the world of the alt is unclear at the end of the 2NR.

T: I'm fine with voting on topicality, but I will often defer to reasonability unless neg makes a very strong case.

Theory: I am not very well-versed in theory so ensure that you explain any theory vocab well during the round. I do not have any aversions to a well-run theory argument.

Framework: I love to hear framework against K affs and K's. In order for me to vote on framework, I expect that you spend a significant amount of time on it throughout the rebuttals.

Polytechnic School '14

Harvard College '18

Last Updated: February 2017

I believe judges should adjudicate debates based on the arguments presented, and I strive to judge in such a way that my preferences and predispositions make the minimum possible impact on my decision. No judge is a genuine tabula rasa, but I'm not interested in telling you what arguments to make or how to make them. Do what you do best and I'll adjudicate the debate as fairly and neutrally as I can.

As a debater, I primarily approach debate from a critical perspective. This does NOT mean that I will likely vote for the K, or even that I want to adjudicate K debates. It only means that I am well-versed in both sides of that literature, and am likely to render an intelligent decision in debates where a K is introduced. I enjoy well-researched and well-executed debating of all varieties, and as a judge I vote for both framework and critique arguments with regularity.

I'm a big fan of quality evidence. I typically let debaters decide what cards to show me after the debate, but I'll only look at evidence on key points of controversy and only when I need to do so in order to sufficiently evaluate the debate.

I will consult with tournament administrators about any instances of cheating and punish ethics violations with a loss and the minimum speaker points allowed by the tournament. Please just don't do it.

Please add me to the email chain using rane.baldwin@gmail.com .

I debated policy for 4 years in high school in Kansas, coached PF for 2 years in Iowa during college, and then coached policy for a couple years in Boston. l now work for an urban debate league on the east coast. This means that I watch a lot of TOC circuit rounds but judge infrequently.

I will listen to anything and enjoy K's, although my knowledge of the lit itself is limited and you thus need to be explicit. I am tabula rasa, but arguments that are highly racist/sexist/cissexist/islamaphobic, etc will be devastating to your speaker points and potentially harm my ability to evaluate the technical aspects of the round. In other words, please don't tell me that immigrants are terrorists. I will be super annoyed with you.

My threshold for arguments with impacts like fairness and education is quite high and I will expect you to articulate your warrants thoroughly. I need to know what you mean by "critical pedagogy" and why specifically you are better for debate than your opponents.

Please articulate and do not speak faster than you can do so clearly. I'm okay with speed and spreading but am not comfortable judging extremely fast debates. I may ask you to slow down.

If you have any questions, please email me - paulmbanks at gmail.

I did policy debate at Harvard for several years, ending in 2016. I study the history of science. I don't know much about this year's high school topic. I have debated on both sides of the 'topicality/framework' debate in college and I went for a diverse set of arguments on the negative. 

I have few strong predispositions; all of them can be changed with an argument. The only non-negotiable is that I'll protect the 2NR. I read very few cards when deciding most debates and they rarely figure prominently in my decision. I think a lot about the debate as it is progressing.  I always take several minutes after I decide to think about my decision and try to argue with myself against it, using every argument in the likely-losing team's final rebuttal.  

Impacting arguments is the most important thing to do. I don't like having to fill in the blanks and sort out what it means for me to, say, adopt some particular perspective when judging a debate. If I should be a policymaker, what should I prioritize? Often teams assume that winning one argument (such as "the judge should be a policymaker") implies another thing (such as "the judge should only care about geopolitical consequences").  That explains how I think about "dropped arguments" and "concessions" as well.  I'm very good for teams that understand which claims the other team is winning and construct a coherent ballot assuming those claims are somewhat true.

I will not follow along with speech documents. I care about evidence and expertise, but only insofar as it's in your speeches.

Harvard ‘21

The Meadows School ‘17

Clarabatess@gmail.com

(Largely paraphrased from Malcolm Gordon and Kristen Lowe)

T/Framework

Fairness > skills impacts

TVA is helpful, doesn’t have to solve the aff entirely

I’m better for the K on the neg than the aff, but if you read a nontraditional aff, impact turning T is more effective than trying to go for we meet or defense

Counterplans

Condo – fine

CP’s should be textually and functionally competitive. Theory is a reason to reject the CP (except condo)

DA’s

Good, well explained internal link or link defense can take out 1% risk framing if you explain how those arguments interact with the neg’s offense

K’s

Aff FW “K’s are cheating” is less persuasive than specific answers to the K’s framing such as “epistemology not first”

I’m better for structural Ks that question core assumptions of the aff (I went for neolib a lot in high school)

Misc

Long, well-warranted ev > a bunch of short cards

CX factors highly into speaks

I haven't kept up much with the hs topic so be sure to explain terms

Hello, friend.

Short Version:
-yes email chain: nyu.bs.debate@gmail.com

-if you would like to contact me about something else, the best way to reach me is: bootj093@newschool.edu - please do not use this email for chains I would like to avoid cluttering it every weekend which is why I have a separate one for them

-debated in high school @ Mill Valley (local policy circuit in Kansas) and college @ NYU (CEDA-NDT) for 7 years total - mostly policy arguments in high school, mix of high theory and policy in college

-head LD/policy debate coach at Bronx Science and assistant policy coach at The New School, former assistant for Blue Valley West, Mill Valley, and Mamaroneck

-spin > evidence quality, unless the evidence is completely inconsistent with the spin

-tech > truth as long as the tech has a claim, warrant, and impact

-great for impact turns

-t-framework impacts ranked: topic education > skills > clash/arg refinement > scenario planning > fun > literally any other reason why debate is good > fairness

-I updated the t-fw part of my paradigm recently (under policy, 12/4/23) - if you are anticipating having a framework debate in front of me on either side, I would appreciate it if you skimmed it at least

-don't like to judge kick but if you give me reasons to I might

-personally think condo has gone way too far in recent years and more people should go for it, but I don't presume one way or the other for theory questions

-all kinds of theory, including topicality, framework, and/or "role of the ballot" arguments are about ideal models of debate

-most of the rounds I judge are clash debates, but I've been in policy v policy and k v k both as a debater and judge so I'm down for anything

-for high school policy 23-24: I actually used to work for the Social Security Administration (only for about 7-8 months) and I have two immediate family members who currently work there - so I have a decent amount of prior knowledge about how the agency works internally, processes benefits, the technology it uses, etc. - but not necessarily policy proposals for social security reform

Long Version:

Overview: Debate is for the debaters so do your thing and I'll do my best to provide a fair decision despite any preferences or experiences that I have. I have had the opportunity to judge and participate in debates of several different formats, circuits, and styles in my short career. What I've found is that all forms of debate are valuable in some way, though often for different reasons, whether it be policy, critical, performance, LD, PF, local circuit, national circuit, public debates, etc. Feel free to adapt arguments, but please don't change your style of debate for me. I want to see what you are prepared for, practiced in, and passionate about. Please have fun! Debating is fun for you I hope!

Speaking and Presentation: I don't care about how you look, how you're dressed, how fast or in what manner you speak, where you sit, whether you stand, etc. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable and will help you be the best debater you can be. My one preference for positioning is that you face me during speeches. It makes it easier to hear and also I like to look up a lot while flowing on my laptop. For some panel situations, this can be harder, just try your best and don't worry about it too much.

Speed - I do not like to follow along in the speech doc while you are giving your speech. I like to read cards in prep time, when they are referenced in cx, and while making my decision. I will use it as a backup during a speech if I have to. This is a particular problem in LD, that has been exacerbated by two years of online debate. I expect to be able to hear every word in your speech, yes including the text of cards. I expect to be able to flow tags, analytics, theory interps, or anything else that is not the interior text of a card. This means you can go faster in the text of a card, this does mean you should be unclear while reading the text of a card. This also means you should go slower for things that are not that. This is because even if I can hear and understand something you are saying, that does not necessarily mean that my fingers can move fast enough to get it onto my flow. When you are reading analytics or theory args, you are generally making warranted arguments much faster than if you were reading a card. Therefore, you need to slow down so I can get those warrants on my flow.

Clarity - I'm bad at yelling clear. I try to do it when things are particularly egregious but honestly, I feel bad about throwing a debater off their game in the middle of a speech. I think you can clear or slow your opponent if you are comfortable with it - but not excessively to avoid interruption please - max 2-3 times a speech. If you are unclear with tags or analytics in an earlier speech, I will try to let you know immediately after the speech is over. If you do it in a rebuttal, you are 100% at fault because I know you can do it clearly, but are choosing not to. Focus on efficiency, not speed.

Logistical Stuff: I would like the round to run as on-time as possible. Docs should be ready to be sent when you end prep time. Orders/roadmaps should be given quickly and not changed several times. Marking docs can happen outside of prep time, but it should entail only marking where cards were cut. I would prefer that, at the varsity level, CX or prep time is taken to ask if something was not read or which arguments were read. I think it’s your responsibility to listen to your opponent’s speech to determine what was said and what wasn’t. I don’t take prep or speech time for tech issues - the clock can stop if necessary. Use the bathroom, fill up your water bottle as needed - tournaments generally give plenty of time for a round and so long as the debaters are not taking excessive time to do other things like send docs, I find that these sorts of things aren’t what truly makes the round run behind.

Email chain or speech drop is fine for docs, which should be shared before a speech. I really prefer Word documents if possible, but don't stress about changing your format if you can't figure it out. Unless there is an accommodation request, not officially or anything just an ask before the round, I don't think analytics need to be sent. Advocacy texts, theory interps, and shells should be sent. Cards are sent for the purposes of ethics and examining more closely the research of your opponent. Too many of you have stopped listening to your opponents entirely and I think the rising norm of sending every single word you plan on saying is a big part of it. It also makes you worse debaters because in the instances where your opponent decides to look up from their laptop and make a spontaneous argument, many of you just miss it entirely.

Stop stealing prep time. When prep time is called by either side, you should not be talking to your partner, typing excessively on your computer, or writing things down. My opinion on “flex prep,” or asking questions during prep time, is that you can ask for clarifications, but your opponent doesn’t have to answer more typical cx questions if they don’t want to (it is also time that they are entitled to use to focus on prep), and I don’t consider the answers in prep to have the same weight as in cx. Prep time is not a speech, and I dislike it when a second ultra-pointed cx begins in prep time because you think it makes your opponent look worse. It doesn’t - it makes you look worse.

Speaker Points: I try to adjust based on the strength of the tournament pool/division, but my accuracy can vary depending on how many rounds in the tournament I've already judged.

29.5+ You are one of the top three speakers in the tournament and should be in finals.

29.1-29.4 You are a great speaker who should be in late elims of the tournament.

28.7-29 You are a good speaker who should probably break.

28.4-28.6 You're doing well, but need some more improvement to be prepared for elims.

28-28.3 You need significant improvement before I think you can debate effectively in elims.

<28 You have done something incredibly offensive or committed an ethics violation, which I will detail in written comments and speak with you about in oral feedback.

The three things that affect speaker points the most are speaking clearly/efficiently, cross-x, and making effective choices in the final rebuttals.

If you win the debate without reading from a laptop in the 2NR/2AR your floor for speaks is a 29.

For Policy:

T-Framework: The fw debates I like the most are about the advantages and disadvantages of having debates over a fiated policy implementation of the topic. I would prefer if your interpretation/violation was phrased in terms of what the affirmative should do/have done - I think this trend of crafting an interpretation around negative burdens is silly - i.e. "negatives should not be burdened with the rejoinder of untopical affirmatives." I'm not usually a big fan of neg interpretations that only limit out certain parts of the topic - strategically, they usually seem to just link back to neg offense about limits and predictability absent a more critical strategy. I think of framework through an offense/defense paradigm and in terms of models of debate. My opinion is that you all spend dozens or hundreds of hours doing research, redos, practice, and debates - you should be prepared to defend that the research you do, the debates you have, and how you have those debates are good.

1. Topic-specific arguments are best - i.e. is it a good or bad thing that we are having rounds talking about fiscal redistribution, nuclear weapons, resource extraction, or military presence? How can that prepare people to take what they learn in debate outside of the activity? Why is topic-specific education valuable or harmful in a world of disinformation, an uninformed American public, escalating global crises, climate change, etc.? Don't be silly and read an extinction impact or anything though.

2. Arguments about debate in general are also great - I'm down for a "debate about debate" - the reason that I as a coach and judge invest tons of time into this activity is because I think it is pedagogically valuable - but what that value should look like, what is best to take from it, is in my opinion the crux of framework debates. Should debate be a competitive space or not? What are the implications of imagining a world where government policy gets passed? What should fiat look like or should it be used at all?

I can be convinced that debate should die given better debating from that side. But honestly, this is not my personal belief - the decline of policy debate in terms of participation at the college and high school level makes me very sad actually. I can also be convinced that debate is God's gift to earth and is absolutely perfect, even though I also believe that there are many problems with the activity. There is also a huge sliding scale between these two options.

3. Major defensive arguments and turns are good - technical stuff about framework like ssd, tvas, relative solvency of counter-interps, turns case and turns the disad arguments, uniqueness claims about the current trends of debate, claims about the history of debate, does it shape subjectivity or not - are all things that I think are worth talking about and can be used to make "try or die" or presumption arguments - though they should not be the focal point of your offense. I like when tvas are carded solvency advocates and/or full plan texts.

4. I do not like judging debates about procedural fairness:

A) They are usually very boring. On every topic, the same pre-written blocks, read at each other without any original thought over and over. I dislike other arguments for this reason too - ultra-generic kritiks and process cps - but even with those, they often get topic or aff-specific contextualizations in the block. This does not usually happen with fairness.

B) I often find fairness very unimportant on its own relative to the other key issues of framework - meaning I don't usually think it is offense. I find a lot of these debates to end up pretty tautological - "fairness is an impact because debate is a game and games should have rules or else they'd be unfair," etc. Many teams in front of me will win that fairness is necessary to preserve the game, but never take the next step of explaining to me why preserving the game is good. In that scenario, what "impact" am I really voting on? Even if the other team agrees that the game of debate is good (which a lot of k affs contest anyway), you still have to quantify or qualify how important that is for me to reasonably compare it to the aff's offense - saying "well we all must care about fairness because we're here, they make strategic arguments, etc." - is not sufficient to do that. I usually agree that competitive incentives mean people care about fairness somewhat. But how much and why is that important? I get an answer with nearly every other argument in debate, but hardly ever with fairness. I think a threshold for if something is an impact is that it's weighable.

C) Despite this, fairness can be impacted out into something tangible or I can be convinced that "tangibility" and consequences are not how I should make my decision. My hints are Nebel and Glówczewski.

5. Everyone needs to compare their impacts alongside other defensive claims in the debate and tell me why I should vote for them. Like traditional T, it's an offense/defense, disad/counterplan, model of debate thing for me. For some reason, impact comparison just seems to disappear from debaters' repertoire when debating framework, which is really frustrating for me.

Kritiks: Both sides of these debates often involve a lot of people reading overviews at each other, especially in high school, which can make it hard to evaluate at the end of the round. Have a clear link story and a reason why the alternative resolves those links. Absent an alt, have a framework as to why your impacts matter/why you still win the round. Impacts are negative effects of the status quo, the alternative resolves the status quo, and the links are reasons why the aff prevents the alternative from happening. Perms are a test of the strength of the link. Framework, ROB, and ROJ arguments operate on the same level to me and I think they are responsive to each other. My feelings on impacts here are similar to t-fw.

I still study some French high theory authors in grad school, but from a historical perspective. In my last couple years of college debate I read Baudrillard and DnG-style arguments a lot, some psychoanalysis as well - earlier than that my tastes were a little more questionable and I liked Foucault, Zizek, and Nietzsche a lot, though I more often went for policy arguments - I gave a lot of fw+extinction outweighs 2ARs. A lot of the debates I find most interesting include critical ir or critical security studies arguments. I have also coached many other kinds of kritiks, including all of the above sans Zizek as well as a lot of debaters going for arguments about anti-blackness or feminism. Set col stuff I don't know the theory as well tbh.

Affirmatives: I think all affs should have a clear impact story with a good solvency advocate explaining why the aff resolves the links to those impacts. I really enjoy affs that are creative and outside of what a lot of people are reading, but are still grounded in the resolution. If you can find a clever interpretation of the topic or policy idea that the community hasn't thought of yet, I'll probably bump your speaks a bit.

Disads: Love 'em. Impact framing is very important in debates without a neg advocacy. Turns cases/turns the da is usually much better than timeframe/probability/magnitude. Between two improbable extinction impacts, I default to using timeframe a lot of the time. A lot of disads (especially politics) have pretty bad ev/internal link chains, so try to wow me with 1 good card that you explain well in rebuttals rather than spitting out 10 bad ones. 0 risk of a disad is absolutely a thing, but hard to prove, like presumption.

Counterplans: They should have solvency advocates and a clear story for competition. Exploit generic link chains in affs. My favorites are advantage cps, specific pics, and recuttings of 1AC solvency ev. I like process cps when they are specific to the topic or have good solvency advocates. I will vote on other ones still, but theory and perm do the cp debates may be harder for you. I think some process cps are even very pedagogically valuable and can be highly persuasive with up-to-date, well-cut evidence - consult Japan on relevant topics for instance. But these arguments can potentially be turned by clash and depth over breadth. And neg flex in general can be a very strong argument in policy. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR, and preferably it should have some kind of justification.

Topicality: I default to competing interps and thinking of interps as models of debate. Be clear about what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. I view topicality like a disad most of the time, and vote for whoever's vision of the topic is best. I find arguments about limits and the effect that interpretations have on research to be the most convincing. I like topicality debates quite a bit.

Theory: Slow down, slow down, slow down. Like T, I think of theory through models of debate and default to competing interps- you should have an interpretation to make your life a little easier if you want to extend it - if you don't, I will assume the most extreme one (i.e. no pics, no condo, etc.). If you don't have a counter-interp in response to a theory argument, you are in a bad position. If your interpretation uses debate jargon like pics, "process" cps, and the like - you should tell me what you mean by those terms at least in rebuttal. Can pics be out of any word said, anything in the plan, anything defended in the solvency advocate or in cx, any concept advocated for, etc.? I think there is often too much confusion over what is meant to be a process cp. The interpretation I like best for "process" is "counterplans that result in the entirety of the plan." I like condo bad arguments, especially against super abusive 1ncs, but the neg gets a ton of time in the block to answer it, so it can be really hard to give a good enough 1ar on it without devoting a lot of time as well - so if you are going to go for it in the 2ar, you need to expand on it and cover block responses in the 1ar. Warrant out reject the argument vs. reject the team.

For LD:

Prefs Shortcut:

1 - LARP, High Theory Ks

2 - Other Ks, Topicality

3 - Phil, Theory that isn't condo or pics bad

4/5/strike - Trad, Tricks

My disclaimer is I try to keep an open mind for any debate - you should always use the arguments/style that you are most prepared with and practiced in. You all seem to really like these shortcuts, so I caved and made one - but these are not necessarily reflective of my like or dislike for any particular argument, instead more of my experience with different kinds, meaning some probably require more explanation for me to "get it." I love when I do though - I'm always happy to learn new things in debate!

Phil Debates: Something I am fairly unfamiliar with, but I've been learning more about over the past 6 months (02/23). I have read, voted for, and coached many things to the contrary, but if you want to know what I truly believe, I basically think most things collapse into some version of consequentialist utilitarianism. If you are to convince me that I should not be a consequentialist, then I need clear instructions for how I should evaluate offense. Utilitarianism I'm used to being a little more skeptical of from k debates, but other criticisms of util from say analytic philosophy I will probably be unfamiliar with.

Trad Debate: By far what I am least familiar with. I don't coach this style and never competed in anything like LD trad debate - I did traditional/lay policy debate a bit in high school - but that is based on something called "stock issues" which is a completely different set of standards than LD's value/value criterion. I struggle in these debates because for me, like "stock issues" do in policy, these terms seem to restrictively categorize arguments and actually do more to obscure their meaning than reveal it. In the trad debates I've seen (not many, to be fair), tons of time was dedicated to clarifying minutiae and defining words that either everyone ended up agreeing on or that didn't factor into the way that I would make my decision. I don't inherently dislike LD trad debate at all, it honestly just makes things more difficult for me to understand because of how I've been trained in policy debate for 11 years. I try my best, but I feel that I have to sort through trad "jargon" to really get at what you all think is important. I would prefer if you compared relative impacts directly rather than told me one is better than the other 100% of the time.

Plans/DAs/CPs: See the part in my policy paradigm. Plans/CP texts should be clearly written and are generally better when in the language of a specific solvency advocate. I think the NC should be a little more developed for DAs than in policy - policy can have some missing internal links because they get the block to make new arguments, but you do not get new args in the NR that are unresponsive to the 1AR - make sure you are making complete arguments that you can extend.

Kritiks: Some stuff in my policy paradigm is probably useful. Look there for K-affs vs. T-fw. I'm most familiar with so-called "high theory" but I have also debated against, judged, and coached many other kinds of kritiks. Like with DAs/CPs, stuff that would generally be later in the debate for policy should be included in the NC, like ROBs/fw args. Kritiks to me are usually consequentialist, they just care about different kinds of consequences - i.e. the consequences of discourse, research practices, and other impacts more proximate than extinction.

ROB/ROJs: In my mind, this is a kind of theory debate. The way I see this deployed in LD most of the time is as a combination of two arguments. First, what we would call in policy "framework" (not what you call fw in LD) - an argument about which "level" I should evaluate the debate on. "Pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" are the terms that you all like to use a lot, but it doesn't necessarily have to be confined to this. I could be convinced for instance that research practices should come before discourse or something else. The second part is generally an impact framing argument - not only that reps should come first, but that a certain kind of reps should be prioritized - i.e. ROB is to vote for whoever best centers a certain kind of knowledge. These are related, but also have separate warrants and implications for the round, so I consider them separately most of the time. I very often can in fact conclude that reps must come first, but that your opponent’s reps are better because of some impact framing argument that they are making elsewhere. Also, ROB and ROJ are indistinct from one another to me, and I don’t see the point in reading both of them in the same debate.

Topicality: You can see some thoughts in the policy sections as well if you're having that kind of T debate about a plan. I personally think some resolutions in LD justify plans and some don't. But I can be convinced that having plans or not having plans is good for debate, which is what is important for me in deciding these debates. The things I care about here are education and fairness, generally more education stuff than fairness. Topicality interpretations are models of the topic that affirmatives should follow to produce the best debates possible. I view T like a DA and vote for whichever model produces the best theoretical version of debate. I care about "pragmatics" - "semantics" matter to me only insofar as they have a pragmatic impact - i.e. topic/definitional precision is important because it means our research is closer to real-world scholarship on the topic. Jurisdiction is a vacuous non-starter. Nebel stuff is kind of interesting, but I generally find it easier just to make an argument about limits. Reasonability is something I almost never vote on - to be “reasonable” I think you have to either meet your opponent’s interp or have a better one.

RVIs: The vast majority of the time these are unnecessary when you all go for them. If you win your theory or topicality interp is better than your opponent's, then you will most likely win the debate, because the opposing team will not have enough offense on substance. I'm less inclined to believe topicality is an RVI. I think it’s an aff burden to prove they are topical and the neg getting to test that is generally a good thing. Other theory makes more sense as an RVI. Sometimes when a negative debater is going for both theory and substance in the NR, the RVI can be more justifiable to go for in the 2AR because of the unique time differences of LD. If they make the decision to fully commit to theory in the NR, however, the RVI is unnecessary - not that I'm ideologically opposed to it, it just doesn't get you anything extra for winning the debate - 5 seconds of "they dropped substance" is easier and the warrants for your c/i's standards are generally much better than the ones for the RVI.

Disclosure Theory: This is not a section that I would ever have to write for policy. I find it unfortunate that I have to write it for LD. Disclosure is good because it allows schools access to knowledge of what their opponents are reading, which in pre-disclosure days was restricted to larger programs that could afford to send scouts to rounds. It also leads to better debates where the participants are more well-prepared. What I would like to happen for disclosure in general is this:
1) previously read arguments on the topic are disclosed to at least the level of cites on the opencaselist wiki,
2) a good faith effort is made by the aff to disclose any arguments including the advocacy/plan, fw, and cards that they plan on reading in the AC that they've read before once the pairing comes out,
3) a good faith effort is made by the neg to disclose any previously read positions, tied to NC arguments on their wiki, that they've gone for in the NR on the current topic (and previous if asked) once they receive disclosure from the aff,
4) all the cites disclosed are accurate and not misrepresentations of what is read,
5) nobody reads disclosure theory!!

This is basically the situation in college policy, but it seems we still have a ways to go for LD. In a few rare instances I've encountered misdisclosure, even teams saying things like "well it doesn't matter that we didn't read the scenario we said we were going to read because they're a k team and it wasn't really going to change their argument anyways." More intentional things like this, or bad disclosure from debaters and programs that really should know better, I don't mind voting on. I really don't like however when disclosure is used to punish debaters for a lack of knowledge or because it is a norm they are not used to. You have to understand, my roots are as a lay debater who didn't know what the wiki was and didn't disclose for a single round in high school. For my first two years, I debated exclusively on paper and physically handed pages to my opponent while debating after reading them to share evidence. For a couple years after that, we "flashed" evidence to each other by tossing around a usb drive - tournaments didn't provide public wifi. I've been in way more non-lay debates since then and have spent much more time doing "progressive" debate than I ever did lay debate, but I'm very sympathetic still to these kinds of debaters.

Especially if a good-faith attempt is made, interps that are excluding debaters based on a few minutes of a violation, a round report from several tournaments ago, or other petty things make me sad to judge. My threshold for reasonability in these debates will be much lower. Having some empathy and clearly communicating with your opponent what you want from them is a much better strategy for achieving better disclosure practices in the community than reading theory as a punitive measure. If you want something for disclosure, ask for it, or you have no standing. Also, if you read a disclosure interp that you yourself do not meet, you have no standing. Open source theory and disclosure of new affs are more debatable than other kinds of disclosure arguments, and like with T and other theory I will vote for whichever interp I determine is better for debate.

Other Theory: I really liked theory when I did policy debate, but that theory is also different from a lot of LD theory. What that means is I mainly know cp theory - condo, pics, process cps, perm competition (i.e. textual vs. functional, perm do the cp), severance/intrinsicness, and other things of that nature. You can see some of my thoughts on these arguments in the policy section. I've also had some experience with spec arguments. Like T, I view theory similarly to a da debate. Interpretations are models of debate that I endorse which describe ideally what all other debates should look like. I almost always view things through competing interps. Like with T, in order to win reasonability I think you need to have a pretty solid I/meet argument. Not having a counter-interp the speech after the interp is introduced is a major mistake that can cost you the round. I decide theory debates by determining which interp produces a model of debate that is "best." I default to primarily caring about education - i.e. depth vs. breadth, argument quality, research quality, etc. but I can be convinced that fairness is a controlling factor for some of these things or should come first. I find myself pretty unconvinced by arguments that I should care about things like NSDA rules, jurisdiction, some quirk of the tournament invitation language, etc.

Tricks: I think I've officially judged one "tricks" round now, and I've been trying to learn as much as I can while coaching my squad. I enjoyed it, though I can't say I understood everything that was happening. I engaged in some amount of trickery in policy debate - paradoxes, wipeout, process cps, kicking out of the aff, obscure theory args, etc. However, what was always key to winning these kinds of debates was having invested time in research, blocks, a2s - the same as I would for any other argument. I need to be able to understand what your reason is for obtaining my ballot. If you want to spread out arguments in the NC, that's fine and expected, but I still expect you to collapse in the NR and explain in depth why I should vote for you. I won't evaluate new arguments in the NR that are not directly responsive to the 1AR. The reason one-line voting issues in the NC don't generally work with me in the back is that they do not have enough warrants to make a convincing NR speech.

Harvard '19

UCLA Law '24

Coaching for Harker at Berkeley 2024

SLOW DOWN AND CLEARLY ENUNCIATE -- I WILL NOT FOLLOW SPEEC DOCS DURING SPEECHES. I CAN'T HEAR GOOD AND I WILL ONLY TELL YOU TO SLOW DOWN TWICE, AFTERWARDS UR ON UR OWN.

TLDR: I am personally more familiar answering the K than reading it. 2NR should tell me if they want me to judge kick, 2AR should tell me if they don't want me to. I did policy debate for eight years and coached it for longer. I have judged LD only a few times -- bear that in mind if you are going to go for some niche LD theory argument.

Online Debate: Plsss get affirmative visual or verbal confirmation from me and your two opponents that they are ready before speaking. I will pause time if there's a tech issue in a speech or CX. Be extra mindful of not interrupting too much during CX.

Debater Comfort and Safety: If anyone in the room is making you feel uncomfortable during, before, or after the debate please let me know and we can figure out together how to proceed. I feel zero qualms kicking out spectators who make students feel uncomfortable or speaking to the appropriate coaches/tab about a safety issue in round. If your opponents ask for accommodations, please honor them. Debate is adversarial but I believe it is still important to be somewhat kind; there is a thin line between "sassy and competitive" (good, fun) and "mean-spirited and cruel" (bad, not fun). We are likely complete strangers, so be mindful of your power and how you may come accross, especially when debating younger students. No explicit threats of violence towards individuals in the room or at the tournament. I'm just trying to judge a debate round, don't put me or your opponents in a weird position, please.

End of Round Speeches: I will default to good evidence comparison in speeches, and will only call for cards to verify your analysis. Forgoing terminal impact defense is less important if you have other defense, such as internal link defense or link defense etc.

Framework You need to have external offense and to extend case defense or answer aff solvency to win this argument in front of me. I judge this like a DA/case debate, which means both the aff and neg team need to compare impact calculus and solvency mechanisms. I do not feel strongly about any set of framework impacts so long as they are well explained. For the aff: I was on the neg side of framework debates more often than not as a debater, so I have thought more about the neg's impacts than your 1AC's most likely. This means you need to do more judge-direction in your speeches. The aff has to clearly explain the 1AC impact and/or offense against framework, why its bigger than the neg's offense, and if relevant, why TVA/SSD cannot solve it.

Ks: Buzzwords do not amount to a persuasive argument. Effectively using the language of your authors is different from saying buzzwords and hoping they do all the explanation. Purposefully confusing the other team isn't an effective strategy if you don't eventually explain it clearly to me. Links and root cause arguments should be clearly articulated, delineated, and contextualized to the affirmative's evidence, language, or plan. Explain what your framework interpretation means for how I decide the debate. I really dislike negative blocks that completely disregard the 2AC order and don't do any line-by-line, unless that style is explicitly related to your arguments (but im still probably not the best for that). I like when aff offense is about the plan text and aff advantages. Reps Ks: I don't feel like perf-con is a deal-breaker BUT you have to do way more work to distinguish the neg's rhetoric from the aff's if you do this and the perm is very winnable.

DAs The politics DA has been bad lately. Maybe you will come up with a smart version of it and I will like it, or maybe your opponent will be really bad at answering, but I will not just assume bad politics cards are better than they actually are just because the debate community really likes the politics DA. Many politics DAs can be defeated by smart analytics and evidence comparison. Intrinsicness/perm on politics doesn't do much for me.

Theory/T I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other about the abusiveness of the states cp, XO, courts CP. I think conditionality is probably good, if you go for conditionality bad in the 2AR and execute well I will understand. The executing team should do a good job explaining why I should reject the argument and not the team, and provide a clear counter interpretation. I am more than happy to vote for theory. I'm more aff leaning on Process/Consult CP theory, but this still requires good affirmative execution. Do impact calculus.

NA

Please put me on the email chain tbuttge1@binghamton.edu

I am a coach at Binghamton, where I debated for four years. I qualified to the NDT a few times, and have now been coaching Bing for three years.

My primary debate interests are disability studies, semiocap, various post modernism(Foucault, Delueze, etc), but I'm pretty familiar with most K literature currently in circulation.

I mostly judge K v K debates, but vote for framework a decent amount when its presented to me(I'll talk about why in a bit)

K v K

Aff's being able to articulate solvency/framing for the ballot is important to me. I'm not great for affs that are simply theories of power that explain why the status quo is bad. Being able to explain the aff's relationship to debate and why your pedagogy is good goes a long way in beating back presumption.

Neg teams need to focus on constructing the alt in a way that is as distinct from the aff as possible, and honestly with me in the back you can get away with simply a reject alt or something more like framework style argument instead of articulating aff solvency. My point here is to say, don't let the perm be an easy way out.

also please call out floating pics, it feels bad voting neg when the aff team doesn't realize how unfair the winning argument was.

Clash Debates

A big thing I have noticed when I judge these debates is that because each team will inevitably have offense, which team has better defense in the form of the TVA or the Counter Interpretation is often a deciding factor for me. Aff teams need to make sure they don't brush off the TVA in particular as I think it can mitigate a lot of the aff's offense when done right.

Am fine if the aff wants to just impact turn the neg's offense as well, just make sure you are dedicating a lot of time to this and not taking the fact that I will likely agree with you personally for granted.

Fairness is not too persuasive to me as an impact but I will vote for it if you win the argument. I think skills, education, dogma etc are better impacts though and you'll probably have better success with those.

When policy teams are aff, both sides should prioritize winning the framework argument as to whether or not the aff gets to weigh the plan. Also in these debates, the neg needs to focus on impact calc and explaining what solvency means in context of my ballot. Otherwise you risk losing to the try or die framing of the affirmative.

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

If you have any questions, feel free to shoot me an email at elynnachang@college.harvard.edu.

Background: I did 4 years of debate in high school, graduated in 2017 and am currently a freshman at Harvard concentrating in Economics with a secondary in Statistics. I no longer debate myself but still involve myself in the debate community through judging.

TL;DR: Be thorough in your arguments and have plenty of support. I buy everything that is logical and backed by evidence with clear links.

General: I'm very accustomed to card-spitting but with that said they cannot stand alone and I expect them to be incorporated logically into your arguments. Know your cards thoroughly, and if some of them turn out to be in my opinion a critical piece to your case or is highly contended during the round, I will ask you to show me that card for further close reading.

I am very open to all sorts of arguments and counterplans no matter how seemingly outlandish they are if you have enough evidence and logic to back it up. That said, I do not tolerate anything that is racist, sexist, etc. anything that is socially insensitive. I will severely dock your speaker points. Literally just avoid generalizing groups of people and stick to the facts. If you have any questions about where I stand, feel free to ask me before the round.

I judge with the mindset that I know 0 things about the topic or anything related to debate content in order to remain as unbiased as possible. Given this, assume I do not know the literature for kritiks and walk me through your argument with the standard claim, warrant, and impact as you would for anything else.

Extend your evidence and arguments throughout the debate or else I will not be weighing them as much as perhaps you would like.

I love framework debates, but if only one framework is presented and it goes uncontested, I will be judging based off of that for the round. If there are two different frameworks, convince me as to why I should prefer yours over your opponents'.

Misc.:

1) Have taglines for all your arguments. You don't have to, but this makes it easier for me to flow and then ensures that I can give you credit for your points. Try to speak especially clearly here.

2) Be civil during the round. Rudeness will receive heavily docked speaker points. Keep in mind there's a difference between arguing aggressively (which is fine) and being rude.

3) Speak clearly. Yes, we all spread, but if you can't enunciate clearly at a high speed then just don't spread. If I can't understand you, I'm not flowing. Prioritize clarity over speed.

-------

[sigh they misspelled my name]

Tl;dr

Yes, you can read a K AFF, a K, or framework

No, I don’t have very much topic knowledge, so I would appreciate if you could explain background info and abbreviations

Background

Head-Royce ’17 / MIT ’21

Please use an email chain and please put me on the email chain – fionayifeichen@gmail.com.

I debated pretty seriously for four years in high school, qualifying to the TOC twice and breaking at the TOC in my senior year. During this time, I almost exclusively read critical arguments (mostly security, cap, psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, Agamben and sometimes Spanos, Stiegler, death stuff, weird stuff, other stuff). I went to camp every summer, and during camp, I almost exclusively read policy arguments, ranging from heg/econ AFFs to the politics DA to conditions counterplans. However, my experience with a lot of these arguments, especially more topic-specific ones, is relatively limited, and I’d appreciate some extra explanation to compensate for that. I’ll also admit that I have very little experience with judging, but I do spend a lot of time watching rounds and thinking about arguments and will try my hardest to judge rounds as fairly as possible.

General Thoughts

Tech over truth, but with limitations. Technical concessions matter a lot. However, your arguments have to be developed enough in earlier speeches that a reasonably smart opponent & judge can see it becoming a round-changer in a later speech.

The content of your argument matters a lot less than the execution. Read whatever you feel most comfortable with reading. However, a creative, specific, and well-researched NEG strat will always make me feel a lot happier than a highly generic one.

The quality of your evidence matters, but won’t win or lose you a round unless somebody in the round makes this happen. You certainly don’t need evidence to make every single argument. I want to be on the email chain so I can read evidence after the round if need-be, but I’ll try my best not to reconstruct the round according to the evidence. However, if your evidence happens to be good when I read it, that’ll definitely make me feel better about you as a debater.

Cross-ex is binding and I will flow it to make sure you aren’t shifty.

Voting NEG on presumption is a thing. A lot of AFFs don’t do anything.

Topicality

Is cool and I extended it a decent amount, but I have close to no opinion or knowledge right now on how we should define the words in the resolution.

Kritiks

These can be my favorite or least favorite strategies, depending on how you run them. The K should center around the AFF, with specific links & turns case arguments. The NEG block is beautiful because you have the time to explain your arguments with nuance, so use that to your advantage rather than running reductive versions of complex philosophy and repeating the same few overused phrases like “WILL TO TRANSPARENCY” over and over.

When evaluating the round, I’ll start with framework, because this provides the lens through which I should understand every argument. You either have to prove that the implementation of the plan is a bad idea, OR you have to provide me some alternative lens (FW arg) for evaluating the round which shifts the focus of the debate away from the plan itself. A lot of the time, I’ve found that the latter is easier than the former, which is why a substantive framework push is generally quite helpful. Role of the ballot arguments when simply asserted are often self-serving and ultimately useless in evaluating a round, and it bothers me when teams just repeat that they were conceded without any explanation for why they are good.

The alt is generally the weakest part of the kritik. Consequently, you either need a really good alt explanation or you need some other arguments to compensate for a weak alt (e.g. a framework argument that shifts the debate away from a traditional plan v. alt paradigm or a strong kritik turns case argument).

When being AFF, the best strategy is just a robust defense of your AFF. 2ACs are easiest to answer when they’re just a slew of cards that are nearly identical and highly generic. Explain why your AFF is a good idea in the context of the critique (e.g. our epistemology is good) or despite the critique (e.g. even if we can’t perfectly predict threats, we should still act on the predictions of the 1AC).

AFF teams should do more to take advantage of situations where the NEG reads several policy args that are completely inconsistent with their kritiks, because this practice is likely pretty contradictory with any NEG framework arguments about how debate should be about cultivating ethical subjectivities & education.

K AFFs and Framework

K AFFs are fun. Preferably, yours is tied to the resolution, at least a little bit. I don’t think that I have a particularly strong predisposition towards either side of the K AFF v. Framework debate, because I’ve been on both sides multiple times before.

I would prefer to hear a more substantive strategy against K AFFs than framework, but I understand that a lot of K AFFs are shifty and hard to predict, and consequently framework is often the most strategic option. It is, however, possible (and often necessary) for you to read framework in a specific and substantive way. A lot of NEG teams lose on framework because they fail to question the core assumptions of the AFF and also have 0 inroads into the AFF's impacts.

I don’t have a strong opinion on what standards you should run while reading framework on the NEG. Two exceptions: 1) I don't think I've ever heard a super convincing explanation of a decision-making skills impact. 2) Fairness is rarely an impact by itself. A fairness impact ultimately is just saying that debate as an activity is good, but you need some defense of why this activity is good, whether that defense is about specific policy education or about nuanced clash.

I think that the most effective way to win against framework is to use the AFF as an impact turn or disad to framework. Often times, this argument is something generally along the lines of “the act of imposing some set model of debate is violent and leads to our XYZ impacts.”

I don’t think framework is inherently genocide, racist, exclusionary, etc, especially if the NEG has an effective T version or turns case argument. However, exclusion arguments can be really strong when explained in a nuanced fashion. Survival strategy arguments honestly don’t make much sense to me at all given that debate is inherently competitive.

Lastly, K AFFs should probably get perms against kritiks to promote a style of debate where clash always occurs and students can refine their worldviews.

Disads and Counterplans

I don’t know anybody who dislikes disads or counterplans, so I guess I’ll just say that I like them too.

Condo is probably good, especially if you’re just reading 1 counterplan and 1 kritik (or less), but I can be convinced otherwise.

I will not kick a counterplan unless you tell me to.

Theory arguments are often very effective against process counterplans, many of which are not competitive.

I've coached LASA since 2005. I judge ~120 debates per season on the high school circuit.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: yaosquared@gmail.com.

If you have little time before the debate, here’s all you need to know:do what you do best. I try to be as unbiased as possible and I will defer to your analysis. As long as you are clear, go as fast as you want.

Most judges give appalling decisions. Here's where I will try to be better than them:

• They intervene, even when they claim they won't. Perhaps "tech over truth" doesn't mean what it used to. I will attempt to adjudicate and reach a decision purely on only the words you say. If that's insufficient to reach a decision either way--and it often isn't--I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. The more work I have to do, the wider the range of uncertainty for you and the lower your speaks go.
• They aren't listening carefully. They're mentally checked out, flowing off the speech doc, distracted by social media, or have half their headphones off and are taking selfies during the 1AR. I will attempt to flow every single detail of your speeches. I will probably take notes during CX if I think it could affect my decision. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve a judge who works hard as well.
• They givepoorly-reasoned decisions that rely on gut instincts and ignore arguments made in the 2NR/2AR. I will probably take my sweet time making and writing my decision. I will try to be as thorough and transparent as possible. If I intervene anywhere, I will explain why I had to intervene and how you could've prevented that intervention. If I didn't catch or evaluate an argument, I will explain why you under-explained or failed to extend it. I will try to anticipate your questions and preemptively answer them in my decision.
• They reconstruct the debateand try to find themost creative and convoluted path to a ballot. I guess they're trying to prove they're smart? These decisions are detestable because they take the debate away from the hands of the debaters. If there are multiple paths to victory for both teams, I will take what I think is the shortest path and explain why I think it's the shortest path, and you can influence my decision by explaining why you control the shortest path. But, I'm not going to use my decision to attempt to prove I'm more clever than the participants of the debate.
• If you think the 1AR is a constructive, you should strike me.

Meta Issues:

• I’m not a professional debate coach or even a teacher. I work as a finance analyst in the IT sector and I volunteer as a debate coach on evenings and weekends. I don’t teach at debate camp and my topic knowledge comes primarily from judging debates. My finance background means that,when left to my own devices, I err towards precision, logic, data, and concrete examples. However, I can be convinced otherwise in any particular debate, especially when it’s not challenged by the other team.
• Tech over truth in most instances. I will stick to my flow and minimize intervention as much as possible. I firmly believe that debates should be left to the debaters. I rarely make facial expressions because I don’t want my personal reactions to affect how a debate plays out. I will maintain a flow, even if you ask me not to. However, tech over truth has its limits. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim.
• Evidence comparisonis under-utilized and is very important to me in close debates. I often call for evidence, but I’m much more likely to call for a card if it’s extended by author or cite.
• I don’t judge or coach at the college level, which means I’m usually a year or two behind the latest argument trends that are first broken in college and eventually trickle down to high school.If you’re reading something that’s close to the cutting edge of debate arguments, you’ll need to explain it clearly. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear new arguments. On the contrary, a big reason why I continue coaching debate is because I enjoy listening to and learning about new arguments that challenge my existing ways of thinking.
• Please mark your own cards. No one is marking them for you.
• If I feel that you are deliberately evading answering a question or have straight up lied, and the question is important to the outcome of the debate, I will stop the timer and ask you to answer the question. Example: if you read condo bad, the neg asks in CX whether you read condo bad, and you say no, I’ll ask if you want me to cross-out condo on my flow.

Framework:

• Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge onimpact calculus and comparison.
• When I vote neg, it’s usually because the aff team missed the boat on topical version, has made insufficient inroads into the neg’s limits disad, and/or is winning some exclusion disad but is not doing comparative impact calculus against the neg’s offense. The neg win rate goes up if the 2NR can turn or access the aff's primary impact (e.g. clash and argument testing is vital to ethical subject formation).
• When I vote aff, it’s usually because the 2NR is disorganized and goes for too many different impacts, there’s no topical version or other way to access the aff’s offense, and/or concedes an exclusion disad that is then impacted out by the 2AR.
• On balance, I am worse for 2ARs that impact turn framework than 2ARs that have a counter-interp. If left to my own devices, I believe in models and in the ballot's ability to, over the course of time, bring models into existence. I have trouble voting aff if I can't understand what future debates look like under the aff's model.

Topicality:

• Over the years, “tech over truth” has led me to vote neg on some untruthful T violations. If you’re neg and you’ve done a lot of research and are ready to throw down on a very technical and carded T debate, I’m a good judge for you.
• If left to my own devices, predictability > debatability.
• Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff.The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I amtowards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks:

• The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points givehighly organizedandstructuredspeeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, andemphasize key momentsin their speeches.
• Just like most judges,the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.
• I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview anddo as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. If your overview is 6 minutes, you make blippy cross-applications on the line-by-line, and then you drop the last three 2AC cards, I’m going to give the 1AR a lot of leeway on extending those concessions, even if they were somewhat implicitly answered in your overview.
• Framework debates on kritiks often don't matter. For example, the neg extends a framework interp about reps, but only goes for links to plan implementation. Before your 2NR/2AR, ask yourself what winning framework gets you/them.
• I’m not a good judge for “role of the ballot” arguments, as I usually find these to be self-serving for the team making them.I’m also not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out, not a gatekeeping issue for me to enforce.
• I’m an OK judge for K “tricks”. A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained.The floating PIK needs to be clearly made in the 2NCfor me to evaluate it. If your K strategy hinges on hiding a floating PIK and suddenly busting it out in the 2NR, I’m not a good judge for you.

Counterplans:

• Just like most judges, I prefercase-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.
• I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.
• I will not judge kickthe CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.
• Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Disadvantages:

• I’m a sucker for specific and comparative impact calculus. For example, most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims.
• Uniqueness only "controls the direction of the link" if uniqueness can be determined with certainty (e.g. whip count on a bill, a specific interest rate level). On most disads where uniqueness is a probabilistic forecast (e.g. future recession, relations, elections), the uniqueness and link are equally important, which means I won't compartmentalize and decide them separately.
• Zero risk is possiblebut difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Theory:

• I actually enjoy listening to a good theory debate, but these seem to be exceedingly rare. I think I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important. You're unlikely to win that a single intrinsic permutation is a round-winning voter, even if the other team drops it, unless you are investing significant time in explaining why it should be an independent voting issue.
• I think thatI lean affirmative compared to the rest of the judging community on the legitimacy of counterplans. In my mind, a counterplan that is wholly plan-inclusive (consultation, condition, delay, etc.) is theoretically questionable. The legitimacy of agent counterplans, whether domestic or international, is also contestable. I think the negative has the right to read multiple planks to a counterplan, but reading each plank conditionally is theoretically suspect.

Miscellaneous:

• I usually take a long time to decide, and give lengthy decisions. LASA debaters have benefitted from the generosity of judges, coaches, and lab leaders who used their decisions to teach and trade ideas, not just pick a winner and get a paycheck. Debaters from schools with limited/no coaching, the same schools needed to prevent the decline in policy debate numbers, greatly benefit from judging feedback. I encourage you to ask questions and engage in respectful dialogue with me. However, post-round hostility will be met with hostility. I've been providing free coaching and judging since before you were birthed into the world. If I think you're being rude or condescending to me or your opponents, I will enthusiastically knock you back down to Earth.
• I don't want a card doc. If you send one, I will ignore it. Card docs are an opportunity for debaters to insert cards they didn't read, didn't extend, or re-highlight. They're also an excuse for lazy judges to compensate for a poor flow by reconstructing the debate after the fact. If your debating was disorganized and you need a card doc to return some semblance of organization, I'd rather adjudicate the disorganized debate and then tell you it was disorganized.

Ways to Increase/Decrease Speaker Points:

• Look and sound like you want to be here.Judging can be spirit murder if you're disengaged and disinterested. By contrast, if you're engaged, I'll be more engaged and helpful with feedback.
• Argument resolution minimizes judgeintervention. Most debaters answer opposing positions by staking out the extreme opposite position, which is generally unpersuasive. Instead, take the middle ground. Assume the best out of your opponents' arguments and use "even if" framing.
• I am usually unmoved by aggression, loud volume, rudeness, and other similar posturing. It's both dissuasive and distracting. By contrast,being unusually nice will always be rewarded with higher pointsand never be seen as weakness. This will be especially appreciated if you make the debate as welcoming as possible against less experienced opponents.
• Do not steal prep. Make it obvious that you are not prepping if there's not a timer running.
• Do not be the person who asks for a roadmap one second after the other team stops prep. Chill. I will monitor prep usage, not you. You're not saving us from them starting a speech without giving a roadmap.
• Stop asking for a marked doc when they've only skipped or marked one or two cards.It's much faster to ask where they marked that card, and then mark it on your copy. If you marked/skipped many cards, you should proactively offer to send a new doc before CX.

Here is my email for the email chain:

Williamc0402@gmail.com

Here is my short biography for you to know who I am:
Hi, my name is William. I finished a PhD in German at NYU. My focus was on literature, critical theory, and to some extent black studies.
As for debate experience, I used to debate for CUNY debate in college for 4 years, reading critical arguments in the Northeast. I won a handful of regional tournaments and broke at CEDA. I also coach for Brooklyn Technical High School (sometimes we sign up at Brooklyn Independent). I have been coaching there for 8 years and have had my debaters make it far in national tournaments as well as qualify for the TOC a bunch. Because I work with Brooklyn Tech (a UDL school), I am also connected to the NYCUDL.

Here is the start of my paradigm:
As everyone else says, rule of thumb: DO WHAT YOU’RE GOOD AT
Whether your go-to strat is to throw stuff at the wall and hope it sticks, a straight up disad/cp, or a one-off K; I will be more than happy to judge your round…
given that you:

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have some trouble adjudicating what you’ve said.
2) Properly explain your positions—don’t make an assumption that I know you the abbreviations you use, the specific DA scenario you're going for (perhaps fill me in on the internal link chains), or the K jargon you're using. Help me out!
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles between your own positions compared to those of the other team.

4) Frame things— tell me how I should prioritize impacts otherwise I will default to util (see section at the bottom)
5) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
6) Write the ballot for me in your 2nr/2ar, tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Prioritize your best offense and tell me why that offense is critical to evaluating the round—force me to evaluate the debate through a prism that has you winning

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations and util unless an alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round are introduced

2) I will default to rejecting the argument not the team unless you tell me otherwise

3) I will avoid looking at evidence unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate though my own experience debating and coaching revolves around mostly K debate.

Jason Clarke

Experience:
3 years of high school CX debate
4 years college debate (One year CEDA, 3 years Parli – NPDA)
20 years high school debate coach

Policy Paradigm:

I tend to default to a policymaker paradigm, although I will vote on almost any argument if it is sufficiently warranted and impacted. In most rounds I will weigh the policy impacts according to the time frame, probability, and magnitude of each impact and vote accordingly. If you want me to consider non-policy arguments, like K and T, you just need to provide framework and voters.

I am not opposed to K, in fact I like really good kritiks, but I don't automatically vote on "you link you lose" which has become popular the last few years on the circuit. I prefer for you to explain the role of my ballot in the round to justify my voting for your position. Why is voting for a K and endorsing a theory of power preferable to voting for your opponent's policy option and its impacts? Alternatively, if you fiat a policy or specific plan and your opponent runs a K against it, why should I prefer that policy and its consequences?

If you are clear about how the impacts and voters should be weighed in your rebuttals, you are significantly more likely to win my ballot. Good 2AR and 2NR speeches tell me the story of the round and why I should vote for you. Be sure to extend the internal links, warrants, and impacts of your arguments, not just the tag lines. If you have an overview or under view, your goal should be to clearly articulate what my RFD should be, which makes my job easier.

I am OK with speed - I am pretty used to it by now - but don’t mumble or slur your words together – articulate and efficient speed can be a good strategy; inarticulate spread fails to communicate your arguments. I am a strict flow judge and always vote on the flow in policy debate.

LD Paradigm

I prefer the traditional LD style. I like to see a value and criterion and for your arguments to be impacted through your framework. If you don't have a framework, just be aware that your opponent can use their framework to take out the moral foundation of your argument and win the debate even if you are winning policy implications on the flow. I see policy debate as being primarily about policymaking and LD to be about moral and philosophical questions. I am more likely to vote on a moral or philosophical argument in LD and more likely to vote on consequentialist policy implications in a CX round.

I am okay with reasonable levels of speed but keep in mind that I am more likely to vote on a well articulated and explained moral position than a bunch of cards which you speed through without warrants or explanations. Although in policy debate I flow dropped arguments as granted or conceded, in LD certain arguments can be dropped strategically when a more fundamental or significant argument needs to be further developed. Don't assume I will automatically flow a dropped argument in your favor in LD - you will need to extend the warrants and implications to show me why that dropped argument is more significant than other arguments in the round to win the ballot.

PF Paradigm

Public Forum debate is designed to be a communication-oriented debate style, and I judge it accordingly. I flow every round, but I am more interested in your skill as a debater. I vote for the team that is the most persuasive. This includes your ability to use evidence to support your claims, to speak in a persuasive and articulate manner, and to refute your opponent's ideas in a respectful yet effective way. Avoid spread and jargon in PF please.

elyse.conklin@gmail.com

I graduated from the Comm Masters Program at Wake Forest where I coached for two years (2015-2017). I coached Whitney Young Magnet (2010-2014) and Walter Payton College Prep (2014-2018). I am not currently coaching and spent the last couple years working as a pastry chef. I have a good base knowledge of the topic, but I might need some clarity on more niche references to argument trends, particularly T if you want to talk about other team's affs as examples of good or bad education.

“Who did the better debating” will always be the last question I ask myself before hitting the Submit button unless there is an extremely pressing reason not to. This also means I'm hesitant to vote for a team that wins one argument but loses the rest, “cheap shots” have to be well-impacted.

I judged quite frequently when I coached and am well-versed in most areas and styles of debate. I tended to coach "high theory" teams (whatever that means), but I think in order to be good at debate you have to engage and understand what other people are saying. If someone described me as a "technical" judge, I would be pleased. Judges who say "Plan or GTFO" or the reverse are doing everyone a disservice.

I am more dispassionate than dogmatic when it comes to substance -- I try to reward quality, up to date research related to the topic, and to respect the work of debaters and coaches by giving my best effort to give a well-explained decision. At the same time, I'm very willing to vote on presumption if the other side has not given me a coherent, justifiable reason to vote for them. The most direct and creative impact turns from any ideological standpoint make for fun debates. Heg and cap good args are fine enough, but I need these positions to be contextualized within current political events and trends, not only theory and impacts. By the final rebuttals I tend to flow straight down and line them up the best I can, but I prioritize typing the content as much as I can during the speech.

Time your speech, your partner's speech, the other team, and prep. If suddenly it seems like you have given a 12 minute 2AC, I will become even grumpier than usual and dock everyone's speaks .1

Elizabeth (Eli) Cordoves
Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart '16
Harvard University '20

I believe debate is an incredibly valuable and life-transforming activity. For this reason, I take every round very seriously – and I think you should, too. This means respect your opponents, and each other. It’s ok to be assertive, but there’s a big difference between being confident and being rude.

In the words of my debate coach, Dana Randall: “I believe debate is a unique academic activity. I believe the merits of switch side debate and the in round clash this activity affords mean that it is usually a greater source of education for students then most of their academic courses. I believe that in order to fully realize the merits of this activity debaters should engage in discussions that stem from the resolution. The affirmative team should have a stable advocacy which defends the direction of the topic. Debaters should disclose previously read positions fully. Teams should place the full citation to arguments they have read on the wiki as soon as is possible. Disclosure enhances pre-round preparation, accessibility, the ability engage an opponent's argument, and raises the standard of what qualifies as evidence.”

I have been a 2N my entire debate career – most of my 2NRs have been the politics DA, a topic DA, process CPs, and topicality. My favorite types of debates to watch are ones where the negative has prepared a specific strategy and is well-versed in the technicalities of the 1AC.

Do not steal prep – this is my ultimate pet peeve and your speaker points will reflect that.

DAs:
I love these – please run them. As much as I love a smart counterplan in the 2NR along with it, I think the best neg teams can go for the squo and question the 1AC’s logic. For example – why does a collapse of one industry in the US mean the entire economy declines? Why does that mean global nuclear war? Deficits in the 1AC’s internal links are often underutilized by the negative on the case in favor of generic impact defense.

Not a fan of politics theory arguments. If the DA's so bad, beat it on substance, not on "the neg dropped intrisicness".
Make sure to use your DA to turn the case at the impact and internal link level. This means impact calc is essential.

Topicality:
I will usually default to competing interpretations – which is why I think topicality debates should be framed as two “counterplans” each with respective net-benefits (education, fairness, etc). Saying “depth over breadth” isn’t an argument – one of the hardest parts about going for T (and answering it), is making sure not to only explain the “link” but also implicate this in terms of terminal impacts (What does lack of education mean for debate? Why is that important? What impact outweighs the other, and why?)

Counterplans:
These counterplans are usually good:

• PICs
• Advantage
• States

These counterplans are susceptible to theory:

• International Fiat
• Consult, conditions, recommend
• Word PICs

I can be convinced either way. I will reward you for specific counterplans that are well-researched and prepared.

Theory:
Conditionality is the only reason to reject the team (usually)
That being said, two conditional options is usually a good limit
Theory should be impacted if you’re going for it – buzzwords aren’t enough for me to vote for your argument unless you explain it.

Kritiks:
I’m not your best judge for these – do not read a K in front of me if your only goal is to confuse the other team and win because of that.
I’m not very well-versed in this literature, but will keep up with topic specific Ks and generics. 
If you decide to go for the K, please make sure to explain your arguments very clearly to me. This means being very explicit in CX about what the alt does. I will not vote on something if I don’t understand what it means. I am not familiar with "K-tricks", so do not expect me to recognize your argument and vote on it absent a clear explanation.
I do not want to judge high theory and philosophy.
Links of omission are not links.
Floating PIKs are bad.
Weighing the aff is good - it is difficult for me to ever believe a framework which holds the affirmative to a perfect standard (in terms of epistemology, representations, etc) is one that is fair.
Death is bad - I will not vote for arguments that claim death is good.
Fiat is good - obviously voting aff doesn't usually cause change outside the round, but the notion of fiat allows for intellectually stimulating debates about the costs and benefits of public policy.
A 2AR that says the aff outweighs and the alt doesn’t solve is very persuasive to me, especially if combined with the permutation. That being said, I am sympathetic to new 1AR/2AR arguments if an argument in the 1NC or block is not developed.
For more info, please see the link below.

K Affs:
http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Sternberg%2C+Jordana

Good luck, have fun, and debate with heart J feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.

Hi debaters!

First things first, have fun with debate. A judge once said to me "make debate work for you, not the other way around." That has stuck with me throughout my years of being a part of the debate community and it made my time debating incredibly rewarding.

A little about me as a debater - I mostly ran policy with some sort of feminist spin on it. So what does that mean for you? NOTHING. Run what you want, but be passionate about it. I enter a debate round as a blank slate and will not make arguments for you. You get the chance to teach me about a subject you love, so take advantage of it.

A few things I look for...

- Please be polite to your opponents and your partner. There is a difference between being assertive and aggressive.

- I have no problem with spreading as long as you are clear enough for me to flow. If I cannot understand you, I won't flow the cards.

- IMPACT CALC! This is one of the most important parts of the round and too often people gloss over it... Don't do that! You have to opportunity to tell me why you win, so take that opportunity!

- Most of all, have fun and learn something in the round!

Debated 1 Year at Harvard College

Debated 4 Years at Shawnee Mission East

I prefer to be on email chains. Please use the email address dastjerdi.ali@gmail.com .

I am most interested in and have spent the most time debating policy based issues. That being said, I will vote for anything that I understand and (as far as the arguments presented in the round go) are persuasive.  

As far as the role of the affirmative and negative are concerned, I’ll reference Bret Bricker’s paradigm – “The affirmative should read and defend a topical example of the resolution and the negative should negate the affirmative's example.”

Cards Vs. Analytics – Debate is about communication, and I have a very hard time voting for teams that just rely on inundating their opponents with cards. Cards provide credibility to the arguments you make, they don’t make arguments for you. I will not read cards after the debate that have not received a thorough explanation and analysis inside of the round. I think smart analytical arguments easily trump garbage cards.

Argument specific Preferences:

Topicality- I am persuaded easily by a well-executed topicality argument. I believe topicality should be evaluated under competing interpretations. I think that reasonability as a reason to cut the aff a break is unpersuasive. I am persuaded by reasonability arguments that make a more specific argument about the predictability, precision, or practicality of the negative’s interpretation.

Kritiks- You will likely have hard time convincing me that I should divorce myself from some conception of rationality or pragmatism. I think the aversion of unnecessary death is a good thing. Besides that, be specific and engage with the affirmative and you will be rewarded.

Counterplans: I am fairly willing to listen to any type of counterplan. I have minimal proclivities on theory besides conditionality is good.

Presumption- I will vote neg on presumption. I am very willing to reward strong case debate against a poorly constructed aff. 

Theory- I evaluate theory the same way I do topicality. I am not a fan of “cheap shots”, but if a theory argument is presented as a reason to reject a team and includes some level of reasoning as to why, the lack of response to it does warrant a ballot for the other team.

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

Do what you want, debate is supposed to be fun!

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.

If you're not enunciating your words I probably can't understand you so my flows are going to be incomplete. I like to flow by ear and if I have to ask you for the doc afterwards...you're in a bad spot argument wise. Kind of ominous but I'll always try my best. Anywhos, I'll go for anything; the debate space is yours. I don't have much experience with performative debates but if you make the link or your stance clear you should be fine. I really like K's and I hate the politics DA :) Theory debates are also the bane of my existence but if you must do what you gotta do. Lastly, I like it when you make it easy for me to judge and sum up all your arguments so make sure you got that in your rebuttals.

byaminata@gmail.com

Hi, I debated for Brooklyn Tech for 4 years. I’m currently studying CS and English at Tufts. Afro-pessimism was my 2NR/2AR in every single round for the last three years. I like to watch all sorts of debates so please do what you're best at and I'll adjudicate accordingly.

I was coached by William Cheung for my entire career and have just about absorbed his judging philosophy so for anything more specific, his paradigm is pasted directly below:

Here is the start of my paradigm:
As everyone else says, rule of thumb: DO WHAT YOU’RE GOOD AT
Whether your go-to strat is to throw stuff at the wall and hope it sticks, a straight up disad/cp, or a one-off K; I will be more than happy to judge your round…
given that you:

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe i haven't judged that many rounds this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought toprioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your 2nr/2ar, tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"

As for some nitty gritty details:

1) I love a good K or performance debate but absent the four points above, I won’t “hack” for your position. For instance, saying racism bad without analysis towards your opponent’s position (warrant comparison) won’t get you very far in the debate. I will very often sympathize with you, as my personal debate career revolves around the K more than often, but I will NOT do the work for you.
2) I love smart, strategic CPs

3) I love absurd, creative arguments – unlike most judges (don’t get too carried away), I enjoy inventive and properly executed arguments whether they be freshly cut CPs like above, or criticisms that challenge debate structures. Reading poems, speaking babble, and “mirroring” your opponents etc, are things I will not immediately hate, just again, PROPERLY execute it. On that note, if you are a victim of some babbly criticism, please go for framework
4) Go for theory cheap shots in front of me, just do it persuasively. In-round abuse stories help, pre-empt your opponents final speech, and close the doors
5) Go for T in front of me – A good T debate that that includes a discussion on how the topic should be limited, what the value of a particular interp is, and how judges ought to evaluate an interpretation is something I find enjoyable. Just as always, be persuasive!
6) Have case debates – forcing your opponents to debate their case position with specific, smart arguments will always go a long way. Even if it is only defensive, mitigating offense will go a long way, and often throws people off balance. I find there to be a striking lack of case debate from my experience, and would be more than happy to judge more of it

Also, some other things:

1) Look up sometimes when I judge you to gauge my reaction - perhaps you might have said something off-putting sounding unintentionally (race/gender/etc) or have gone for a terrible, terrible flow and I have cringed. It will give you a clue
2) I have no problem voting on terminal defense or presumption
3) I will default to competing interpretations and body counts unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed in opposition to bodies in a debate. For instance, I will presume nukes hurt, unless you tell me death isn’t an impact and why
4) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive
5) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though of course, I will always already have some bias, I will do my best to mitigate it.

I'm fairly tab, all things considered. I prefer to leave the round to the teams with regards to what is run. That said, I do ask teams to establish clear frameworks for evaluation. In the absence of any such clearly articulated frameworks, I find that I default to policy-maker. I'd also say that if you're planning on running T, make every effort to run it properly.

I'll also cop to not being a fan of spread. Maybe I'm old, but I prefer a few quality arguments to a flow-full of "quality" arguments, if that makes any sense. I get the reasons for spread, but in my humble, outdated, and worth-what-you-paid-for-it opinion, if we have any pretentions of debate as being preparation for anything but for itself, effective and clear communication must be encouraged, and I've never once seen Jack McCoy or Matlock spread opposing council into a courtroom victory.

Director of Debate at Alpharetta High School where I also teach AP US Government & Politics (2013- present)

Former grad assistant at Vanderbilt (2012-2013)

Debated (badly) at Emory (2007-2011).

Please add me to the email chain: laurenivey318@gmail.com

Top-level, I really love debate and am honored to be judging your debate. I promise to try my best to judge the round fairly, and I hope the notes below help you. Most of the below notes are just some general predispositions/ thoughts. I firmly believe that debaters should control the debate space and will do my best to evaluate the round in front of me, regardless of if you adapt to these preferences or not.

I flow on paper and definitely need pen time; I've tried to flow on the computer and it just doesn't work for me.

Counterplans- I like a good counterplan debate. I generally think conditionality is good, and is more justified against new affirmatives. PICs, Process CPs, Uniqueness CPs, Multiplank CPs, Advantage CPs etc. are all fine. On consult counterplans, and other counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive, I tend to lean aff on CP theory. All CPs are better with a solvency advocate. If the negative reads a CP, presumption shifts affirmative, and the negative needs to be winning a decent risk of the net benefit for me to vote negative. I am probably not the greatest person for counterplan competition debates.

Disads- The more specific, the better. Yes, you can read your generic DAs but I love when teams have specific politix scenarios or other specific DAs that show careful research and tournament prep. If there are a lot of links being read on a DA, I tend to default to the team that is controlling uniqueness.

Topicality- I find T debates sometimes difficult to evaluate because they sometimes seem to require a substantial amount of judge intervention. A tool that I think is really under utilized in T debates is the caselist/ discussion of what affs are/ are not allowed under your interpretation. Try hard to close the loop for me at the end of the 2nr/ 2ar about why your vision of the topic is preferable. Be sure to really discuss the impacts of your standards in a T debate.

Framework- Framework is a complicated question for me. On a truth level, I think people should read a plan text, and I exclusively read plan texts when I was a debater. However, I'll vote for whoever wins the debate, whether you read a topical plan text or not, and frequently vote for teams that don't read a plan text; in fact, my voting record is better for teams reading planless affirmatives than it is for teams going for FW. However, I also think this is because teams that don't defend a plan are typically much better at defending their advocacy than neg teams are at going for FW. I tend to think affs should at least be in the direction of the topic; I'm fairly sympathetic to the "you explode limits 2nr" if your aff is about something else. Put another way, if your aff is not at least somewhat related to the topic area it's going to be harder to get my ballot. I do think fairness is a terminal impact because I don't know what an alternative way to evaluate the debate would be but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Kritiks- I am more familiar with more common Ks such as security or cap than I am with high theory arguments like Baudrillard. You can still read less common or high theory Ks in front of me, but you should probably explain them more. I tend to think the alternative is one of the weakest parts of the Kritik and that most negative teams do not do enough work explaining how the Kritik functions.

Misc-If both teams agree that topicality will not be read in the debate, and that is communicated to me prior to the start of the round, any mutually agreed previous year's topic is on the table. I will also bump speaks +0.5 for choosing this option as long as an effort is made by both teams. I am strongly in the camp of tech over truth.

I am unlikely to vote on disclose your prefs, wipeout, spark, or anything else I would consider morally repugnant. I also don't think debate should be a question of who is a good person. While I think you should make good decisions out of round, I am not in the camp of "I will vote against you for bad decisions you made out of round" or allegations made in round about out of round behavior. But, I have voted against teams or substantially lowered speaks for making the round a hostile learning environment and think it is my job as a judge and educator to make the round a safe space.

Good luck! Feel free to email me with any questions.

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. 

As taken from Hemanth’s philosophy: “ The most important thing to me is that you are clear and intentional about laying out the big picture. It will help a lot for you to very explicitly say 1) what you're winning and 2) how that interacts with the other team's important arguments in a way that adds up to a ballot. I think the essential skill that the best debaters have is the ability to do this eloquently, concisely, and with the right strategic instincts.”

And about me: I debated for harvard in college and do not coach. As a debater, I went for a diverse set of arguments and don’t have a preference for what you do. Please don’t assume I have any topic specific knowledge going into the debate.

*Bolded information is for skimming if you're short on time.

**Online Tournament Notes: I'll unmute and let you know if you're having audio problems. Still comfortable with speed, but ask that we slow down a couple of notches from top speed to account for lag.

Round Info:

Feel free to just call me Kay; pronouns are she/her. I did policy for four years at North Lamar High School and graduated in 2017. I am currently a full-time social worker, so I don’t judge as much as I used to, which means that my topic-specific knowledge isn’t super high this year.

If you are using an email chain, my email is kay.edwards1027@gmail.com. If you are flashing, I don't want the flash and I'll ask if I need a specific piece of evidence post-round.

Attaching to the flash/email isn't prep unless it's excessive. If you're moving stuff between documents or around inside the document, that should be on the clock. If anything gets excessive, I'll let you know to start prep again.

Philosophy (all events):

Debate should be about the arguments you find "best" for you. I am comfortable and equally happy in well-warranted policy debates as I am in well-warranted kritikal or performance debates. When not given another framing mechanism, I tend to default to an offense/defense paradigm. My general answer to what "should" be allowed in a round is that theory read/answered by the debaters will parse that out.

[added on 2/23/2023] - For the sake of transparency, I want to add a few caveats to the above. The more I listen to it, the more I've discovered that I have a pretty high threshold for voting on disclosure theory. Just something to be aware of if you choose to read it in front of me.

Speaker Points (all events):

I assign speaker points on strategic decision-making and organization (including signposting and coherent line-by-line). I will dock speaker points for excessive rudeness, demeaning others in the debate, and intentionally making offensive/discriminatory arguments or comments in the debate.

Easy Routes to my Ballot (policy but also everything else really):

1. You should construct the narrative you want on my ballot. This means that I don't want to have to fill in internal links, test truth claims, or filter your offense through the framing that wins the debate.

2. Consistency across speeches is important. That means I'm not voting on 2NR/2AR arguments from the 1AC/1NC that aren't in the block or 1AR. I also have a pretty high threshold for buying arguments that are shadow extended through the block/1AR.

3. I prefer evidence analysis/extension over card dumps. I very seldom find dumping cards onto the flow in the 2NC/2AC compelling if I'm not getting some articulation of how the evidence functions in the round.

LD Paradigm:

I'm fine with everything from more traditional value/criterion debate to more policy-style debates, performance debates, etc. Have the debate you want and are most comfortable having. That being said, some of the less common LD arguments (skep, NIBs, etc.) are pretty out of my wheelhouse and will require some serious explanation for me to understand them enough to feel comfortable voting on them.

One other thing I like to add for LD'ers: winning framework (morality good, util good, etc.) isn't enough to win the debate if you aren't winning a piece of offense through your framing. I won't do the work of weighing your offense for you, either, so please show me how your offense connects to your framing.

PF Note (updated September 2020): I don't judge very much PF, but you all ask this question, so I'll go ahead and make it easy on you: defense isn't sticky. If you want me to vote on it, I need to be able to track the argument from speech to speech.

Feel free to email or talk to me in person before or after the round with any questions that come up!

TLDR:

You do you, I don't have any conscious biases towards any arguments. If you have explained well why you're winning, I'll vote for you. Also I don't know anything about the education topic, so please avoid using jargon and acronyms without first explaining them.

About Me:

Dougherty Valley '17, Harvard '21. Debated throughout high school mainly in policy (1A/2N) and dabbled in other events (LD and Parli). Went mainly for K's on Aff and Neg, but I have read plan texts and gone for traditional neg strategies. In any case don't try to adapt to me, I'd much prefer to see you do what you're good at.

Feel free to ask me if there's any other info you want to know about me or my paradigm that isn't here.

General:

• Put me on the email chain: andyfanaf@gmail.com. I only do this to flow authors (I'm bad, I know) and will only read cards if there's a dispute over the content
• Sending a speech isn't prep unless it gets excessive
• I'm not the fastest flow, and I will also try to flow the warrants of your cards/arguments. This means that you should slow down on analytics and signpost/emphasize important arguments and transitions.
• Clarity Matters, I will call clear up to 5 times before giving up
• Saying blatantly offensive things and personal attacks will result in lower speaks, and I will try to vote against you
• Tech > Truth (Usually) but since they're pretty intertwined you should just do both.
• Zero risk is real (hard to attain but exists)
• Things I like: LBL, comparative analysis, explanation, organization, daring strategies
• Things I don't like: Going for unexplained blips, long overviews followed up with lots of "I did this work in the overview", being unnecessarily aggressive.

Non-Traditional AFF's and Framework:

AFF: Would prefer that it's in the direction of the resolution, but even what that means is up for debate. Just make sure you actually defend something and explain why that is a reason for me to vote for you. Against FW you should also explain why your vision of debate is better than theirs.

NEG: I'm chill with both procedural and substantive standards, just make sure you connect them with your interpretation of debate. TVA's are very useful to have. There should be some sort of answers to the case, they don't have to be carded. Like with the AFF you have to explain why your vision of debate is the best.

Disadvantages:

NEG: Specificity is great, generics are also great if contextualized and explained. I value turns case arguments and comparative analysis highly.

AFF: I love smart and nuanced analytical arguments against DA's. Mitigating the DA chain and leveraging the AFF will make my decision much easier. Again, comparative analysis.

Counterplans:

NEG: Again, specificity is great, but generics will also work if they're contextualized well. I also find it easier to vote neg if there's some sort of solvency advocate or good explanation of why the CP is uniquely great. Other than that it's again just comparative analysis.

AFF: Perms and theory (Most CP's are up for debate) are useful when applicable. Also it's helpful to attack the CP from multiple angles. Besides that it just comes down to comparative worlds.

Kritiks:

NEG: I'm familiar with identity and more low theory K's, but am willing to listen to high theory, pomo authors. In either case you should still hold yourselves to a high threshold of explanation. I see framework as a very useful tool to hedge back against the case. I'm willing to vote on K tricks, but they should be at least somewhat fleshed out in the block. At the end of the day just make sure to have clear link, impact, and alt analysis/explanation so I know why I should vote neg.

AFF: Like with the NEG, framework is useful and you should use it. Any perms in the 2AC should have some explanation if you want them to be a viable strategy later on. Offense is definitely more persuasive here than defense, and really just explain to me why the plan is still a good idea and better than the K.

Topicality:

I don't have too much experience with T, and as such I also don't have any real inclinations here. Just make sure to slow down in these debates and explain why I should be voting for your interpretation/standards.

Theory:

Most theory is frivolous to me unless you have a convincing abuse story (Why is their word PIC so bad?). Here in-round abuse is more persuasive than potential abuse. On condo: 1 K and 1 CP is probably fine, more than that warrants a condo debate. If you do want to go for it, the stuff on T applies here. Slow down, tell me why I should vote for your interpretation of debate.

Case:

NEG: Very helpful to help leverage your other offense, especially if you have independent turns on case. Comparative analysis is the winner here.

AFF: Winning case is usually important for the rest of the your positions, so make sure your evidence and analysis are both great. That's really all I have to say.

LD Note:

I evaluate LD more or less in the same way I evaluate policy, just win that your impacts are more important than whatever the other side is saying. What this does mean is that I probably have a higher threshold for theory than most judges, so be warned if that is your A strategy.

PF Note:

I will also evaluate PF the same way I evaluate policy, so weighing and explanation will probably matter more to me than your usual PF judge. Besides that just prove to me why I should prefer your impacts over your opponents and you should be good.

Updated for Harvard HS Tournament, Education Topic

Sequoyah High School (GA) - '11
University of Georgia - '15

I have very little topic knowledge. Explaining how things fit together is extra important.

Substance:

Counterplan/Disad debates are great. Weighing it v plan/perm = good. Net benefits with links/internal links = good. Non-competitive counterplans = bad. I won't kick the counterplan (or the alt) for the 2nr unless you tell me to.

Topicality – should be impacted just like any other piece of paper. The aff should be doing the same in reverse, impacting overlimiting, etc and explanations for why you are reasonable and why that’s enough are normally pretty convincing. T is always a voting issue. Topical affs = good. (I default to thinking the aff should affirm the res unless you tell me otherwise).

Theory – Definitely a reason to reject the argument, sometimes a reason to reject the team. Conditionality = probably good, I am fairly easily convinced dispo is bad for neg teams, three condo = definitively sketchier than one and maybe bad. I lean towards consult being bad.


Kritiks – should provide a reason that the plan or plan action are bad. Specific links = good. Failure to contextualize generic links = bad. Debating it like a policy debate = good. Philosophy you don't understand = bad. The neg doesn't always have to win the alt to win the round. If the neg loses the alt, they need to win a reason I should still care about the k. Probably the neg gets the k and the aff gets to weigh their impacts. You are almost certainly better read on your authors than I am, so remember to explain things to me.

My soapbox: Don’t cheat. Clipping cards is cheating. Debate doesn't have that many rules. Follow the ones it does. I don’t get to spend a lot of time in debates anymore. I also don’t appreciate when people steal prep.

I don’t like when people are mean to their partners (or the other team, but especially their partners) or interrupt each other constantly.

Clarity is nice.

update: toc 23'

Email chain: chris@alterethosdebate.com

TLDR

Debaters ought to determine the procedural limits and educational value of each topic by defending their interpretations in the round. I ought to vote for the team that does the best job of that in the debate.

I mostly care about warranting arguments and engaging with opponent's through analysis and impact comparison. The team that does the better job justifying my vote at the end of the debate will win.

Debaters should not do any of the following:

Clip cards

Steal prep

Ignore reasonable things like showing up on time and maintaining speech times and speaking order.

Disregard reasonable personal request of their opponents. If you don’t wish to comply with opponent requests, you ought to have a good reason why.

Misgender folks

Say or do racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist things.

Read pessimism args from identities they don't identify as.

Argumentative Preferences

WARRANTS & EXPLANATIONS over blippiness.

Education > Fairness

Breadth = Depth ---> both are important please make warrants here.

K’s don’t need to win an alt to win.

Reasonable disclosure practices should be followed.

Analytic > Low quality evidence

Specific Stuff

Theory

Disclosing before the round is a reasonable thing to do. That being said, I come in with a slight bias against theory arguments in LD. Lots of frivolity in this space right now.

To adapt for this bias teams can read theory that actually has the potential to improve debates or read shells that will have clear and significant violations. Running theory as an exploit of tech judges makes debates less enjoyable for me and I am inclined to vote against them at the smallest of responses. Affirmative teams should feel comfortable reading fewer spikes and more substance.

t/framework

Neg teams ought to engage with plan free or non-topical affirmatives. Affirmative teams should advocate for some departure from the status quo within the context of the topic. The more an aff is steeped in topic literature, the less likely I am to vote against it as a procedural issues, so strong topic links are crucial. I generally think education is a more important element of debate than fairness and that an inability to prepare against an argument doesn't inherently mean that argument is unfair.

Topicality

I default to reasonability because I think it incentivizes innovative research by the aff and expands the limits of the topic in a good way.

Perf Con.

I'm good with multiple worlds but think perf cons make for less enjoyable debates and I am inclined to vote against 1NC's that read cap and the econ da in the same speech.

Counter Plans

If you have a solvency advocate, its legit.

PIC’s are generally good because they force the affirmative to more deeply examine their advocacy, I want them to be excluding something substantial and to have a solvency advocate of some kind.

Conditionality

Neg definitely gets to be conditional. Limited conditionality is the most reasonable interp.

DA's

I like topic DA's, and find most politics and econ based internal links implausible. But, I won't vote against them on face, I let your opponent make those arguments.

Presumption

Neg walks in with presumption. Neg teams should still make presumption analysis in the round though.

*If I haven't mentioned it here, ask me. It has been a minute since I've judged.

Reid Funston
Pace Academy '16
Dartmouth '20

I'm currently a sophomore debating at Dartmouth. I used to go almost exclusively for policy arguments but most of my 2NRs this season in college have been the Cap K or a process counterplan. Read whatever you want, I do my best not to be ideological in judging.

I'm getting real tired of people overusing "conceded" when the other team didn't concede the argument. If you do this excessively, it will be reflected in your speaker points.

Specific argumentative Stuff:

Case debating: Big fan. Impact turns are cool, If they're creative and executed well it's even better. I'm super into the block where the 2NC is all offense on one advantage and the 1NR is defense to the other.

Counterplans: The neg is in a good place on theory if they have evidence in the context of specific to the aff or topic/solid distinctions from the aff. I like creative cheating counterplans.

Theory: I really enjoy good counterplan theory debates. I lean neg on condo.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations but reasonability is winnable.

"Topicality": To be transparent, I go for T-USFG/framework/parametrics/whatever your preferred term is a lot. That said, I'm not ideologically biased towards it and I don't think I'm bad for the aff on T - I'm pretty familiar with a lot of critical theory and I find it really interesting/like debating and evaluating it. I really like specific impact turns to T in particular. Neg, don't go for deliberation/skills impacts - they're dumb and the aff will probably beat you on "our thing's better/unique for skills/etc." If you have a sweet specific strategy that isn't T I'll bump your speaks a bit.

The K: I like it if it's explained well, I strongly dislike it if it's hyper-generic and not explained well. I get impressed by good specific link debating.

Final Miscellaneous Stuff:
-I'll reward bold moves by either side if they turn out well. Even if they don't, I may still think it was a cool idea and boost your speaks.

Elsa Givan

College Preparatory School

Georgetown University

A few quick things:

- I was both a 2A and a 2N in high school. While I read mostly policy affs, I went for the kritik often on the neg, so I’m pretty flexible with argument choices.

- I will work hard to be as objective as possible and evaluate tech over truth unless told otherwise.

- Specificity and effort are rewarded in my book. If it’s clear you’ve done the research and have extensive knowledge of the topic, I will boost your points accordingly.

- Framing the debate is key – the 2NR and 2AR should aim to write my ballot.

- I’d prefer you read enough of your evidence to make a complete argument, so if you’re going to highlight two lines of a card and call it an internal link then it’s probably not worth reading at all. Evidence = claim and warrant (same goes for arguments).

- Please be clear - if you aren’t, I’ll yell it a few times but eventually I will give up. I’m a pretty expressive person so look up every now and then - if I’m obviously frustrated, you should change something.

- Debate is fun – act like it! Be nice and have a good sense of humor.

- Feel free to ask me questions before the debate if I haven’t covered something or you’d like clarification.

Paperless: Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer. If your computer crashes, we’ll stop prep.

Topicality: Topicality needs to be substantively developed for me to vote on it. Please do not be incomprehensibly fast on T in the 2AC, because I will sympathize with the negative if there are missed arguments. Remember to impact your interpretation.

Theory: Theory must be well developed and impacted, like topicality. I am more sympathetic to some theory arguments than others. I never went for conditionality as a 2A and I have a high threshold for this argument – I will vote on it if you win it, but winning it requires substantial time investment in both the 1AR and the 2AR. Other theoretical objections such as international fiat, 50 state fiat, conditions/consult/process theory, etc. are much more persuasive to me.

Case: I really like a good case debate. The 2AC and 1AR need to be clear and warranted on case. I’d prefer if the negative collapsed an extensive case debate from the block into a few winnable arguments in the 2NR instead of going for everything.

Counterplans: I’m a huge fan of a case specific counterplan (especially PICs), so the more specific you get, the better your points/chances will be. Conversely, I’m not a huge fan of process/delay (and consult if it’s hypergeneric) counterplans because I don’t think they’re competitive. I will be persuaded by perm do the CP and theory arguments by the aff. That being said, I was definitely guilty of going for the commission CP and others like it in high school – it’s certainly winnable in front of me, but I’d rather see you go for something more specific.

Disadvantages: I am a strong believer in credible defense. If the aff can point out logical problems with the disad, I will reduce the risk substantially (even if it’s not a carded argument). There can be zero risk of a disad. Clear articulation of the link in the context of the aff is essential. I think that carded arguments about how the disad turns/solves the case are persuasive.

Kritiks: I went for security a lot in high school and I understand it pretty well (same with most other IR-based K’s). Anything beyond that is going to take a high level of explanation and work to get my ballot.

Framework is important and underutilized on both sides - if you can really just lay down a beating on the other team on the framework debate, it will get you so far on every other part of the flow.

For the aff – defend your 1AC! Know who your authors are. Have cards that defend the studies of your authors and the method they used. Know what method they used! Create evaluative mechanisms for how I should evaluate evidence in the policymaking sphere (i.e. default to empirics and studies) and then explain why your evidence meets those mechanisms. I definitely prefer an impact turn debate to a permutation debate, but do what you gotta do.

For the neg - link debate is very important, and contextualizing it within the context of the aff is even more crucial. Question the scholarship of their authors and press them on internal links and logical take-outs in cross-ex – I think the best way to get mileage on the K is to have credible defense against the aff because it proves their epistemology is fundamentally bankrupt.

Critical Affs: Please be very clear about what the role of the ballot is and how I should evaluate the debate. Also, I’m inclined to agree with Brian Manuel that you must defend something, even if you’re not defending the topic. Your position must be debatable. While I will vote on framework, I prefer a case turn debate, a PIC, or a K. Understandably, a specific strategy is not always possible when debating an aff that doesn’t defend the topic, and framework may sometimes be your best option.

Basically I approach debate from an offense/defense framework - that applies to everything. I used to call out specific types of arguments and gave details, but on reflection it's all debatable through this lens, seemingly.

In order to evaluate offense/defense I'm pretty quantitative, and use what is a positivist approach - empiricism is a thing, and there are criteria as to quality of evidence and claims.

If there is a clash of cultures, where systemic approaches to debate as a thing are called into question, there seems to be a need to step out of the clash to give criteria for resolving mutually exclusive cultural norms to the activity.  It seems simply existing  within one of those cultures isn't enough, since it doesn't inform how a decision can be made.

If you do have a specific question, ask.

Rowland Hall ‘16

Harvard ‘20

Rounds on Arms Sales Topic: 0 (I was a lab leader at a policy camp this past summer, so I'm familiar with the basics of this topic); I'm a very cool and chill judge in my humble opinion. Just finished watching Tiger King, so I appreciate any references.

Here are my thoughts about various debate arguments in the words of Taylor Swift’s “Look What You Made Me Do.” I will provide you with lyrics (poetry really) and then explanations about my debate thoughts relating to the song. Ask me if you have any questions (Taylor Swift related or otherwise)!

“Look what you made me do” – this lyric accurately sums up my feelings about judging – I will vote however you tell me to vote – Please make smart well-warranted arguments supported by evidence, and I will happily vote for you. I will vote on almost any argument (as long as it is not morally problematic), so don’t worry about me. That being said, here are my preferences:

Topicality:

“I don't trust nobody and nobody trusts me” – I don’t trust any aff to be topical (joking!). I really like T, but I don’t have a lot of experience with the education topic, so keep that in mind. I like competing interpretations but can be persuaded to vote on reasonability. I think small topics can be great but so can big topics. Paint a picture for me of the world of your interp like how Taylor Swift describes how she is rising up from the dead to come for her enemies. Evidence comparison is undervalued in T debates.

DA’s:

“You said the gun was mine” – Debaters often leave so much up to judges in these debates, which is often frustrating to all parties. Please compare your impacts to the aff’s. Turns case arguments that operate on multiple levels are very persuasive to me.

Case:

“The world moves on, another day, another drama, drama
But not for me, not for me, all I think about is karma” – I think that big silly impacts (drama) can easily be defeated with smart analytics (karma). I like logical internal link presses and find them very persuasive.

K:

“I don't like your kingdom keys

They once belonged to me” – I went for the security K, settler colonialism K, ableism K, Death K, and probably some more. However, don’t assume I know your K lit. I enjoy K debates when links are highly contextual to the aff. Otherwise, K debates can be quite frustrating and harder to win if the aff can win that the neg hasn’t proven the aff is a bad idea. I can be convinced that the neg doesn’t need to win an alt, but I think that it’s super helpful to. I think affs get to weigh their impacts usually but maybe not always. Please do not presume that everyone in the room knows K buzzwords and actually explain what they mean if you want me to vote on them.

CP’s:

“I don't like your perfect crime” – how I feel about CP’s that steal the aff. I’m not a huge fan of process CP’s. I think the states CP is fine to test the fed key warrant, but maybe it’s not.

“Honey, I rose up from the dead, I do it all the time” – I’ll kick CP’s for you if you tell me to. I don’t think that CP’s always need solvency advocates. The best CP’s are in aff solvency cards though.

Theory:

“Isn't cool, no, I don't like you (oh!)” – generally how I feel about aff teams that go for condo – I’m just kidding. A little. I think 2-3 condo are fine. Being neg is hard and affs should be able to answer multiple CP’s with defenses of their internal links. Most theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument not the team.

No Plan Affs:

“I'll be the actress starring in your bad dreams” – if you don’t tell me how to vote in these debates! I believe debate is a game. The role of the ballot is to vote for the team who did the better debating. I really like fairness as an impact (“Don't like your tilted stage”) if explained well, but I’m also a fan of arguments about the importance of research (“I've got a list of names and yours is in red, underlined; I check it once, then I check it twice, oh!”)

I think topical versions of the aff and switch side debate arguments are often persuasive and should be answered specifically by the aff rather than with sweeping claims like cross apply the case. When you are neg, I think you should answer the case and contextualize your impacts to the aff. When you are aff, if you make totalizing claims (ie "antiblackness is ontological") the burden of proof is on you, not the other team to prove that it's true.

“But I got smarter, I got harder in the nick of time” – I think engaging with critical affs is great and smart – It’s important to tie the aff down to something to generate competition though.

I err on the side of tech over truth.

If you are nice to the other team, explain your arguments, and compare impacts, I think that we will all enjoy the debate.

Updated 2023 Pre-Northwestern College Season Opener

Assistant Policy Debate Coach at UT-Dallas and Greenhill

Debated at C.E. Byrd HS in Shreveport, Louisiana (class of ’14). Debated in college policy for Baylor University (2014-2016) and the University of Iowa (2017-2019)

Have coached: Caddo Magnet HS, Hendrickson HS, Little Rock Central HS, Glenbrook South HS, University of Iowa, James Madison University

Email chain should be set up/sent before start time. Sam.gustavson@gmail.com

Top level

Please be respectful of one another. We are all sacrificing our weekends to be here and learn, you can be passionate about your arguments without being mean, rude, condescending, hostile, etc. I’d almost always prefer you convince me that your opponent’s arguments are bad, not that they’re bad people. Chances are, none of us know each other well enough to make that determination.

Please prioritize clarity over speed.Everything else you can take with a grain of salt and ultimately do what you are best at, but me being able to understand you comes before anything else.

Debate is hard. People make it harder by making it more complicated than it needs to be. I like debaters who take complex ideas and bring them down to the level of simplicity and common sense.

Judge instruction, impact framing, comparison of evidence, authors, warrants, etc. or “the art of spin” is the most important thing for telling me how I should decide a debate. Making strategic decisions is important.

One of the things that makes debate truly unique is the research that is required, and so I think it makes sense to reward teams who are clearly going above and beyond in the research they’re producing. Good cards won’t auto win you the debate, but they certainly help “break ties” on the flow and give off the perception that a team is deep in the literature on their argument. But good evidence is always secondary to what a debater does with it.

I care about cross-x A LOT. USE ALL OF YOUR CX TIME PLZ

Organization is also really important to me. Debaters that do effective line by line, clearly label arguments and use things like subpoints are more likely to win in front of me and get better speaks.

High School Specific Thoughts

I work full time in college debate and as a result am less familiar with the ins-and-outs of the high school topic. Take that into consideration.

If you’re interested in doing policy debate in college, feel free to talk to me about debating at UT-Dallas! I am a full-time assistant coach there. We have scholarships, multiple coaches, and a really fun team culture.

CLARITY OVER SPEED APPLIES DOUBLE TO HIGH SCHOOL

Set up the email chain as soon as you get to the room and do disclosure. If you’re aff, ask for the neg team’s emails and copy and paste mine from the top of my paradigm. Let’s get started on time!

Please keep track of your own prep, cx, and speech time.

Don’t flow off the speech doc, it’s the easiest way to miss something and it’s super obvious. Don’t waste cross-x time asking what the did and didn’t read! Flowing is so important.

Aff thoughts

I don’t care what “style” of aff you read, I just care that it is consistently explained and executed throughout the debate.

I like most judges enjoy 2ACs that make strategic choices, smart groupings and cross applications, and effectively and efficiently use the 1AC to beat neg positions in addition to reading new cards.

2ACs and ESPECIALLY 1ARs are getting away with murder in terms of not actually extending the aff.

Pretty aff leaning on a lot of CP theory questions (Process especially, 50 states, agent CPs. With the exception of PICs), but usually think they’re a reason to reject the argument. You can win it’s a reason to reject the team, but my bar for winning the 2ac was irrevocably skewed by the existence of a single 1NC position is pretty high. I don’t really lean one way or the other on condo (ideologically at least, I have no clue what my judge record is in condo debates).

Neg Thoughts - General

I like negative strategies that are well-researched specific responses to the aff. I think case debating is super important and underutilized. Nothing is more persuasive than a negative team who seems to know more about the 1AC than the Aff team does.

The 1NR should be the best speech in the debate, you have so much prep.

The 2NR should make strategic decisions, collapse down, and anticipate 2ar framing and pivots. The block is about proliferating options, the 2NR is about making decisions and closing doors.

Counterplans

Like I said above, prefer aff-specific CPs to generics. Counterplans that only compete on immediacy and certainty and net benefits that don’t say the aff is bad are not my favorite. I definitely prefer Process CP + Politics to Process CP + internal net benefit, because the politics DA disproves the desirability of the plan.

Because of the above thoughts, I am more aff leaning on CP theory in a lot of instances, with the exception of PICs. I think PICs that disprove/reject part of the aff are probably good.

People say sufficiency framing without doing the work to explain why the risk of the net benefit actually outweighs the risk of the solvency deficit. You have to do some type of risk calculus to set up what is sufficient and how I should evaluate it.

I have no feelings one way or another about judge kick. Win that it’s good or win that it’s bad.

Counterplans vs K affs are underutilized.

Disads

Comparison is important and not just at the impact level. Telling me what warrants to prioritize on the uniqueness and link debate, rehighlighting evidence, doing organized labeling and line by line, etc. Don’t just extend the different parts of the DA, do comparative work and framing on each part to tell me to tell me why you’re winning it and what matters most in terms of what I evaluate.

Like I said in the neg general section, I usually prefer an aff/topic specific DA to politics, but those concerns can be easily alleviated with good link debating on the politics DA. Your link being specific to the aff/resolution is usually important especially for link uniqueness reasons. I typically like elections more than agenda politics just as a research preference.

Impact Turns

Get in the weeds early in these debates and read a lot of cards. Don’t be afraid to read cards late in the debate either. Teams that get out-carded in these debates early have a tough time getting back in the game.

Recency, specificity, and evidence quality really matter for most every argument, but these debates especially. It’s pretty obvious when one team has updates and the other is reading a backfile

These debates get unorganized in a hurry. Labeling, line by line, using subpoints/numbers, and making clear cross applications are super important

Topicality

I really like T debates vs policy affs. I think creative arguments like extra T and effects T are underutilized or at least often underexplained and that there are affs getting away with fiating a lot of extra-resolutional/non-resolutional things.

Typically default to competing interps, and I’ll be totally transparent here: reasonability is kind of an uphill battle for me. When people go for reasonability with an interp, I almost always understand reasonability as a standard for why the aff’s interp is good. If you’re arguing your interpretation is better because it’s more reasonable, how is that not also an appeal to competing interpretations? And in the other scenario, if you’re going for reasonability with a we meet argument, I feel like a lot of the time it just begs the question of the violation and it’s easy for the neg to frame it as a yes/no question, not something that you can kind of/reasonably meet. Ultimately superior debating supersedes everything. If you win reasonability, you win reasonability. But you are probably better off just winning the we meet or going for a counter-interp

Impact comparison on standards is super important. I don’t have any strong preferences in terms of how I evaluate limits vs precision, aff ground vs neg ground, etc. Those are things you have to win and do the work of framing for me.

For the neg: Case lists, examples of ground lost under the aff’s interp, examples of why the debates under your model over the course of the year, topical versions of the aff, etc. will all help me understand in practice why your interp is better for the year of debate on the topic rather than just in theory.

For the aff: A well-explained we meet and/or counter interpretation, a case list of things you allow and things you don’t, and explanation of what ground the neg gets access to under your interp beyond quickly listing arguments and saying functional limits check, explain the warrant for why your interp preserves that ground and why those debates are good to have. N

Not super persuaded by “we meet – plan text in a vacuum” without much additional explanation. If the aff reads a plan text but then reframes/clarifies what that means in cross-x, in 1ac solvency evidence, or in the 2ac responding to neg positions, I think it’s easy for the neg to win those things outweigh plan text in a vacuum.

Framework

I judge a lot of these debates, and I’m fine with that. I think debating about debate is useful.

Fairness can be and impact or an internal link, just depends on how it’s debated. For it to be an external impact, it needs to not be circular/self-referential, which I think it often is in terms of how teams execute it. “Debate is a game, so it needs to be fair, because games need to be fair, and without fairness we can’t debate” is a circular argument that lacks an impact. To me, the argument becomes more offensive the more teams emphasize the time commitment we all put into debate and why maintaining fairness is important for honoring that time commitment, or explaining why it’s important for participation.

If either side is claiming participation as an impact, you have gotta explain how voting for you/your model would solve it. I think that’s hard to do but I’ve seen it done effectively both with fairness and with K affs doing for access/participation outweighs. The impact is obviously very big, but the internal link is often sketchy and not flushed out, in addition to largely being untrue because things like budget cuts have a lot more to do with who can participate than any particular team reading any particular argument.

I prefer clash as an impact more because I feel like it gets to a bigger impact that is more at the heart of why debate is good and that it often causes the neg to interact with the aff more. Your warrants for why clash turns the aff should be aff specific – same with TVAs. Nothing hurts me worse than ultra-generic framework debating where the argument could apply to literally any K aff. The best way to win your model can account for the aff’s impacts is to use the language of the aff in your explanation of things like clash, Switch-Side, and the TVA.

Affs that have something to do with the topic and can link turn things like topic education and clash are more persuasive to me than affs that try to impact turn every single part of framework. You probably will need to win some defense, because so much of the neg side of framework is defense to the stuff you want to go for.

Having a counter-interpretation really helps me understand how to evaluate offense and defense in these debates. This does not necessarily require the 2AC to redefine words in the resolution, but rather to tell me what the aff’s vision of debate is, what the role is for the aff and neg, and why those debates are good. Even if you are going to impact turn everything, having a counter-interpretation or a model of debate helps me understand what the role of the aff, neg, and the overall role of debate are.

Kritiks

The more aff-specific the better. Links do not necessarily have to be to the plan (it would be nice if they were), but they should implicate the 1ac in specific ways whether it’s their rhetoric, impact scenarios, etc. 2NCs that quote and rehighlight aff evidence, read new cards, proliferate links, and give the 2nr options are good. If you are criticizing/kritiking the aff, you should quote as much of their evidence, indict as many of their authors, and apply your criticism to the aff as much as possible. The most common advice I give 2Ns going for the K is to quote the aff more

Making decisions in the 2NR is still important even when reading the K one-off. You cannot go for every link, framing argument, perm answer, etc. in the 2NR.

The best K 2NRs I’ve ever seen effectively use case to mitigate parts of the aff’s offense. If you give them 100% risk of the aff vs the K, it’s harder to win!

Kicking the alt/going just for links or case turns is not the move in front of me. There are almost always uniqueness problems and I end up usually just voting aff on a risk of case. Whether it’s an alternative or a framework argument, you gotta explain to me how voting neg solves your offense.

I have noticed that in a lot of K debates I find that both the aff and the neg over-invest in framework. I honestly don’t see a scenario where I don’t let the aff weigh the 1AC if they win that fiat is good. I also don’t see a scenario where I vote aff because Kritiks on the neg are unfair. If the neg is making links to the aff, the aff obviously gets to weigh their offense against those link arguments. I really think both sides in most cases would be better served spending time on the link/impact/alt rather than overinvesting time on the framework debate.

I don’t really understand a lot of the form/content distinction stuff people go for because I think that the way arguments about “form” are deployed in debate are usually not actually about the form of anything and almost exclusively refer to disagreements in content

Ethics challenges/Clipping/Out of Round Stuff:

In the case that anyone calls an ethics violation for any reason I reserve the right to defer/go to tab, and then beyond that I can only vote based on my interpretation of events. This used to really only apply to clipping, but I’ve been a part of a bunch of different types of ethics challenges over the years so I’ve decided to update this.

Clipping: Hot take, it’s obviously bad. If I have proof you clipped the round will end and you’ll lose. I don’t follow along in speech docs unless someone starts being unclear, so if your opponent is clipping it’s up to you to notice and get proof. I need a recording if I don’t catch it live, even if we are on a panel and another judge catches it. Without a recording or proof, I’m not pulling the trigger.

Be careful about recording people without their consent, especially minors. Multiple states require two-party consent to record, don’t get yourself in legal trouble over a debate round.

I don’t vote on out of round stuff, especially stuff I wasn’t there for. For clarification, I suppose there could be exceptions to this and my opinions on it have gone back and forth. If you feel that someone in the round has jeopardized your safety, made you uncomfortable, or anything remotely similar, I will do everything in to advocate for you if I witness any of the following. If I am not a witness, I will make sure that the proper channels are used to address the complaint.

This is obviously distinct from criticizing something that someone has said or calling people out for being problematic. I’m saying if something so bad has happened that we have to stop the round, I have to go to the tournament and my bosses and look at my options. For your safety and mine I am required to think about how I’m protected, and my role and qualifications as a coach and educator as it relates to resolving officially lodged complaints of discrimination or harassment.

LD Paradigm:

Tech over truth but asserting that an argument is dropped/conceded is not the same thing as extending a full argument

My debate background is in policy, so I have much more familiarity with policy/LARP and Kritikal debates than I do with phil.

That is not to say you cannot win on philosophy in front of me, but you should try to frame it in language that I will understand. So telling me why your impact outweighs and turns their offense, winning defense to their stuff, doing judge instruction and weighing to tell me what matters and what doesn't.

Clarity is more important than speed. Slow down a bit on counterplan texts, interps, etc. Spreading as fast as you can through theory shells or a million a priori's means there's probably a good chance that I am not going to get everything

A lot of arguments in LD stop at the level of a claim - you can be efficient but you can't just blippily extend claims without warrants and expect to win

Not a huge fan of frivolous theory. I think most theory debates end up being a reason to reject the argument not the team with the exception of condo. But like I said, tech over truth so you can win theory in front of me, it just needs to be well impacted for why it is a reason to drop the debater and why rejecting the argument/practice doesn't solve

┍————————————————————————————- /ᐠ｡ꞈ｡ᐟ\ ————————————————————————┑

I would rather you have a few really strong well articulated arguments, than 50 underdeveloped rushed arguments. You can speak fast, but I would prefer if you articulate more than just the tag line of the card.

K debates are awesome when the alternative is fully explained and contextualized.

Please include me in the email chain: Gregoryharpesm@gmail.com

Happy debating !

ʕʘ̅┏ل͜┓ʘ̅ʔ

┕————————————————————————————(..)(..) ∫∫—————————————————————————-â”™

Sam Heller

he/him/his or they/them/their

I haven't been heavily involved in debate since 2016, so don't expect me to up to date on trends in the activity or on this year's topic.

Be clear - I flow from your speech, not your speech doc.

I'm not a fan of ridiculous and contrived internal link chains. I think that the way debate as an activity values high-impact, low-probability risks over lower-impact, high-probability risks is fundamentally flawed and bad for the activity. You don't need a nuclear war/extinction impact for me to care about what you're saying. That being said, this doesn't mean if you make a nuke war claim I'm going to ignore everything else you say. It just means my default impact framing is not going to be "any risk of extinction outweighs everything else" like it is for most judges.

Debate is about arguments, not cards. You can make a good argument without reading a card, and you cannot use reading a card as a substitute for articulating an argument. Also, a card that simply states a claim without providing a warrant is useless.

If I don't know what the aff does after the 1AC, then the neg has a lot of leniency in their ground. You don't get to wait until the 2AC/1AR/2AR to explain the aff.

Framework/Topicality - K affs and T/Framework were the fastest-changing parts of debate when I left the activity, so I assume I'm behind the times a bit on these debates. That being said, I don't think I judge them fundamentally different than other args in debate. The neg needs to answer case, and the aff can't only extend case - they also need DAs to the neg's interpretation.

Reading cards after the round - I do it, but primarily only to verify the claims made in the debate when there's a disagreement between the two teams (i.e. aff: "our card says x", neg: "no it actually says y"). I will not give you credit for arguments in a card that are not articulated during the round.

I have a soft spot for arguments older than I am (inherency, T-Vagueness, voting net on presumption) - I know these args died for a reason but if you find a way to make them I'd be excited!

Email: khirn10@gmail.com --- of course I want to be on the chain

Program Manager and Debate Coach, University of Michigan

Head Debate Coach, University of Chicago Lab Schools

Previously a coach at Whitney Young High School (2010-20), Caddo Magnet (2020-21), Walter Payton (2018, 2021-23)

Last updated: April, 2024 (new FR thoughts in the Topicality section, random updates throughout)

Philosophy: I attempt to judge rounds with the minimum amount of intervention required to answer the question, "Who has done the better debating?", using whatever rubrics for evaluating that question that debaters set up.

I work in debate full-time. I attend a billion tournaments and judge a ton of debates, lead a seven week lab every summer, talk about debate virtually every day, and research fairly extensively. As a result, I'm familiar with the policy and critical literature bases on both the college nuclear forces topic and the HS fiscal redistribution topic. For fiscal redistribution, I gave the topic lecture for the Michigan debate camp and I wrote both the Topicality and Job Guarantee Aff/Neg files for their starter pack

I’ve coached my teams to deploy a diverse array of argument types and styles. Currently, I coach teams that primarily read policy arguments. But I was also the primary argument coach for Michigan KM from 2014-16. I’ve coached many successful teams in both high school and college that primarily read arguments influenced by "high theory", postmodernist thought, and/or critical race literature. I'm always excited to see debaters deploy new or innovative strategies across the argumentative spectrum.

Impact turns have a special place in my heart. There are few venues in academia or life where you will be as encouraged to challenge conventional wisdom as you are in policy debate, so please take this rare opportunity to persuasively defend the most counter-intuitive positions conceivable. I enjoy judging debaters with a sense of humor, and I hope to reward teams who make their debates fun and exciting (through engaging personalities and argument selection).

My philosophy is very long. I make no apology for it. In fact, I wish most philosophies were longer and more substantive, and I still believe mine to be insufficiently comprehensive. Frequently, judges espouse a series of predictable platitudes, but I have no idea why they believe whatever it is they've said (which can frequently leave me confused, frustrated, and little closer to understanding how debaters could better persuade them). I attempt to counter this practice with detailed disclosure of the various predispositions, biases, and judgment canons that may be outcome-determinative for how I decide your debate. Maybe you don't want to know all of those, but nobody's making you read this paradigm. Having the option to know as many of those as possible for any given judge seems preferable to having only the options of surprise and speculation.

What follows is a series of thoughts that mediate my process for making decisions, both in general and in specific contexts likely to emerge in debates. I've tried to be as honest as possible, and I frequently update my philosophy to reflect perceived trends in my judging. That being said, self-disclosure is inevitably incomplete or misleading; if you're curious about whether or not I'd be good for you, feel free to look at my voting record or email me a specific question (reach me via email, although you may want to try in person because I'm not the greatest with quick responses).

0) Online debate

Online debate is a depressing travesty, although it's plainly much better than the alternative of no debate at all. I miss tournaments intensely and can't wait until this era is over and we can attend tournaments in-person once again. Do your best not to remind us constantly of what we're missing: please keep your camera on throughout the whole debate unless you have a pressing and genuine technical reason not to. I don't have meaningful preferences beyond that. Feel free to record me---IMO all debates should be public and free to record by all parties, especially in college.

1) Tech v. Truth

I attempt to be an extremely "technical" judge, although I am not sure that everyone means what everyone else means when they describe debating or judging as "technical." Here's what I mean by that: outside of card text, I attempt to flow every argument that every speaker expresses in a speech. Even in extremely quick debates, I generally achieve this goal or come close to it. In some cases, like when very fast debaters debate at max speed in a final rebuttal, it may be virtually impossible for me to to organize all of the words said by the rebuttalist into the argumentative structure they were intending. But overall I feel very confident in my flow: I will take Casey Harrigan up on his flowing gauntlet/challenge any day (he might be able to take me if we were both restricted to paper, but on our computers, it's a wrap).

In addition, being "technical" means that I line up arguments on my flow, and expect debaters to, in general, organize their speeches by answering the other team's arguments in the order they were presented. All other things being equal, I will prioritize an argument presented such that it maximizes clear and direct engagement with its counter-argument over an argument that floats in space unmoored to an adversarial argument structure.

I do have one caveat that pertains to what I'll term "standalone" voting issues. I'm not likely to decide an entire debate based on standalone issues explained or extended in five seconds or less. For example, If you have a standard on conditionality that asserts "also, men with curly unkempt hair are underrepresented in debate, vote neg to incentivize our participation," and the 1ar drops it, you're not going to win the debate on that argument (although you will win my sympathies, fellow comb dissident). I'm willing to vote on basically anything that's well-developed, but if your strategy relies on tricking the other team into dropping random nonsense unrelated to the rest of the debate entirely, I'm not really about that. This caveat only pertains to standalone arguments that are dropped once: if you've dropped a standalone voting issue presented as such in two speeches, you've lost all my sympathies to your claim to a ballot.

In most debates, so many arguments are made that obvious cross-applications ensure precious few allegedly "dropped" arguments really are accurately described as such. Dropped arguments most frequently win debates in the form of little subpoints making granular distinctions on important arguments that both final rebuttals exert time and energy trying to win. Further murkiness emerges when one realizes that all thresholds for what constitutes a "warrant" (and subsequently an "argument") are somewhat arbitrary and interventionist. Hence the mantra: Dropped arguments are true, but they're only as true as the dropped argument. "Argument" means claim, warrant, and implication. "Severance is a voting issue" lacks a warrant. "Severance is a voting issue - neg ground" also arguably lacks a warrant, since it hasn't been explained how or why severance destroys negative ground or why neg ground is worth caring about.

That might sound interventionist, but consider: we would clearly assess the statement "Severance is a voting issue -- purple sideways" as a claim lacking a warrant. So why does "severence is a voting issue - neg ground" constitute a warranted claim? Some people would say that the former is valid but not sound while the latter is neither valid nor sound, but both fail a formal test of validity. In my assessment, any distinction is somewhat interventionist. In the interest of minimizing intervention, here is what that means for your debating: If the 1ar drops a blippy theory argument and the 2nr explains it further, the 2nr is likely making new arguments... which then justifies 2ar answers to those arguments. In general, justify why you get to say what you're saying, and you'll probably be in good shape. By the 2nr or 2ar, I would much rather that you acknowledge previously dropped arguments and suggest reasonable workaround solutions than continue to pretend they don't exist or lie about previous answers.

Arguments aren't presumptively offensive or too stupid to require an answer. Genocide good, OSPEC, rocks are people, etc. are all terribly stupid, but if you can't explain why they're wrong, you don't deserve to win. If an argument is really stupid or really bad, don't complain about how wrong they are. After all, if the argument's as bad as you say it is, it should be easy. And if you can't deconstruct a stupid argument, either 1) the argument may not be as stupid as you say it is, or 2) it may be worthwhile for you to develop a more efficient and effective way of responding to that argument.

If both sides seem to assume that an impact is desirable/undesirable, and frame their rebuttals exclusively toward avoiding/causing that impact, I will work under that assumption. If a team read a 1AC saying that they had several ways their plan caused extinction, and the 1NC responded with solvency defense and alternative ways the plan prevented extincton, I would vote neg if I thought the plan was more likely to avoid extinction than cause it.

I'll read and evaluate Team A's rehighlightings of evidence "inserted" into the debate if Team B doesn't object to it, but when debated evenly this practice seems indefensible. An important part of debate is choosing how to use your valuable speech time, which entails selecting which pieces of your opponent's ev most clearly bolster your position(s).

2) General Philosophical Disposition

It is somewhat easy to persuade me that life is good, suffering is bad, and we should care about the consequences of our political strategies and advocacies. I would prefer that arguments to the contrary be grounded in specific articulations of alternative models of decision-making, not generalities, rhetoric, or metaphor. It's hard to convince me that extinction = nbd, and arguments like "the hypothetical consequences of your advocacy matter, and they would likely produce more suffering than our advocacy" are far more persuasive than "take a leap of faith" or "roll the dice" or "burn it down", because I can at least know what I'd be aligning myself with and why.

Important clarification: pragmatism is not synonymous with policymaking. On the contrary, one may argue that there is a more pragmatic way to frame judge decision-making in debates than traditional policymaking paradigms. Perhaps assessing debates about the outcome of hypothetical policies is useless, or worse, dangerous. Regardless of how you debate or what you debate about, you should be willing and able to mount a strong defense of why you're doing those things (which perhaps requires some thought about the overall purpose of this activity).

The brilliance and joy of policy debate is most found in its intellectual freedom. What makes it so unlike other venues in academia is that, in theory, debaters are free to argue for unpopular, overlooked, or scorned positions and ill-considered points of view. Conversely, they will be required to defend EVERY component of your argument, even ones that would be taken for granted in most other settings. Just so there's no confusion here: all arguments are on the table for me. Any line drawn on argumentative content is obviously arbitrary and is likely unpredictable, especially for judges whose philosophies aren't as long as mine! But more importantly, drawing that line does profound disservice to debaters by instructing them not to bother thinking about how to defend a position. If you can't defend the desirability of avoiding your advantage's extinction impact against a wipeout or "death good" position, why are you trying to persuade me to vote for a policy to save the human race? Groupthink and collective prejudices against creative ideas or disruptive thoughts are an ubiquitous feature of human societies, but that makes it all the more important to encourage free speech and free thought in one of the few institutions where overcoming those biases is possible.

3) Topicality and Specification

Overall, I'm a decent judge for the neg, provided that they have solid evidence supporting their interpretation.

Limits are probably desirable in the abstract, but if your interpretation is composed of contrived stupidity, it will be hard to convince me that affs should have predicted it. Conversely, affs that are debating solid topicality evidence without well-researched evidence of their own are gonna have a bad time. Naturally, of these issues are up for debate, but I think it's relatively easy to win that research/literature guides preparation, and the chips frequently fall into place for the team accessing that argument.

Competing interpretations is potentially less subjective and arbitrary than a reasonability standard, although reasonability isn't as meaningless as many believe. Reasonability seems to be modeled after the "reasonable doubt" burden required to prove guilt in a criminal case (as opposed to the "preponderence of evidence" standard used in civil cases, which seems similar to competing interps as a model). Reasonability basically is the same as saying "to win the debate, the neg needs to win an 80% risk of their DA instead of a 50% risk." The percentages are arbitrary, but what makes determining that a disad's risk is higher or lower than the risk of an aff advantage (i.e. the model used to decide the majority of debates) any less arbitrary or subjective? It's all ballpark estimation determined by how persuaded judges were by competing presentations of analysis and evidence. With reasonability-style arguments, aff teams can certainly win that they don't need to meet the best of all possible interpretations of the topic, and instead that they should win if their plan meets an interpretation capable of providing a sufficient baseline of neg ground/research parity/quality debate. Describing what threshold of desirability their interpretation should meet, and then describing why that threshold is a better model for deciding topicality debates, is typically necessary to make this argument persuasive.

Answering "plan text in a vacuum" requires presenting an alternative standard by which to interpret the meaning and scope of the words in the plan. Such seems so self-evident that it seems banal to include it in a paradigm, but I have seen many debates this year in which teams did not grasp this fact. If the neg doesn't establish some method for determining what the plan means, voting against "the plan text in a vacuum defines the words in the plan" is indistinguishable from voting for "the eighty-third unhighlighted word in the fifth 1ac preempt defines the words in the plan." I do think setting some limiting standard is potentially quite defensible, especially in debates where large swaths of the 1ac would be completely irrelevent if the aff's plan were to meet the neg's interp. For example: if an aff with a court advantage and a USFG agent says their plan meets "enact = Congress only", the neg could say "interpret the words USFG in the plan to include the Courts when context dictates it---even if 'USFG' doesn't always mean "Courts," you should assume it does for debates in which one or more contentions/advantages are both impertinent and insoluable absent a plan that advocates judicial action." But you will likely need to be both explicit and reasonable about the standard you use if you are to successfully counter charges of infinite regress/arbitrariness.

For Fiscal Redistribution:

I'm probably more open to subsets than most judges if the weight of predictable evidence supports it. The neg is maybe slightly favored in a perfect debate, but I think there is better aff evidence to be read. I generally think the topic is extremely overlimited. Both the JG and BI are poorly supported by the literature, and there are not a panoply of viable SS affs.

Social Security and programs created by the Social Security Act are not same thing. The best evidence I've seen clearly excludes welfare and health programs, although expanding SS enables affs to morph the program into almost anything topically (good luck with a "SS-key" warrant vs the PIC, though). SSI is debateable, though admittedly not an extreme limits explosion.

Topicality arguments excluding plans with court actors are weaker than each of the above arguments. Still tenable.

Topicality arguments excluding cutting programs to fund plans are reasonable edge cases. I can see the evidence or balance of debating going either way on this question.

Evenly debated, "T-Must Include Taxes" is unwinnable for the negative. Perhaps you will convince me otherwise, but keep in mind I did quite a bit of research on this subject before camps even started,so if you think you have a credible case then you're likely in need of new evidence. I really dislike being dogmatic on something like this. I began the summer trying todevelop a case for why affs must tax, but I ran into a basic logical problem and have not seen evidence that establishes the bare minimum of a topicality interpretation. Consider the definition of "net worth." Let's assume that all the definitions of net worth state it means "(financial assets like savings, real estate, and investments) - (debts and liabilities)." "T-FR must include tax" is the logical equivalent of "well, because net worth means assets AND liabilities, cashing a giant check doesn't increase your net worth because you don't ALSO decrease your debts owed elsewhere." For this to be a topicality argument, you'd need to find a card that says "Individual policy interventions aren't fiscal redistribution if they merely adjust spending without tax policy." Such a card likely doesn't exist, because it's self-evidently nonsense.

Of course, I'll certainly evaluate arguments on this subject as fairly as possible, and if you technically out-execute the opposing team, I'll vote against them remorselessly. But you should know my opinion regardless.

4) Risk Assessment

In front of me, teams would be well-served to explain their impact scenarios less in terms of brinks, and more in terms of probabilistic truth claims. When pressed with robust case defense, "Our aff is the only potential solution to a US-China war that's coming in a few months, which is the only scenario for a nuclear war that causes extinction" is far less winnable than "our aff meaningfully improves the East Asian security environment through building trust between the two great military powers in the region, which statistically decreases the propensity for inevitable miscalculations or standoffs to escalate to armed conflict." It may not be as fun, but that framing can allow you to generate persuasive solvency deficits that aren't grounded in empty rhetoric and cliche, or to persuasively defeat typical alt cause arguments, etc. Given that you decrease the initial "risk" (i.e. probability times magnitude) of your impact with this framing, this approach obviously requires winning substantial defense against whatever DA the neg goes for, but when most DA's have outlandishly silly brink arguments themselves, this shouldn't be too taxing.

There are times where investing lots of time in impact calculus is worthwhile (for example, if winning your impact means that none of the aff's impact claims reach extinction, or that any of the actors in the aff's miscalc/brinkmanship scenarios will be deterred from escalating a crisis to nuclear use). Most of the time, however, teams waste precious minutes of their final rebuttal on mediocre impact calculus. The cult of "turns case" has much to do with this. It's worth remembering that accessing an extinction impact is far more important than whether or not your extinction impact happens three months faster than theirs (particularly when both sides' warrant for their timeframe claim is baseless conjecture and ad hoc assertion), and that, in most cases, you need to win the substance of your DA/advantage to win that it turns the case.

Incidentally, phrasing arguments more moderately and conditionally is helpful for every argument genre: "all predictions fail" is not persuasive; "some specific type of prediction relying on their model of IR forecasting has little to no practical utility" can be. The only person who's VTL is killed when I hear someone say "there is no value to life in the world of the plan" is mine.

At least for me, try-or-die is extremely intuitive based on argument selection (i.e. if the neg spots the aff that "extinction is inevitable if the judge votes neg, even if it's questionable whether or not the aff solves it", rationalizing an aff ballot becomes rather alluring and shockingly persuasive). You should combat this innate intuition by ensuring that you either have impact defense of some sort (anything from DA solves the case to a counterplan/alt solves the case argument to status quo checks resolve the terminal impact to actual impact defense can work) or by investing time in arguing against try-or-die decision-making.

5) Counterplans

Counterplan theory/competition debating is a lost art. Affirmatives let negative teams get away with murder. Investing time in theory is daunting... it requires answering lots of blippy arguments with substance and depth and speaking clearly, and probably more slowly than you're used to. But, if you invest time, effort, and thought in a well-grounded theoretical objection, I'll be a receptive critic.

The best theory interpretations are clear, elegant, and minimally arbitrary. Here are some examples of args that I would not anticipate many contemporary 2N's defeating:

--counterplans should be policies. Perhaps executive orders, perhaps guidence memos, perhaps lower court decisions, perhaps Congressional resolutions. But this would exclude such travesties as "The Executive Branch should always take international law into account when making their decisions. Such is closer to a counterplan that says "The Executive Branch should make good decisions forever" than it is to a useful policy recommendation. It's relatively easy for CPs to be written in a way that meets this design constraint, but that makes it all the easier to dispose of the CPs that don't.

--counterplans should not be able to fiat both the federal government and additional actors outside of the federal government. It's utopian enough to fiat that Courts, the President, and Congress all act in concert in perpetuity on a given subject. It's absurd to fiat additional actors as well.

There are other theoretical objections that I might take more seriously than other judges, although I recognize them as arguments on which reasonable minds may disagree. For example, I am somewhat partial to the argument that solvency advocates for counterplans should have a level of specificity that matches the aff. I feel like that standard would reward aff specificity and incentivize debates that reflect the literature base, while punishing affs that are contrived nonsense by making them debate contrived process nonsense. This certainly seems debateable, and in truth if I had to pick a side, I'd certainly go neg, but it seems like a relatively workable debate relative to alternatives.

Competition debates are a particularly lost art. Generally, I prefer competition debates to theoretical ones, although I think both are basically normative questions (i.e. the whole point of either is to design an ideal, minimally arbitrary model to produce the debates we most desire). I'm not a great judge for counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy based on "should"/"resolved" definitions. I'm somewhat easily persuaded that these interpretations lower the bar for how difficult it is to win a negative ballot to an undesirable degree. That being said, affs lose these debates all the time by failing to counter-define words or dropping stupid tricks, so make sure you invest the time you need in these debates to win them.

"CPs should be textually and functionally competitive" seems to me like a logical and defensible standard. Some don't realize that if CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive, permutations may be either. I like the "textual/functional" model of competition BECAUSE it incentives creative counterplan and permutation construction, and because it requires careful text-writing.

That being said, "functional-only" is a very defensible model as well, and I think the arguments to prefer it over functional/textual hinge on the implication of the word being defined. If you say that "should is immediate" or "resolved is certain," you've introduced a model of competition that makes "delay a couple weeks" or "consult anyone re: plan" competitive. If your CP competes in a way that introduces fewer CPs (e.g. "job guarantees are admininstered by the states", or "NFUs mean no-first-use under any circumstance/possibility"), I think the neg's odds of winning are fairly likely.

Offense-defense is intuitive to me, and so teams should always be advised to have offense even if their defense is very strong. If the aff says that the counterplan links to the net benefit but doesn't advance a solvency deficit or disadvantage to the CP, and the neg argues that the counterplan at least links less, I am not very likely to vote affirmative absent strong affirmative framing on this question (often the judge is left to their own devices on this question, or only given instruction in the 2AR, which is admittedly better than never but still often too late). At the end of the day I must reconcile these opposing claims, and if it's closely contested and at least somewhat logical, it's very difficult to win 100% of an argument. Even if I think the aff is generally correct, in a world where I have literally any iota of doubt surrounding the aff position or am even remotely persuaded by the the negative's position, why would I remotely risk triggering the net benefit for the aff instead of just opting for the guaranteed safe choice of the counterplan?

Offense, in this context, can come in multiple flavors: you can argue that the affirmative or perm is less likely to link to the net benefit than the counterplan, for example. You can also argue that the risk of a net benefit below a certain threshold is indistinguishable from statistical noise, and that the judge should reject to affirm a difference between the two options because it would encourage undesirable research practices and general decision-making. Perhaps you can advance an analytic solvency deficit somewhat supported by one logical conjecture, and if you are generally winning the argument, have the risk of the impact to that outweigh the unique risk of aff triggering the DA relative to the counterplan. But absent any offensive argument of any sort, the aff is facing an uphill battle. I have voted on "CP links to politics before" but generally that only happens if there is a severe flaw in negative execution (i.e. the neg drops it), a significant skill discrepancy between teams, or a truly ill-conceived counterplan.

I'm a somewhat easy sell on conditionality good (at least 1 CP / 1 K is defensible), but I've probably voted aff slightly more frequently than not in conditionality debates. That's partly because of selection bias (affs go for it when they're winning it), but mainly because neg teams have gotten very sloppy in their defenses of conditionality, particularly in the 2NR. That being said, I've been growing more and more amenable to "conditionality bad" arguments over time.

However, large advantage counterplans with multiple planks, all of which can be kicked, are fairly difficult to defend. Negative teams can fiat as many policies as it takes to solve whatever problems the aff has sought to tackle. It is unreasonable to the point of stupidity to expect the aff to contrive solvency deficits: the plan would literally have to be the only idea in the history of thought capable of solving a given problem. Every additional proposal introduced in the 1nc (in order to increase the chance of solving) can only be discouraged through the potential cost of a disad being read against it. In the old days, this is why counterplan files were hundreds of pages long and had answers to a wide variety of disads. But if you can kick the plank, what incentive does the aff have to even bother researching if the CP is a good idea? If they read a 2AC add-on, the neg gets as many no-risk 2NC counterplans to add to the fray as well (of course, they can also add unrelated 2nc counterplans for fun and profit). If you think you can defend the merit of that strategy vs. a "1 condo cp / 1 condo k" interp, your creative acumen may be too advanced for interscholastic debate; consider more challenging puzzles in emerging fields, as they urgently need your input.

I don't think I'm "biased" against infinite conditionality; if you think you have the answers and technical acuity to defend infinite conditionality against the above argumentation, I'd happily vote for you.

I don't default to the status quo unless you explicitly flag it at some point during the debate (the cross-x or the 2nc is sufficient if the aff never contests it). I don't know why affs ask this question every cross-x and then never make a theory argument about it. It only hurts you, because it lets the neg get away with something they otherwise wouldn't have.

All that said, I don't have terribly strong convictions about any of these issues, and any theoretical predisposition is easily overcame by outdebating another team on the subject at hand.

6) Politics

Most theoretical objections to (and much sanctimonious indignation toward) the politics disadvantage have never made sense to me. Fiat is a convention about what it should be appropriate to assume for the sake of discussion, but there's no "logical" or "true" interpretation of what fiat descriptively means. It would be ludicrously unrealistic for basically any 1ac plan to pass immediately, with no prior discussion, in the contemporary political world. Any form of argument in which we imagine the consequences of passage is a fictive constraint on process argumentation. As a result, any normative justification for including the political process within the contours of permissible argument is a rational justification for a model of fiat that involves the politics DA (and a DA to a model of fiat that doesn't). Political salience is the reason most good ideas don't become policy, and it seems illogical for the negative to be robbed of this ground. The politics DA, then, represents the most pressing political cost caused by doing the plan in the contemporary political environment, which seems like a very reasonable for affs to have to defend against.

Obviously many politics DAs are contrived nonsense (especially during political periods during which there is no clear, top-level presidential priority). However, the reason that these DAs are bad isn't because they're theoretically illegitimate, and politics theory's blippiness and general underdevelopment further aggravate me (see the tech vs truth section).

Finally, re: intrinsicness, I don't understand why the judge should be the USFG. I typically assume the judge is just me, deciding which policy/proposal is the most desirable. I don't have control over the federal government, and no single entity does or ever will (barring that rights malthus transition). Maybe I'm missing something. If you think I am, feel free to try and be the first to show me the light...

7) Framework/Non-Traditional Affs

Despite some of the arguments I've read and coached, I'm sympathetic to the framework argument and fairness concerns. I don't think that topicality arguments are presumptively violent, and I think it's generally rather reasonable (and often strategic) to question the aff's relationship to the resolution. Although framework is probably always the best option, I would generally also enjoy seeing a well-executed substantive strategy if one's available. This is simply because I have literally judged hundreds of framework debates and it has gotten mildly repetitive, to say the least (just scroll down if you think that I'm being remotely hyperbolic). But please don't sacrifice your likelihood of winning the debate.

My voting record on framework is relatively even. In nearly every debate, I voted for the team I assessed as demonstrating superior technical debating in the final rebuttals.

I typically think winning unique offense, in the rare scenario where a team invests substantial time in poking defensive holes in the other team's standards, is difficult for both sides in a framework debate. I think affs should think more about their answers to "switch side solves your offense" and "sufficient neg engagement key to meaningfully test the aff", while neg's should generally work harder to prepare persuasive and consistent impact explanations. The argument that "debate doesn't shape subjectivity" takes out clash/education offense, for example, is a reasonable and even threatening one.

I'm typically more persuaded by affirmative teams that answer framework by saying that the skills/methods inculcated by the 1ac produce more effective/ethical interactions with institutions than by teams that argue "all institutions are bad."

Fairness is an impact, though like any impact its magnitude and meaning is subject to debate. Like any abstract value, it can be difficult explain beyond a certain point, and it can't be proven or disproven via observation or testing. In other words, it's sometimes hard to answer the question "why is fairness good?" for the same reason it's hard to answer the question "why is justice good?" Nonetheless, it's pretty easy to persuade me that I should care about fairness in a debate context, given that everyone relies on essential fairness expectations in order to participate in the activity, such as expecting that I flow and give their arguments a fair hearing rather than voting against them because I don't like their choice in clothing.

But as soon as neg teams start introducing additional standards to their framework argument that raise education concerns, they have said that the choice of framework has both fairness and education implications, and if it could change our educational experience, could the choice of framework change our social or intellectual experience in debate in other ways as well? Maybe not (I certainly think it's easy to win that an individual round's decision certainly couldn't be expected to) but if you said your FW is key to education it's easy to see how those kinds of questions come into play and now can potentially militate against fairness concerns.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the desirability of the activity: we should all ideally be self-reflexive and be able to articulate why it is we participate in the activities on which we choose to dedicate our time. Nearly everybody in the world does utterly indefensible things from time to time, and many people (billions of them, probably) make completely indefensible decisions all the time. The reason why these arguments can be unpersuasive is typically because saying that debate is bad may just link to the team saying "debate bad" because they're, you know... debating, and no credible solvency mechanism for altering the activity has been presented.

So, I am a good judge for the fairness approach. It's not without its risk: a small risk of a large-magnitude impact to the ballot (e.g. solving an instance of racism in this round) could easily outweigh. But strong defense to the ballot can make it difficult for affs to overcome.

Still, it's nice to hear a defense of debate if you choose to go that route as well. I do like FWs that emphasize the benefits of the particular fairness norms established by a topicality interpretation ("models" debates). These can be enjoyable to watch, and some debaters are very good at this approach. In the aggregate, however, this route tends to be more difficult than the 'fairness' strategy.

If you're looking for an external impact, there are two impacts to framework that I have consistently found more persuasive than others, and they're related to why I value the debate activity. First, "switch-side debate good" (forcing people to defend things they don't believe is the only vehicle for truly shattering dogmatic ideological predispositions and fostering a skeptical worldview capable of ensuring that its participants, over time, develop more ethical and effective ideas than they otherwise would). Second, "agonism" (making debaters defend stuff that the other side is prepared to attack rewards debaters for pursuing clash; running from engagement by lecturing the neg and judge on a random topic of your choosing is a cowardly flight from battle; instead, the affirmative team with a strong will to power should actively strive to beat the best, most well-prepared negative teams from the biggest schools on their terms, which in turn provides the ultimate triumph; the life-affirming worldview facilitated by this disposition is ultimately necessary for personal fulfillment, and also provides a more effective strategy with which to confront the inevitable hardships of life).

Many aff "impact turns" to topicality are often rendered incoherent when met with gentle pushback. It's difficult to say "predictability bad" if you have a model of debate that makes debate more predictable from the perspective of the affirmative team. Exclusion and judgment are inevitable structural components of any debate activity that I can conceive of: any DA excludes affs that link to it and don't have an advantage that outweighs it. The act of reading that DA can be understood as judging the debaters who proposed that aff as too dull to think of a better idea. Both teams are bound to say the other is wrong and only one can win. Many aff teams may protest that their impact turns are much more sophisticated than this, and are more specific to some element of the topicality/FW structure that wouldn't apply to other types of debate arguments. Whatever explanation you have for why that above sentence true should be emphasized throughout the debate if you want your impact turns or DA's to T to be persuasive. In other words, set up your explanation of impact turns/disads to T in a way that makes clear why they are specific to something about T and wouldn't apply to basic structural requirements of debate from the outset of the debate.

I'm a fairly good judge for the capitalism kritik against K affs. Among my most prized possessions are signed copies of Jodi Dean books that I received as a gift from my debaters. Capitalism is persuasive for two reasons, both of which can be defeated, and both of which can be applied to other kritiks. First, having solutions (even ones that seem impractical or radical) entails position-taking, with clear political objectives and blueprints, and I often find myself more persuaded by a presentation of macro-political problems when coupled with corresponding presentation of macro-political solutions. Communism, or another alternative to capitalism, frequently ends up being the only solution of that type in the room. Second, analytic salience: The materialist and class interest theories often relatively more explanatory power for oppression than any other individual factor because they entail a robust and logically consistent analysis of the incentives behind various actors committing various actions over time. I'm certainly not unwinnable for the aff in these debates, particularly if they strongly press the alt's feasibility and explain what they are able to solve in the context of the neg's turns case arguments, and I obviously will try my hardest to avoid letting any predisposition overwhelm my assessment of the debating.

8) Kritiks (vs policy affs)

I'm okay for 'old-school' kritik's (security/cap/etc), but I'm also okay for the aff. When I vote for kritiks, most of my RFD's look like one of the following:

1) The neg has won that the implementation of the plan is undesirable relative to the status quo;

2) The neg has explicitly argued (and won) that the framework of the debate should be something other than "weigh the plan vs squo/alt" and won within that framework.

If you don't do either of those things while going for a kritik, I am likely to be persuaded by traditional aff presses (case outweighs, try-or-die, perm double-bind, alt fails etc). Further, despite sympathies for and familiarity with much poststructural thought, I'm nevertheless quite easily persuaded to use utilitarian cost-benefit analysis to make difficult decisions, and I have usually found alternative methods of making decisions lacking and counter-intuitive by comparison.

Kritik alternatives typically make no sense. They often have no way to meaningfully compete with the plan, frequently because of a scale problem. Either they are comparing what one person/a small group should do to what the government should do, or what massive and sweeping international movements should do vs what a government should do. Both comparisons seem like futile exercises for reasons I hope are glaringly obvious.

There are theory arguments that affs could introduce against alternatives that exploit common design flaws in critical arguments. "Vague alts" is not really one of them (ironically because the argument itself is too vague). Some examples: "Alternatives should have texts; otherwise the alternative could shift into an unpredictable series of actions throughout the debate we can't develop reasonable responses against." "Alternatives should have actors; otherwise there is no difference between this and fiating 'everyone should be really nice to each other'." Permutations are easy to justify: the plan would have to be the best idea in the history of thought if all the neg had to do was think of something better.

Most kritik frameworks presented to respond to plan focus are not really even frameworks, but a series of vague assertions that the 2N is hoping that the judge will interpret in a way that's favorable for them (because they certainly don't know exactly what they're arguing for). Many judges continually interpret these confusing framework debates by settling on some middle-ground compromise that neither team actually presented. I prefer to choose between options that debaters actually present.

My ideal critical arguments would negate the aff. For example, against a heg aff, I could be persuaded by security K alts that advocate for a strategy of unilateral miltary withdrawal. Perhaps the permutation severs rhetoric and argumentation in the 1ac that, while not in the plan text, is both central enough to their advocacy and important enough (from a pedagogical perspective) that we should have the opportunity to focus the debate around the geopolitical position taken by the 1ac. The only implication to to a "framework" argument like this would be that, assuming the neg wins a link to something beyond the plan text, the judge should reject, on severence grounds, permutations against alts that actually make radical proposals. In the old days, this was called philosophical competition. How else could we have genuine debates about how to change society or grand strategy? There are good aff defenses of the plan focus model from a fairness and education perspective with which to respond to this, but this very much seems like a debate worth having.

All this might sound pretty harsh for neg's, but affs should be warned that I think I'm more willing than most judges to abandon policymaking paradigms based on technical debating. If the negative successfully presents and defends an alternative model of decisionmaking, I will decide the debate from within it. The ballot is clay; mold it for me and I'll do whatever you win I should.

9) Kritiks (vs K affs)

Anything goes!

Seriously, I don't have strong presuppositions about what "new debate" is supposed to look like. For the most part, I'm happy to see any strategy that's well researched or well thought-out. Try something new! Even if it doesn't work out, it may lead to something that can radically innovate debate.

Most permutation/framework debates are really asking the question: "Is the part of the aff that the neg disagreed with important enough to decide an entire debate about?" (this is true in CP competition debates too, for what it's worth). Much of the substantive debating elsewhere subsequently determines the outcome of these sub-debates far more than debaters seem to assume.

Role of the ballot/judge claims are obviously somewhat self-serving, but in debates in which they're well-explained (or repeatedly dropped), they can be useful guidelines for crafting a reasonable decision (especially when the ballot theorizes a reasonable way for both teams to win if they successfully defend core thesis positions).

Yes, I am one of those people who reads critical theory for fun, although I also read about domestic politics, theoretical and applied IR, and economics for fun. Yes, I am a huge nerd, but who's the nerd that that just read the end of a far-too-long judge philosophy in preparation for a debate tournament? Thought so.

10) Procedural Norms

Evidence ethics, card clipping, and other cheating accusations supercede the debate at hand and ask for judge intervention to protect debaters from egregious violations of shared norms. Those challenges are win/loss, yes/no referendums that end the debate. If you levy an accusation, the round will be determined based on whether or not I find in your favor. If I can't establish a violation of sufficient magnitude was more likely than not, I will immediately vote against the accusing team. If left to my own discretion, I would tend not to find the following acts egregious enough to merit a loss on cheating grounds: mis-typing the date for a card, omitting a sentence that doesn't drastically undermine the card accidentally. The following acts clearly meet the bar for cheating: clipping/cross-reading multiple cards, fabricating evidence. Everything in between is hard to predict out of context. I would err on the side of caution, and not ending the round.

'Ad hominem' attacks, ethical appeals to out-of-round behavior, and the like: I differ from some judges in that, being committed to minimal intervention, I will technically assess these. I find it almost trivially obvious that introducing these creates a perverse incentive to stockpile bad-faith accusations and turns debate into a toxic sludgefest, and would caution that these are likely not a particularly strategic approach in front of me.

11) Addendum: Random Thoughts from Random Topics

In the spirit of Bill Batterman, I thought to myself: How could I make this philosophy even longer and less useable than it already was? So instead of deleting topic-relevent material from previous years that no longer really fit into the above sections, I decided to archive all of that at the bottom of the paradigm if I still agreed with what I said. Bad takes were thrown into the memory hole.

Topicality on NATO emerging tech: Security cooperation almost certainly involves the DOD. Even if new forms of security cooperation could theoretically exclude the DOD, there's not a lot of definitional support and minimal normative justification for that interpretation. Most of the important definition debates resolve substantive issues about what DA and impact turn links are granted and what counterplans are competitive rather than creating useful T definitions. Creative use of 'substantially = in the main' or 'increase = pre-existing' could elevate completely unworkable definitions into ones that are viable at the fringes.

Topicality on Legal Personhood: Conferring rights and/or duties doesn't presumptively confer legal personhood. Don't get me wrong: with evidence and normative definition debating, it very well may, but it doesn't seem like something to be taken for granted. There is a case for "US = federal only" but it's very weak. Overall this is a very weak topic for T args.

Topicality on water: There aren't very many good limiting devices on this topic. Obviously the states CP is an excellent functional limit; "protection requires regulation" is useful as well, at least insofar as it establishes competition for counterplans that avoid regulations (e.g. incentives). Beyond that, the neg is in a rough spot.

I am more open to "US water resources include oceans" than most judges; see the compiled evidence set I released in the Michigan camp file MPAs Aff 2 (should be available via openevidence). After you read that and the sum total of all neg cards released/read thus far, the reasoning for why I believe this should be self-evident. Ironically, I don't think there are very many good oceans affs (this isn't a development topic, it's a protection topic). This further hinders the neg from persuasively going for the this T argument, but if you want to really exploit this belief, you'll find writing a strategic aff is tougher than you may imagine.

Topicality on antitrust: Was adding 'core' to this topic a mistake? I can see either side of this playing out at Northwestern: while affs that haven't thought about the variants of the 'core' or 'antitrust' pics are setting themselves up for failure, I think the aff has such an expansive range of options that they should be fine. There aren't a ton of generic T threats on this topic. There are some iterations of subsets that seem viable, if not truly threatening, and there there is a meaningful debate on whether or not the aff can fiat court action. The latter is an important question that both evidence and normative desirability will play a role in determining. Beyond that, I don't think there's much of a limit on this topic.

ESR debates on the executive powers topic: I think the best theory arguments against ESR are probably just solvency advocate arguments. Seems like a tough sell to tell the neg there’s no executive CP at all. I've heard varied definitions of “object fiat” over the years: fiating an actor that's a direct object/recipient of the plan/resolution; fiating an enduring negative action (i.e. The President should not use designated trade authority, The US should not retaliate to terrorist attacks with nukes etc); fiating an actor whose behavior is affected by a 1ac internal link chain. But none of these definitions seem particularly clear nor any of these objections particularly persuasive.

States CP on the education and health insurance topics: States-and-politics debates are not the most meaningful reflection of the topic literature, especially given that the nature of 50 state fiat distorts the arguments of most state action advocates, and they can be stale (although honestly anything that isn't a K debate will not feel stale to me these days). But I'm sympathetic to the neg on these questions, especially if they have good solvency evidence. There are a slew of policy analysts that have recommended as-uniform-as-possible state action in the wake of federal dysfunction. With a Trump administration and a Republican Congress, is the prospect of uniform state action on an education or healthcare policy really that much more unrealistic than a massive liberal policy? There are literally dozens of uniform policies that have been independently adopted by all or nearly all states. I'm open to counter-arguments, but they should all be as contextualized to the specific evidence and counter-interpretation presented by the negative as they would be in a topicality debate (the same goes for the neg in terms of answering aff theory pushes). It's hard to defend a states CP without meaningful evidentiary support against general aff predictability pushes, but if the evidence is there, it doesn't seem to unreasonable to require affs to debate it. Additionally, there does seem to be a persuasive case for the limiting condition that a "federal-key warrant" places on affirmatives.

Topicality on executive power: This topic is so strangely worded and verbose that it is difficult to win almost any topicality argument against strong affirmative answers, as powerful as the limits case may be. ESR makes being aff hard enough that I’m not sure how necessary the negative needs assistance in limiting down the scope of viable affs, but I suppose we shall see as the year moves forward. I’m certainly open to voting on topicality violations that are supported by quality evidence. “Restrictions in the area of” = all of that area (despite the fact that two of the areas have “all or nearly all” in their wordings, which would seem to imply the other three are NOT “all or nearly all”) does not seem to meet that standard.

Topicality on immigration: This is one of the best topics for neg teams trying to go for topicality in a long time... maybe since alternative energy in 2008-9. “Legal immigration” clearly means LPR – affs will have a tough time winning otherwise against competent negative teams. I can’t get over my feeling that the “Passel and Fix” / “Murphy 91” “humanitarian” violations that exclude refugee, asylums, etc, are somewhat arbitrary, but the evidence is extremely good for the negative (probably slightly better than it is for the affirmative, but it’s close), and the limits case for excluding these affs is extremely persuasive. Affs debating this argument in front of me should make their case that legal immigration includes asylum, refugees, etc by reading similarly high-quality evidence that says as much.

Topicality on arms sales: T - subs is persuasive if your argument is that "substantially" has to mean something, and the most reasonable assessment of what it should mean is the lowest contextual bound that either team can discover and use as a bulwark for guiding their preparation. If the aff can't produce a reasonably well-sourced card that says substantially = X amount of arms sales that their plan can feasibly meet, I think neg teams can win that it's more arbitrary to assume that substantially is in the topic for literally no reason than it is to assume the lowest plausible reading of what substantially could mean (especially given that every definition of substantially as a higher quantity would lead one to agree that substantially is at least as large as that lowest reading). If the aff can, however, produce this card, it will take a 2N's most stalwart defense of any one particular interpretation to push back against the most basic and intuitive accusations of arbitrariness/goalpost-shifting.

T - reduce seems conceptually fraught in almost every iteration. Every Saudi aff conditions its cessation of arms sales on the continued existence of Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi military was so inept that the Houthis suddenly not only won the war against Saleh but actually captured Saudi Arabia and annexed it as part of a new Houthi Empire, the plan would not prevent the US from selling all sorts of exciting PGMs to Saudi Arabia's new Houthi overlords. Other than hard capping the overall quantity of arms sales and saying every aff that doesn't do that isn't topical, (which incidentally is not in any plausible reading a clearly forwarded interpretation of the topic in that poorly-written Pearson chapter), it's not clear to me what the distinction is between affs that condition and affs that don't are for the purposes of T - Reduce

Topicality on CJR: T - enact is persuasive. The ev is close, but in an evenly debated and closely contested round where both sides read all of the evidence I've seen this year, I'd be worried if I were aff. The debateability case is strong for the neg, given how unlimited the topic is, but there's a case to be made that courts affs aren't so bad and that ESR/politics is a strong enough generic to counter both agents.

Other T arguments are, generally speaking, uphill battles. Unless a plan text is extremely poorly written, most "T-Criminal" arguments are likely solvency takeouts, though depending on advantage construction they may be extremely strong and relevant solvency takeouts. Most (well, all) subsets arguments, regardless of which word they define, have no real answer to "we make some new rule apply throughout the entire area, e.g. all police are prohibitied from enforcing XYZ criminal law." Admittedly, there are better and worse variations for all of these violations. For example, Title 18 is a decent way to set up "T - criminal justice excludes civil / decrim" types of interpretations, despite the fact it's surprisingly easy for affs to win they meet it. And of course, aff teams often screw these up answering bad and mediocre T args in ways that make them completely viable. But none of these would be my preferred strategy, unless of course you're deploying new cards or improved arguments at the TOC. If that's the case, nicely done! If you think your evidence is objectively better than the aff cards, and that you can win the plan clearly violates a cogent interpretation, topicality is always a reasonable option in front of me.

Topicality on space cooperation: Topicality is making a big comeback in college policy debates this year. Kiinda overdue. But also kinda surprising because the T evidence isn't that high quality relative to its outsized presence in 2NRs, but hey, we all make choices.

STM T debates have been underwhelming in my assessment. T - No ADR... well at least is a valid argument consisting of a clear interp and a clear violation. It goes downhill from there. It's by no means unwinnable, but not a great bet in an evenly matched ebate. But you can't even say that for most of the other STM interps I've seen so far. Interps that are like "STM are these 9 things" are not only silly, they frequently have no clear way of clearly excluding their hypothesized limits explosion... or the plan. And I get it - STM affs are the worst (and we're only at the tip of the iceberg for zany STM aff prolif). Because STM proposals are confusing, different advocates use the terms in wildly different ways, the proposals are all in the direction of uniqueness and are difficult to distinguish from similar policy structures presently in place, and the area lacks comprehensive neg ground outside of "screw those satellites, let em crash," STM affs producing annoying debates (which is why so many teams read STM). But find better and clearer T interps if you want to turn those complaints about topical affs into topicality arguments that exclude those affs. And I encourage you to do so quickly, as I will be the first to shamelessly steal them for my teams.

Ironically, the area of the topic that produces what seem to me the best debates (in terms of varied, high-quality, and evenly-matched argumentation) probably has the single highest-quality T angle for the neg to deploy against it. And that T angle just so happens to exclude nearly every arms control aff actually being ran. In my assessment, both the interp that "arms control = quantitative limit" and the interp that "arms control = militaries just like chilling with each other, hanging out, doing some casual TCBMs" are plausible readings of the resolution. The best aff predictability argument is clearly that arms control definitions established before the space age have some obvious difficulties remaining relevant in space. But it seems plausible that that's a reason the resolution should have been written differently, not that it should be read in an alternate way. That being said, the limits case seems weaker than usual for the neg (though not terrible) and in terms of defending an interp likely to result in high-quality debates, the aff has a better set of ground arguments at their disposal than usual.

Trump-era politics DAs: Most political capital DAs are self-evidently nonsense in the Trump era. We no longer have a president that expends or exerts political capital as described by any of the canonical sources that theorized that term. Affs should be better at laundry listing thumpers and examples that empirically prove Trump's ability to shamelessly lie about whatever the aff does or why he supports the aff and have a conservative media environment that tirelessly promotes that lie as the new truth, but it's not hard to argue this point well. Sometimes, when there's an agenda (even if that agenda is just impeachment), focus links can be persuasive. I actually like the internal agency politics DA's more than others do, because they do seem to better analyze the present political situation. Our political agenda at the national level does seem driven at least as much by personality-driven palace intrigue as anything else; if we're going to assess the political consequences of our proposed policies, that seems as good a proxy for what's likely to happen as anything else.

About me

4 years of policy debate on a national level at Wayzata High School. Graduated Wayzata 2017.

Topicality - I love creative, well thought out T arguments.

Generally default to competing interps but could be convinced otherwise. With that said, if you can prove that you are reasonably topical you can probably beat their interp.

Win your impacts and prove why they matter. Don't just rant about how the aff explodes limits or kills ground, but go another level and explain why I should care about that and value those impacts more than the other team's.

With that said, don't forget to win the violation debate - it's like winning the link to a DA.

Case lists matter, both to prove that your interp isn't overlimiting and that your opponent's interp is underlimiting.

DAs -

Make sure you do turns case/turns DA analysis. With that said, winning that your I/L turns theirs isn't end all be all. The impact is a function of the link, so make sure to win the rest of your DA to be able to access turns case.

A lot of DAs are either really generic, have really bad links or are generally incoherent. If you are aff and you see one of these disads, you do not need a lot of cards to beat them. Point out and win the logical inconsistencies within their evidence and that will win you the flow.

CPs -

Generic CPs are fine, but that means you must be prepared to answer very specific aff tailored solvency deficits. A lot of times this proves fatal for the neg.

At the same time, I am more than willing to vote on theory, but I find a lot of times the aff doesn't spend enough time on it to make it a real issue. As with any other argument, if you explain and impact it out well, I will vote on it.

Kritiks on the neg -

I was policy oriented as a debater, but that does not mean that I will not vote for Kritiks.

Don't over rely on overviews and blocks. Contextualize your arguments to the affirmative and explain what the aff does specifically that links to your generic link cards.

Don't rely on jargon and abstraction- I will likely not understand it. Explain your argument in a coherent fashion and how it specifically interacts with the case and you will be rewarded.

no plan affs - I think that there are educational and competitive benefits to defending the resolution. However, if you can prove that the topic shouldn't be defended, I could lean to your favor. I think framework is a topicality argument and nothing more. Explain why your interp is better than theirs and impact out your argument.


General things-

• Frame the round and connect arguments - explain how your best argument(s) interacts with everything else on the flow and explain why you should win because of it. Don't miss the forest for the trees.
• Cross-x matters. That said, it must make it into the speech to count as an argument
• IMPACT out your arguments, and also make sure to explain why your I/L's/impacts turn or access theirs
• Don't rely too much on cards, more on explanation. I will generally only look at cards if you flag them out to me in the round.
• Be nice. Rudeness in cross-x will not be tolerated

I was a policy debater in high school (Glenbrook North) and college (Georgetown) in the 1980s, which means I debated in an era where debaters didn't get to pick judges who they knew agreed with their arguments before the round started.

I have been on the Board of Directors of the National Association of Urban Debate Leagues for the last decade and I have been actively coaching and judging these past four seasons.

I'm a strict tabula rasa judge. Yes, I have my own viewpoints, but I leave them in the hallway and I have voted for and against every type of argument. I'm fine with well-articulated speed. Take CX and the obligation to be polite seriously, because not doing so will affect your points, but please make sure to have fun. Also, please include me on the email chain and include analytics.

Stratford/Harvard

Short version:

1. Defend a plan: If you don't read a (topical) plan, please don't pref me; neither of us will enjoy the experience. If you read, but don't meaningfully defend, a topical plan, you probably still shouldn't pref me, but it'll at least be a bit less painful.
2. Don't be mean: If you are mean, obnoxious and/or rude to the other team (or to me, although that actually bothers me less), your speaker points and credibility will suffer dramatically. I would feel fine giving under a 25 for egregious violators.
3. Be specific: As nearly all judges do, I appreciate specificity. However, other than the above issues, as long as your arguments aren't blatantly idiotic/generic (ex: A-spec, Should = Past of Shall), you probably don't need to worry very much about adapting to me, but please below for more details.

Detailed version:
Topicality: I find that well-developed topicality arguments can be interesting and persuasive, perhaps more so than other judges. I tend to evaluate these in terms of competing interpretations, but can be convinced to use an alternative framework if it is well explained. Generally my primary concern with 'reasonability' is that the Aff does a very poor job of explaining what effects that has upon how I should resolve the debate. However, my openness to more developed violations sort of cuts both ways, because it means that I will likely be less patient with blippy violations (a 20 second 'substantial' violation, should=past tense of shall, etc). Also, I usually find it impressive if either team can produce evidence describing the likely political effects of a particular interpretation of words in the resolution.

Other arguments about plan texts: These generally seem very silly to me. Assuming a plan is topical, I don't think it is possible for it to be 'abusive' in any other sense. Questions of specification/vagueness, plan flaws, etc should either be framed as T questions, solvency/evidenciary questions, or ignored. If a team's plan text is vague and you want to establish a link to a DA, you should A) ask them in CX and/or B) read evidence describing the likely effects of the plan. If an aff is unwilling to answer CX questions about their plan, I think that's fine, but they then forfeit the right to clarify later (except, of course, by reading evidence which I will then compare to Neg evidence). As a side-note, I do not think A-spec is a T question, and can't imagine finding it persuasive.

DAs: I think predictive uniqueness questions can never be established with certainty, and therefore prefer to first resolve the direction of the link. However, if told to do otherwise, I would be perfectly willing to ignore this. I think DAs should probably be intrinsic.

CPs: I err neg on all theory issues except those listed specifically below. That doesn't mean I am unwilling to reject a CP on PICs bad, only that my predisposition is not to do so. I also think theory is almost always a reason to reject the argument, but not the team (conditionality/dispositionality being an exception).
Consult: I generally think these are illegitimate and non-competitive, but if a Neg has very, very good solvency evidence about the plan, they will substantially improve their chances on both of these issues. Note that I have a very high threshold for what constitutes "very very good solvency evidence" in this context.
Conditions: This is similar to consult, except the literature is usually better, so I am more willing to vote for these.
Agent CPs: I am mostly thinking here of international/multiple actor fiat, but domestic agent CPs raise less extreme versions of the same theoretical questions. I generally think these are legitimate, but am not sure that they necessarily test the opportunity cost of a particular political actor. Therefore, although most of the reasons that these CPs are illegitimate make little sense to me, a well developed argument about their failure to test opportunity cost could definitely persuade me to reject them.
Normal means CPs: I don't think that these are competitive, unless the Aff makes stupid mistakes in CX. Reading cards about the way the plan would be implemented absent the CPs fiated action does not mean that a world where the permutation explicitly alters it would look the same.

Kritiks: Here are the issues you should be aware of:
1) Framework: I begin with the assumption that the role of the ballot is to choose among simulated policy options. Therefore, the plan is the affirmative's normative statement of what should be changed, and the rest of the 1AC is a series of positive truth claims describing a world in which that occurs. I tend to think that evidence describing the relationship between representations and reality, etc is smart, but inapplicable to debate, because it is a game of sophistry with no necessary correspondence between what a speaker says and what they believe. I also find that the frequent "compromise" (we get our aff and they get their reps K) is logically incoherent as a framework , but am willing to use it if told to do so by the debaters.

2) Alternative: My primary concern here is that these are often so poorly explained (how they function, how they relate to the role of the ballot, etc) that I find them difficult to vote for. You should spend pre-round (and in-round) prep thinking about how to best articulate your alt and how it interacts with your links, their perm(s), and their advantage(s). It's not as much that I think vagueness is a 'theory issue' as much as that I am uncomfortable endorsing a political strategy that is extremely nebulous.

3) Literature: I know significantly more about some authors (ex: Foucault, Cap, Nietzsche, some queer theory, some CRT stuff, most IR K's, Heidegger, Schmitt) than others (ex:  Baudrillard, Deleuze, Badiou, Butler) so that will inevitably affect my ability to resolve some of those debates. Note that I also think Lacan, Chaloupka, most of Zizek's work, and all the other psychoanalysis stuff is basically garbage. Also, I find specific literature dramatically more interesting, persuasive and educational than generic evidence.

Judge Philosophy

Conflicts: UGA, Emory University, and North Broward

Email: Brianklarmandebate@gmail.com - Yes, put me on the thread. No, I won't open all of the docs during the round and will likely ask for a doc of cards I find relevant at the end.

2024 Updates:

I am not a fully time debate coach. I am working with the UGA & North Broward debate teams part time.

I am someone who believes tech > truth. However, I do not look at cards during debates, so if your arguments are not clear by explanation/flowable tags/very clearly read card text, they are not "tech" that is on my flow. My favorite debates involve strategy (think: creative "cross applications," argument that are "good because the other teams can't read their best answers," etc). I enjoy a good theory debate (conditionality, solvency advocate, perms, politics theory arguments, etc.) and I would prefer that debates have some depth by the end of the negative block.

College - Assume I know things about the topic, but have not cut cards on it in the past year. I have had conversations with debaters/coaches and am very familiar with nuclear strategy. My knowledge of the college topic extends to knowing: assurance, deterrence, IR Ks, military process CPs*, and anything that would have been read on the past college exec power/military presence/alliance topics. I have written many iterations of both ICBMs and NFU affs & negs.

*If you are going for a T argument or process CP, keep in mind that I could not tell you the wording of the resolution off of the top of my head, so any arguments related to grammatical construction of the resolution might require you explaining with another sentence or going a bit slower. I am under the impression that the topic is pretty small and the negative ground is pretty good, so make sure to impact your limits (or "functional limits")/ground arguments

High School - I have had very little interaction with the current topic. I cut a number of cards on UBI in the past, but I know very little about the other parts of the topic. I did not teach at a debate camp. I have judged a handful of rounds and they were almost all on capitalism or race Ks. I am under the impression that the "core" negative arguments are some combination of States, Politics, "Redistribution" PICs, and Ks about the economy; I assume that the "core" affirmative arguments are all related to the economy and inequality.

2021 Post-NDT Updates:

(1) "X Outweighs Y" - If the 2NR/2AR does not start with some version of this (or include this elsewhere), I will almost certainly vote the other way. I don't super care how you say it, but if you are unwilling to say that the impact you will win is more important than the impact the other team will win, things aren't going well.

(2) T & Theory - I seem to like them more than everyone else I judge with. Go for conditionality bad! I don't necessarily think it is true but never seem to hear 2NC or 2NR blocks that have great offense or impact calc. After judging on a slew of panels, I realize that I am more likely to be into technical theory & T arguments then others. I also tend to expect complete arguments in the 1NC/2AC/2NC (theory needs warrants, T needs the necessary defense and offense).

(3) Tech > Truth - I feel like I have said this a number of times, but I realized that I think this more than others (or at least more than people that I judge with). A "bad" disad has high risk until/unless answers are made. This also has made me amenable to voting on some not great disads vs. planless affs just on the basis of 2ACs lacking necessary defense.

(4) T vs. Planless affs - I have found that I tend to vote affirmative when something is conceded or answered completely incorrectly. I tend to vote negative when the negative goes for a limits/fairness impact and responds to every argument on the line by line. I tend to find myself confused about the relevance of all arguments that the content of the resolution is either good or bad. I feel like I find my voting record to be like 50/50, but I haven't done the math.

(5) Decision making process - I tend to read less cards then others who I judge with. Not because I am against reading cards, but because I only read evidence to resolve questions in a debate. If you want me to read cards (which you likely do), make them relevant.

(6) Points - At the NDT, my points were about .1-.2 below everyone else on every panel. I plan on upping my points by .1-.2. That said, I don't give great points.

2020-2021 Updates - Online Judging: Judging online is difficult - a few implications:

(1) Ask if I am in the room / paying attention before you start speaking. Non-negotiable. "Brian, are you ready?" or "Klarman, are you here?" or anything that requires me to respond. I will give you a thumbs up or say yes (or I am not in the room and you shouldn't start).

(2) Clarity matters more - I don't usually follow along in the doc and I am unlikely to read cards from both teams if one team is significantly clearer. On a related note, organization and numbering can help a lot with clarity because it tells me what arguments to expect.

(3) Technology skills matter - Emails should be sent out on time. If you are taking "no prep" for the 2AC, 1NR, etc. I assume that means the doc is sent and we are ready to go. I get that tech issues happen, but unnecessary tech time hurts decision time and makes concentration harder.

(4) Interesting arguments help keep attention and boosts points - I am really trying to flow and get everything down. I flow CX. I line up arguments. I am more aggressive than most about the flow. That being said, staring at the computer for the 3rd or 4th round of the day is very difficult. I will do my best. I find flowing very important because it lets the debaters do the debating instead of me deciding what I like. That said, online it is taking me a little more energy to focus. I've found when I hear arguments that I either haven't judged before, things I haven't blocked out, or even a new explanation, I tend to think the debate is more interesting which helps points & engagement. I really do love debate, so if you are excited, I will be too. On the other side, if this is the 9th time i am hearing the same school read the same block (and this could be Politics, T, Fairness bad, Deterrence or a K) with no emphasis at the same tournament, its hard to focus.

(5) Internet issues - they happen, I get it. They might happen to you, they might happen to me. I've heard best practice is to have some backup of yourself speaking in case this occurs. If the tournament has rules, follow those. Otherwise I will likely just ask tab what to do if this happens. I'm open to other ideas of how to deal with it. Please please please have one (or all) debaters look to make sure the judge hasn't gotten booted from the room.

2020-2021 Updates - Other:

(1) Points - I think my points average around 28.5. I usually don't go under 28 unless something has gone wrong. If you get a 29.3 or 29.4 that is very good. I'm willing to go above that, but mostly when I hear something and am like "wow, that was memorable. I am going to try to tell people who I coach/teach in lab/judge to do things like this in the future."

(2) I often decide debates by (1) determining what I need to decide (2) looking through my flow for if it is resolved and then (3) reading cards if necessary. I'm unlikely to read a card (for the decision) to figure out something that the debaters never made clear. That said, I am happy to talk about some card or look through your evidence to give advice after the debate if you want - I tend to think debate is collaborative and we should all make each other better.

(3) I miss theory debates - this is the thing I have thought the most about, this is how I debated, and I just think its fun. I don't like "pointless" theory, but if you can convince me that something is the debate in the literature and predictable - from process CPs to T arguments to even spec arguments - I'm happy to hear it. That said, if you make your theory argument intentionally blippy ("ASPEC, they didnt, its a voter") I won't care.

I also left my old paradigm up here, but I think it mostly says: I did more "DA/CP/T" stuff than "K" stuff, I am familiar with "K" literature about race/gender/biopower/cultural studies, I like specific strategies, good case debating always impresses me, and I am very particular about the flow.

Old Stuff:

Preferences: I don't really care about what argument you make. I tend to think bad arguments will lose. The debate things I think about the most are counterplans and topicality arguments. That being said, I cut everything and coach everything. I feel like I mostly judge K debates where no one agrees about anything at this point. In those, I generally am familiar with that set of arguments (I am completing my MA in cultural studies, focusing on questions of race & gender) but not how to fit them into a debate. I tend to be very comfortable with how DAs, CPs, T arguments, and case fit into debate, but I tend to do weird research so I might not know what all the technical stuff of the CP is. That also means that the purpose of a K argument (or answer to the purpose) might require more explanation than the purpose of another argument. The things I think you actually need to know about me are below. I tried to lay out what I do in most debates while they are happening and afterwords and be as honest as possible.

Flowing: I will try to flow every argument in the debate. I expect that debaters will be doing the same thing. I could not possibly care less what the speech doc says or if you are "skipping a card" in the doc (that being said, I would like to be on the chain because I like glancing at cards after debates & trying to learn more about the topic/have informed discussions after the debates; also if you are doing some super annoying thing in the doc just to mess with the other team, I will likely be upset at you when I realize that in the post round/give points). When I flow speeches that set up argument structure (1nc on case, 2ac on off case), I will attempt to number the speech and will give higher speaker points to 1ns and 2as who set up that structure themselves (as well as be able to better understand their arguments; the 1nc that makes 4 analytics in a row without numbering is basically unflowable which means when the 2ac drops something I won't care). In subsequent speeches, I will go by the order of those numbers and will attempt to find what you are answering before I flow what you say. This means that if the 2nc starts on 2ac 4, I will mostly likely miss the first few arguments trying to figure out where to flow it (unless they say "2ac 4 - X - here's our answer" which would just be easily flowable but I might be confused about why the 2nc started on 2ac 4). If the 2nc starts on 2ac 1, I will not have an issue flowing. If the negative block (or 1ar) decides that the order is irrelevant, I am likely to be very grumpy; it is hard to vote on technical concessions or other things if the flow gets ruined and it makes it hard to tell a 1ar "you dropped X" when the block does not answer 2ac arguments. In addition to initial numbering, I will be able to better understand later speeches if you give me some idea (probably by number or argument) where the thing you are extending is on my flow. If you would like to only extend an impact turn or thumper or some no internal link argument in the 1ar that is 2ac 9 on my flow but don't tell me that you are starting at 2ac 9, it is going to take me a minute to find it on my flow. If, however, the 1ar goes to a flow and says "2ac 9 - they dropped X - here's what it is and why it matters" I will be able to immediately find it on my flow (it is easier to find numbers than exact arguments on a flow).

CX: I love CX. It is maybe my favorite "speech." I often try to flow it or take some notes at the least. That means you should pick words carefully in CX. I will especially try to write down anything about the advocacy and frameworks for evaluating debates (meaning metrics for thinking about things, which is not always how debate uses the word). CX can be fun even when teams get heated, but when CX is just people yelling at people and it is clear that people are more upset than enjoying things, I tend to lose interest. I like when people answering questions are honest, explain things, etc. I sometimes have the docs open and if we are having a fight about some card, I will look at it. I am not yet entirely comfortable with this, but if I miss the answer to a question, I may re-ask for the answer after the timer (I will do this with things like status or clarification, I don't think I will with other things yet but I might). I am also not comfortable interrupting CX to say things, but if someone is intentionally saying something that isn't true to answer clarification questions or refusing to answer clarification questions I may do so. If I make any definitive judgement about these things, I will try to update my philosophy again.

Look at me: I do not have a good poker face. I'd recommend looking for expression or other gestures. When I cannot flow people, I tend to look very confused. Same when an argument is bad. When I think an argument has already been explained and/or you are saying things that aren't arguments, I tend to sit there with my pen on my paper waiting for you to say something that needs to be flowed.

How I make a decision: At the end of the debate, I try to figure out what arguments are going to decide the debate (there tend to be 1-3), parse those out, and figure out what happens from there. It is generally better if debaters tell me what those things will be either on the line by line or in an overview (this is the only reason I could really imagine having an overview unless it is to explain some super complicated thing). I tend to think the best speeches are the ones that both identify these key points, explain why they win and then what happens if they win those key things. If there is no discussion of key points (either implicit or explicit), it is highly possible that I will try to find a few points that are key and then explain my decision from there (I determined this argument was probably the most important, here's how I evaluated it, here's why it deals with lots of other stuff). Any decision like that just makes me grumpy, especially because it always ends with the judge CX forever about why I decided this way and my answer tends to be "I didn't know how else to decide"

Speaker points: I'm going to be honest, I don't know if I understand this entire speaker point thing. I think my points might be a bit low. I don't plan on just raising them; if you need higher points I get that I might not be the judge for you. At the moment, I don't think that raising points just to raise them is a great idea because it eliminates a lot of range and variation in points that I think signal improvement for debaters and help communicate about the debate. I might revisit this later on if people want. I don't really know what an "average" speech looks like. If I had to try and articulate some made-up scale, it would probably look something like this: if the speech you gave was the best it could have been and/or basically won you the debate, its in the 29.3+ space. If the speech kept things going and helped a bit but not as much as it could, its in the 28.7+ range. If the speech was fine but didn't have much value value, I tend to think its in the 28.2+ range. If the speech wasn't good and didn't help much, it in the 27.5+ area. If the speech is bad, we are in the like 27 or even 26.8+ range. I don't think I've given many points lower than 27 and if I did, something must have gone very wrong. I tend to find most speeches between that 28-29 range. I think I average in the low 28s but I don't really know or care. Only a few speeches have just crushed the debate for me. I tend to have a lot of issue judging debates when I feel that all the speeches were about 28.2s or something and I have to give people different points. I think my default is to make the thing I think the top end or top middle (so if it was 28.2, maybe i'd give 28.3-28 to everyone). That being said, I think I am more willing to use high range in points based on speeches. I am also happy to add points for well used CX, good numbering, clarity of cards and highlighting (like if I can understand all the warrants in the evidence while you are reading), partners who work well together and make each other look good (I think basically every bold move in debate could be characterized by the 2nr/2ar as a big mistake or a big efficiency gain; if you can convince me that the 1ar under-covering the DA was to trick them to go for it, I will likely think the 1ar choice was smart and hence deserves better points, same with other speeches), etc. If people have a better way of doing speaker points, I am happy to talk about it.

Do not: Clip cards, lie, use something out of context, or do anything else unethical. These will result in loss of speaker points or loss of rounds.

I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging. Explain yourself and your arguments clearly for best results.

Lexington '17

University of Vermont '21

Email: sanjnakrishnan@gmail.com

I debated policy for three years in high school, so I can understand spreading fine in terms of speed-just make sure you're not unintelligible. i will yell clear twice, and after that, if I cannot flow, it's on you.

Whether you're traditional or kritikal, I need impact calculus and round framing, especially within the last two rebuttals. If you can do all this, and do line-by-line, then i'll be extremely pleased and definitely give high speaks.

I do read a lot of kritikal literature but that by no means is to say that 1) I won't vote on policy teams, because I have run a policy aff before and I do understand policy arguments and 2) that you should assume I'm comfortable voting on the k when you haven't explained it. Whatever you run, you need to tell me the story, if it's an offcase, you need to do link analysis as well as any alt/cp explanation

especially for teams that tend to lean on the kritikal side: whether you're aff or neg, I need a clear understanding of how your argument works. you defaulting to jargon isn't going to win you the debate, but you showing that you understand what you're talking about can.

I'm a pretty laidback person, but if y'all make ethical violations (i.e. arguments like racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia etc. good/okay) then it will be an auto-vote down. there is a clear distinction between saying your impact outweighs, versus saying these structural issues are okay/good. also please don't be rude to the people in the round, it just makes the debate very very very unpleasant and makes for a displeasing round.

For e-mail chains and questions/concerns: lianne.lk@gmail.com

Arguments:

I don't really prefer certain types of arguments. I would like to see you run whatever you think you can argue best. That being said, I do prefer clear, substantive debate with good clash. Listen to your opponents and make sure you are actually responding to what they run. I am most interested in judging debates where the two teams are actually listening and responding to each other. Keep it organized. FLOW and respond to arguments based on your flow.

Kritiks: If you are running a complicated K at full speed that is heavy on rhetoric and clearly meant to confuse rather than educate, I am not the right judge for you. I am not impressed by use of buzzwords and highly complicated literature that you refuse to help your opponents understand during cross-ex. This seems to be trending more and more prevalent in policy debate and it is a real turn-off for me. If you are reading in any complex critical argument, you need to slow down during speeches and work to clarify the complex argument in cross-ex when opponents are asking you clear questions.

Topicality: If the affirmative is reasonably topical (as in not a K-aff), and responds to T efficiently in the 2AC with we meet and/or counter-definition/interp, etc... then you should assume that I will not be voting on T. I will favor reasonability in cases like this, and don't particularly enjoy judging rounds arguing rules and technicalities through to rebuttals if we can avoid it. So, my advice to neg would be: if your opponents adequately respond to T in the 2AC, you should kick the argument by the 2NR.

General Note: Ultimately, I judge the round based on the evidence and analysis explicitly provided by both teams. I will not make arguments for teams under any circumstance. If the aff says the sky is purple, the sky is purple on my flow until the neg states otherwise. You should also explicitly tell me why you win the round in your rebuttals. The only time I would make an exception in my "tabula rasa" approach to judging is if something stated is blatantly offensive and/or discriminatory. This is as a means to ensure student safety and equity within the round.

Flashing Evidence/E-mail Chains/Sharing Speech Docs:

This is probably sounding outdated in the world of post 2020 debate, but I'm leaving it in for now just in case: Your prep time stops only when you pull out your flash drive to hand to the other team. Saving, attaching, compiling, etc. is all part of your prep.

Now for the more technologically relevant: In the same spirit as above, for e-mail chains and/or drive sharing, prep time stops when you press send on and email or press share on a google/cloud document. I would suggest asking for your opponents email addresses prior to the start of the debate round so that doing so does not take time out of your prep. I really do not want to be the judge in a round holding up a tournament, and unfortunately it seems like this is the only way I can hold everyone accountable without everyone stealing prep left and right.

This should also go without saying, but the expectation is that you are prepared to and have planned for sharing speech docs in some way with your opponents. If you have no way of doing so, I will request that someone in your partnership allow the other team to use your laptop to view the speech. As a last resort, I will instruct the opposing team to stand and read over your shoulder during your speech so that they can flow appropriately. These are, to reiterate, last resorts. The ethical move for the sake of education in the round is to make sure you have a way to share documents: via email, google docs, dropbox, flash drive, etc.

General Conduct/Protocol/Speaker Points:

Open cross is fine. Make sure questions and answers remain a team effort though, for the sake of your speaks.

High speaks go to debaters that stay organized, keep to their road-maps, and clearly signpost.

Err on the slow side with me. I am super unimpressed by debaters that spread unintelligibility. State your taglines and authors slowly with extra clarity to be sure that they end up on my flow; If I can't understand you, I can't write down what you are saying, and your argument is moot. Spread only if you truly know you can be understood when you do so (that should go without saying, but based on rounds I've had to sit through, I guess it needs to be noted explicitly). Rule of thumb: if I am not typing while you're speaking, take that as your clue that nothing you are saying is going on my flow.

Treat your fellow debaters with the utmost respect, especially during cross ex. I understand that debate can be stressful, but stress is never an excuse to be rude or nasty. There is no simply need for it. Unnecessary hostility in cross-ex is a major issue for me. Chill out and try learning from each other. If you are rude or unnecessarily hostile to either your opponents OR your partner, your speaks will negatively reflect that.

The use of any derogatory/discriminatory terms, including sexist, homophobic, and/or racial slurs when referencing an opponent or judge will result in my stopping mid-round to call out the unacceptable language. Speaker points will negatively reflect the use of such language. Repeated use of slurs/name-calling will result in my ending the round with an automatic win for the opposing team.

I don't love the use of profanity for profanity's sake-- Meaning, if you can make your argument without the use of profanity, I would prefer that. If you are using profanity, your words should be chosen for a reason, and the reason should not be shock value - make smart choices here.

My personal background:

- I have been involved in policy debate in some capacity as either a college debater, judge, or high school coach since 2010.
- I am a high school teacher. (Courses taught: AP Macroeconomics, Economics, Law & Equity, Criminal Justice, Intro to Debate, Advanced Debate, US History & Social Justice).
- My academic interests mainly lie in economic theory. I believe strongly that economic impacts ARE social impacts and existential impacts.

Final Thoughts:

I congratulate you on choosing to participate in one of the most difficult, yet rewarding, activities that high school/college has to offer. I encourage you to use debate as a true learning and growing experience. If you allow for it, debate can make you a critical reader, a faster thinker, a better writer, a more confident speaker, a more prepared activist, an in-tune empath, a team player, a humble winner, a gracious loser, and ultimately a better overall citizen of this world. I wish you the very best of luck, and encourage you to use what you learn in debate to create more good in the world, starting as soon as you possibly can... perhaps even right now.

put me on the email chain: mikekurtenbach@gmail.com

coach @ Brophy College Prep.

experience: 10+ years

tldr: i have minimal predispositions - all of the following are my preferences, but good debating will always change my mind. i arbitrate debates purely based off the flow - i don’t read evidence unless 1) i was told to in reference to an argument or 2) the debate is incredibly close and evidence quality is the tiebreaker.

topicality: it’s okay. i think limits are the controlling standard. reasonability is probably a non-starter unless it’s dropped.

framework/k affs: let me start off by saying i would prefer if the affirmative defends something contestable. affirmative teams should not rely on “thesis-level claims” and should engage the line by line, mostly consisting of defense and impact turns. as long as the negative wins that debate in and of itself is good (which shouldn’t be hard), fairness is a legitimate impact. i think decision-making is silly. negative teams shouldn’t be afraid to go for presumption. same goes for performance affs. i don’t think a poem necessarily solves unless tied to tangible advocacy; convince me otherwise. *on the education topic, i’m especially persuaded by the tva*

kritik: it’s okay, but i’d prefer a more technical line-by-line execution by the neg over three minute long overviews that are repeated on every single argument. that being said, i think the ideal 2nc for most k’s should focus less on reading new evidence and more on contextualized analysis to the substance of 1ac. i think most k debates are lost due to lack of explanation or contextualization of the link or alternative. blippy extensions won’t do it for me, unless you can explain your advocacy in tangible terms. i will probably default to letting the aff weigh its impacts, unless you convince me otherwise. affirmatives, this is probably where you should invest the most time. losing 2ar’s either miss offense embedded on the link debate, lose the framework, or let them get away with absurd broad generalizations (or drop a pik). winning 2ar’s buckle down on case outweighs, mutual exclusivity, or well-analyzed impact turns.

da: love them. politics is my favorite argument. case-specific da’s are the best. aff don’t drop turns case. in the absence of a counterplan, impact calc/framing is incredibly important for my ballot and should be introduced earlier rather than later. in the presence of a counterplan, negs should weigh the da to the risk of a solvency deficit. specific internal links always beat general framing pre-empts.

cp: also love ‘em. pics are my second favorite argument. condo is probably good to an extent. decide what that extent is for me. i enjoy watching a well-executed process counterplan so long as you know how to defend it theoretically. unless told otherwise, i default to judge-kick.

case: please bring this back - it’s a lost art. highly encourage re-hilightings of their evidence, specific advantage frontlines, etc. i love impact turn debates. if an aff can’t defend why economic decline is bad, why should it win?

cross ex: i appreciate when you can answer every question straight-up in cross ex, instead of dodging them. cross-ex is a great time to build ethos. i think one of the greatest mistakes i see debaters make round after round is not carrying concessions in cross-ex into their speeches. cross-ex is binding.

About Me:

2nd year debater at Harvard (2017-), Denverlake Independent, Interlake

Please add me to the email chain: cayla1202@gmail.com

Big Thoughts:

- I will give you my very best! I care about what you have to say.

- Absolutely no tolerance for bullshit—be a decent person please.

- Judge instruction and impact calculus is key!

- Every argument should be impacted.

- Tech over truth.

- Clarity over speed.

- I flow CX.

- I try to read cards, but explanation/impacting affects the degree to which I evaluate them.

Smaller Thoughts:

- T/Fwk vs. K affs

These are the debates I am most familiar with. I am more convinced by education/advocacy skill claims that are impacted by discussions centered around institutional engagement, solvency arguments specific to the aff, and theorizations on what debate is and how it operates as opposed to in-round pedagogical skills or abstract fairness arguments. TVAs don’t have to solve the aff, just preserve some of the discussions that the aff thinks are important--I think aff-specific disads to the TVA proves neg ground.

Aff—please focus on a few, well-warranted disads rather than a lot of unsubstantiated claims. Offense>defense always. I will hold you to the same threshold for counter-interp explanation or explanations of why the addition of the aff is important.

- Kritiks

They’re great and the types of arguments I tend to read, but I think there is a higher threshold for explanation and framing. I have a limited knowledge base of kritiks, and therefore the links and theories need to be explained to me. I’m highly skeptical that K’s should not be allowed, but this is debatable (as are most things). I think the alt provides and opportunity for creativity, and I would appreciate a strong explanation of what my ballot does in the context of the alt.

- Theory

These are the debates I am most unfamiliar with. However, I will be convinced if this is well-debated. I’ll need you to explain the impacts and contextualize them to the round—point out specific examples from the debate and clearly articulate how that sets a bad precedent.

- T vs. Policy Affs

Please substantiate your counter/interpretation with explanations of case lists, neg generics etc.

- Disads

I like them! Please have a clear explanation of the internal links and impacts. Impact comparison and perhaps impact framing if it’s a Nuclear War vs. Structural Violence debate becomes even more important.

- Counterplans

Please explain the mechanisms of the CP thoroughly. This will clarify the links to the net benefit a lot more.

Name: Joshua Lee

Last updated/proofread: January 4, 2024.

Background: Currently an attorney with little involvement in the debate community minus the occasional judging. Aside from my prior experience debating the nuclear weapons topic in 2009-2010 as a college freshman, I am completely new to this year's resolution. Before that, the last major judging occurred in the 2023 NDT (and the Navy and Texas tournaments that same season which allowed me to become eligible). Way back, I debated 3 years in high school (Chattahoochee, GA, 2006-2009), and 4 years in college (Dartmouth, 2009-2013) - those 7 years were the only times I was "majorly" involved in debate.

Contact information: joshua.lee.debate@gmail.com (yes email chain, but I will not be following your speech document).

Major procedural issues (less applicable when in a panel except for 1.c and 1.d):

1. I am a strict enforcer of prep and speech time, both for tournament management reasons and competitive integrity reasons.

a. Prep time ends when you "send" the speech document. Of course, if there are delays in receipt of the document, that is "outside your control" so no prep time is docked - but to the extent that your computer is having issues, that is where I draw the line. The presumption is: once prep time ends, you should be ready to speak.

b. No one should be prepping when it is not prep time (that includes when the prep time clock is not running due to technology issues). If I notice it, I will publicly call you out on it.

c. Towards the end of your speech time, I will be extra diligent to mark the last words you uttered before the timer goes off. That "mark" will be what I put down on my flow both for evidence-reading purposes and for argument determination purposes. As one illustration, if your last analytic ends up being an incoherent sentence because speech time cut you off, I will not evaluate that argument; you failed to make one. That "mark" is not negotiable, but oftentimes I publicly announce the last word I flowed so that everyone is aware.

d. Answers to questions asked during prep time are not binding. Sure, you can still ask them for ethos purposes, but you prioritized your cross-examination questions in a certain order and must own the consequences to your strategic choice.

2. For novice debates only, for pedagogical reasons I do not allow tag team cross-examination. Only the speakers subject to cross-examination must ask and answer questions. This ensures that there is a strategic disincentive for one speaker to commandeer/hoard the entire team, and the hope is that in turn everyone is able to actually understand what they just argued during their speech time.

Online debates: I judged 2 online debates in 2023 and that is the full extent of my online judging experience. And to the extent it matters, I flow on my laptop; I imagine that setup could present unexpected technology issues.

Key takeaways (in order of greatest importance to lowest):

1. My pen-time is slow. Even when you are super-clear, there are many occasions when I just can't follow your speed. Go fast at your own risk.

2. I avoid reading evidence after the round, and the interpretation of the evidence ("spin") will matter more to me. At the same time, please call out bad evidence. I hold a tougher standard on what counts as acceptable evidence. If you were to submit a manuscript so that it can get published in Nature, Signs, Foreign Policy, or the Quarterly Journal of Economics, would you really want that manuscript to cite a masters thesis or a blog post?

3. Run what you want. I mean it. I don't mind theory cheapshots (ex: intrinsicness) and cheesy impact turns (ex: wipeout) because I still find them refreshing. I also love hot takes that are only acceptable in policy debate (ex: rocks are people, economic collapse good, death good, etc.). No argument will offend me. If a team cannot defend that patriarchy or racism is bad - even after what I have already discussed in #1 and #2 - that team deserves to lose.

4. My self-reflective understanding of how I judge is as follows. After each speech, I think of what that team did well/poorly, and internally think of "checklists" of what the other team (1) could do to capitalize on such performance, or (2) must address in order to avoid jeopardizing their position. The more each speech resembles #1 and resolves #2, the better chance they have winning. I believe this "checklist" model (unintentionally) creates three implications which I am aware of.

a. First, ethos ends up mattering a lot. The more it looks like you know what you are talking about (especially during cross-examination and rebuttals), the likelier I will frame and decide the debate in your favor.

b. Second, unlike some judges who might first line up the "nexus issues," resolve each of them, then decide a winner based on each sub-resolutions, my decision might start backwards. I first identify the team most likely winning based on my impression, create an RFD that addresses each of the nexus issues in the tentative winner's favor, and overturn that initial identification only if the resolution on any of the nexus issues makes my tentative RFD indefensible.

c. Such flips do happen, but I would say it's less than 50% odds. This is because now I see if the new RFD is defensible to withstand all the nexus issues in the round. And if you were already losing the first impression, chances are you were behind at least some of the nexus issues to begin with.

d. Third, low-point wins are possible. This is most likely going to happen when a team (or both) does one (match positive checklists) but not the other (fail to answer negative checklists). For example, it is entirely conceivable that one team was more persuasive-sounding and had a better handling of the round, but was not technical enough that a failure to address one core issue, when treated to its implication (because it was conceded), unravels the team's entire position under the hypothetical world(s) constructed by the "flow." Note that such technical drop does not necessarily have to be "nexus issues" because it is not something that each team focused heavily on in their rebuttals.

5. I don't hide my emotions well during rounds. If I'm frowning, it most likely means I don't understand your argument, or something is wrong. Conversely, if I'm smiling and heavily nodding, it most likely means I appreciate what is happening.

6. People more involved in the community have provided statistical data points on speaker points, so my scale attempts to match that distribution, with some personal quirks further discussed below. But if the below distribution still is outside of community norms, I apologize in advance. Expectations are adjusted depending on the division (novice/JV) as well, so a novice could receive a 29.9 or even a 30.

a. 30 could be given out, and if so this establishes it is the best speaker I have ever seen in my life so far.

b. 29.5 to 29.9 means top 10 speaker in that tournament, and 29.7+ will be top speaker territory. 29.9 means it is the best speaker of that season I have encountered so far.

c. 29.1 to 29.4 means contender for elimination rounds.

d. 28.7 is the median debater, the ones ending up 3-5s (28.6) and 4-4s (28.7).

e. 28.0 to 28.4 will generally be the floor for debaters that were inadequate but not rude or unprofessional.

f. Rude or unprofessional speeches could go lower than 28.0. However, claims in debate rounds asserting that a particular team should get certain speaker points (including commonly asserted grounds such as gendered language, ableism, etc.) will not be factored into my point calculation; speech conduct is assessed independently based on my observation of the debate round, partitioned from what is on the "flow."

7. Additional biography to the extent any of them might be hints at certain forms of implicit bias:

a. I was mostly a 2A/1N.

b. In high school, I was more policy focused (think hegemony impacts and politics DA). In college, I was more middle of the road - occasionally reading K-friendly affs and impact-turning T, against K affs frequently considering a case-specific strategy instead of T, but many times still reading policy affs with warming or IR-based advantages.

c. Judges that I especially appreciated debating in front of (and aspired to imitate) were: Tripp Rebrovick (Harvard), Sarah Lundeen (West Georgia), and Armands Revelins (Cornell).

d. My favorite argument when I was debating was death cult.

8. I am intentionally not disclosing my thoughts on common issues in debate (which counterplans are abusive? is theory a voter? clash of civilizations? do you judge kick?).

a. What I have noticed during my years of judging is that such disclosures overdetermine debates. And while judge adaptation is a valuable skill, far too many people conflate judge adaptation with argument shortcuts. To illustrate my point, I have encountered too many debates (including at the college varsity level) where a speaker has expressly said in their speech "you said you like X in your judge philosophy which is why I'm going for it."

b. I appreciate the counterpoint, which is that lack of disclosure on how I think about certain debate issues unfairly privileges those who could afford to scout more (ex: once a team finds out I like X theory argument, they go for it more often). For now, my conclusion is that the cost (lazier debates) outweighs the benefit (competitive equity). This is especially because I do not judge that often and therefore I have not yet confronted a situation where I was forced to decide on my predispositions alone. In fact, if the entire round hinges exclusively on whether "status quo is always an option" means the judge must evaluate the status quo (even if the neg never instructed me in the 2NR to use that option), the debate is in much deeper trouble and I have no sympathy for either team.

Tufts University '20
- 3 years parliamentary debate (APDA, USBP)
- 2 years ethics bowl (APPE; USA #2, 2020).

Lexington High School '16
- 4 years policy debate (NatCir)
- some public forum (MSDL)

Summary

If it's not on my flow in the final rebuttal, I'm not voting for it. I will NOT follow along on speech docs. Speed is OK, but clarity is key. All argumentation is the debaters' responsibility to make coherent in the final rebuttals.

Harmful / intentionally disrespectful conduct will tank speaker points.

Run what you do best and please ask any other questions you have before the round!

Background

Most of my high school affirmatives had traditional policy mechanisms. I have some experience with "identity" and Continental criticism in debate, esp. on the neg. I have researched affect and political philosophy. I am not involved in topic research; please don't assume acronym familiarity.

Founding Board Member, WUDL (Washington Urban Debate League), 2013-current; former travel policy debate coach at Thomas Jefferson (VA), 2014-19. Debated nationally in HS and at Harvard (1990 NDT champion and Copeland Award winner) before starting a foreign policy career, including a stint in the State Department, earning a Ph.D., and have run the Washington Quarterly journal (you've probably cut or read a bunch of foreign policy cards from it) since 1998 as my full-time job.

I judged about 50+ rounds a year (now maybe 20 in WUDL), but don't teach at summer camps so better to explain topic args early in a year. In the spirit of David Letterman and Zbigniew Brzezinski (and ask a coach if you don't know who they are), here's a top 10 list of things you should know about me, or about what I believe makes you a better debater with me, as your judge:

10. I don't read speech docs along with you while you are speaking (except to check clipping); I use them as reference docs.

If I don't understand you, and it's not on my flow, it didn't happen. This is a speaking activity. Speed is fine, and I'll say "clear" if you're not.

9. Better debaters structure their speech (use #s) and label each new piece of paper (including 1AC advs) before starting to read tags/cites.

Ever listen to Obama speak? It's structured. Structuring your speech conveys the important points and controls the judges' flow (don't use "and" as that word is used in cards ALL the time). The best debaters explain arguments to the judge; they don't obscure arguments to hide them from the other team. Points will reflect that.

8. I generally prefer Affs to have plans as examples of the resolution.

I am indebted to the activity for opening my eyes over the years to the depths of racial tensions and frustration in this country, particularly among today's students, and constantly learn about them from coaches and students running these arguments well. All that said, I do intuitively believe the resolution divides ground and is vital for the long-term viability of this activity (aka I will vote on framework, but neg has to do more than say "you know old school policy debate is valuable...you did it").

7. Portable skills (including switch-side benefits) are real, and will pay off over 1-2 generations when you are trained and in charge.

What you do in this room can help train you to improve government (from inside or outside) even if it takes patience (think a generation). I am an example of that and know literally dozens of others. The argument that nothing happens because the aff doesn't actually get adopted overlooks the activity's educational value and generally feeds the stereotype that this generation demands instant gratification and can't think over the horizon. It's a process; so is progress.

I also intuitively believe teams shouldn't get the right to run an argument on both sides of the topic. The best way to challenge and sharpen your beliefs is to have to argue against them.

6. I'm not a good postmodernist/high theory judge (this includes psychoanalysis).

5. I am more likely to vote on conditionality if there are strategic contradictions.

4. Top debaters use source quals to compare evidence.

Debaters make arguments and use cards--cards don't make arguments themselves. Cards effectively serve as expert testimony, when the author knows more about the subject than you, so use the author's quals as a means of weighing competing evidence.

3. Permutations should be combinations of the whole plan and part or all of the CP or alt to test whether the CP or K is a reason to reject the Aff (aka competitive).

I've found permutation theory often painfully poorly debated with the neg block often relying on trying to outspread the 1ar not to go for perms in HS. Perms are not inherently illegitimate moving targets. Conversely, don't assume I know what "permute: do the CP" means; I find debaters rarely do. MAKE SURE THE TEXT OF A PERM IS CLEAR (careful when reading a bunch at top speed and text should be written in your speech doc for reference and is binding).

POTENTIAL UNCOMMON VIEW: I believe affs have the right to claim to adopt permutations as the option the judge is voting for (the neg introduced the CP/alt into the debate so it's not a moving target) to solve a DA and can offset the moral hazard that "you can't straight turn a CP so why not run one/more", but this must be set up in the 1ar and preferably 2ac.

Finally, I will resort to judge-kicking the CP or K if nobody tells me what to do, but somebody (before the 2ar) should.

2. Good Ks have good alts

At its core, policy debate is about training your generation to make a better world. That means plans and alts are the key to progress. I prefer not to hear generic Ks with either nihilistic (burn it down, refusal, reject the Aff) or utopian (Ivory Tower) alts. But show me a K with an alt that might make a difference? Particularly with a link to the Aff (plan specifically or as example of resolution) rather than the world? NOW we’re talkin’ ...

1. The most important thing: I try to be as tabula rasa as possible.

If you win a debate on the flow, I will vote for it. Seriously. All the above are leanings, absent what debaters in the room tell me to do or what I tend to do in evenly-matched, closely contested debates. But you should do what you do best, and I will vote for the team that debates the round best. You are not here to entertain me, I am here to evaluate and, when I can, teach you.

I save this for last (#1) because it supersedes all the others.

PROCEDURAL NOTE: If you're not using an e-mail chain, prep time ends when your flash drive LEAVES your computer (or if you are on an email chain, when you save the doc) -- before that, you are compiling your speech doc and that's your prep time. I tend to get impatient if there's too much dead/failed tech time in debates.

This is a working philosophy, which I'll update periodically, so please feel free to ask me any questions and if I hear the same one/s a couple times, I'll be happy to update this.

I came back because I believe policy debate was invaluable in my education, loved the competition, learned from and started a career based on the research I did and heard (and still do learn from it and you to this day), and want to create opportunities for others to benefit from competing in policy debate. I owe my career to this activity, and other members of my family have benefited from it in many ways too. I'll do my best to make each round fun and worthwhile.

Compete, make each other better, and have fun. There's no better intellectual game. Enjoy...Let's do this...

Modern problems require modern solutions.

P.S. I have never and will never evaluate a judge kick argument as if it were valid. If you make a 2NR decision, you've made it. You can't unmake soup. I'm not going to intervene into the debate to fix your 2NR mistakes.

I judge, traditionally, based on whether or not a debate can stay on topic, and solve for the issue. Remain respectful and on pace. You must have the knowledge to articulate your knowledge and evidence in comparison to your opponent. Do this and you shall succeed.

NOTE FOR NSDA LAST CHANCE:

I am particularly tired this week! Normally I have no problem at all with speed, but there is a nonzero chance that I ask for you to speak at a lay pace for your round. This is not an invitation for you to paraphrase, not send carded evidence, etc, nor does it mean I'll flow/evaluate the debate any differently. only that my poor little brain might not be able to handle quick delivery. That said, I want to have fun. I'd give my right arm to hear spark or some other outrageous impact turns at lay speed, so go nuts (slowly)!

David Levin (he/him/his)

Head Coach for St. Luke's School, New Canaan, CT

Email Chain: levind@stlukesct.org

All Formats

be decent to one another (this includes your partner). don't use oppressive rhetoric. put me on the email chain.

Paradigms for PF, PD, and LD below.

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

Public Forum

>100 rounds judged in 2022-23. run what you want. cut cards. i'm a good judge for Kritiks. i'm a pretty good judge for theory. this format has so much potential for innovation - don't be afraid to try something different/new.

General:

"Progressive debate" debate doesn't mean much to me. I love to evaluate kritik and framework debates. I like evaluating purposeful T and theory rounds (I'd especially like to see more fiat debates). I also like judging a good salt-of-the-earth "substance" round. I don't enjoy evaluating what you might call "tricks", but I'll judge them fairly. I'm not here to tell you what you can't run (outside of oppressive/exclusionary arguments). It's good to interrogate the normative expectations of PF debate, and to have discussions of what forms of exclusion undergird debate, and specifically this format, to begin with. I likethis article from Stefan Bauschard a lot.

Housekeeping:

Please pre-flow and create the email chain before the round. Include me on the email chain. Make sure your opponents and I get the card doc (if applicable) prior to starting your speech. Card docs should cut full paragraphs, and include highlighting (see "Evidence"). If you have a shell (T, theory, etc), please send it in the card doc. Let's work together to trim down the time spent on evidence exchanges.

DO NOT send a "locked" document to me or your opponents. This is a competitive equity AND academic integrity concern.

Sit or stand for your speeches. Share the tabletote if only one team has one.

Speaking:

Speed/spreading is fine with some exceptions. Arguments presented in shell form (T, theory, etc) should be read more deliberately than case, otherwise I may miss an important warrant.

If you have an auditory processing concern, please address it with your opponents rather than me whenever possible. If someone comes to you with an auditory processing concern, accommodate them. Be good to each other.

How I flow:

I flow digitally, and divide my flow by contentions. For contentions with multiple subpoints, just make sure you sign post. I flow warrants and read card docs during crossfire and prep, so don't just extend your author/tag.

I don't judge-extend or judge-kick whenever possible (maybe once in a while in a novice round).

I flow overviews at the top of the first contention. I'd rather flow weighing on the contentions individually, rather than en-masse at the bottom of the speech.

How I evaluate:

A-priori arguments are, as the name implies, evaluated first. Absent an a-priori debate, I go to framing.

Framing should be complementary to your impact/weighing. If framing is not argued, or if both teams drop framing, I default to utilitarianism. Once the framework debate is resolved (if there is one), I move to the contentions.

I like comparative link weighing a lot. Speculative impacts require a bit more work on uniqueness than empiric impacts. I think the status quo can be an impact in itself.

If neither team is able to garner offense, presumption defaults to the side of the resolution which most resembles the status quo. Presumption can be flipped if the status quo is the impact.

Crossfire is binding.

Speaker Points:

I average around a 28.7 for varsity rounds. For a well-executed technical debate, expect something in the 28.8-29.4 realm. Above a 29.5 is reserved for performances that "stick to the ribs", demonstrating both technical mastery and rhetorical salience. Remember that debate is largely a practice in storytelling.

Specific Arguments

Topical "normative" Cases:

Truth is determined by the flow, and I don't judge-extend or kick arguments. Otherwise, do what you do. Turns rock.

Topical "critical" Cases:

Win your framework and role of the ballot. "Role of the judge" feels redundant, but if you make a distinction between my role and my ballot's role, I'll listen.

Again, links and solvency usually the most vulnerable components of the case. K solvency shouldn't be restricted to discourse - but what does the fiat-ed adoption of the critical worldview look like?

Textual alts that suggest specific actions get a little too close to plans/counterplans for comfort - instead, "vote [your side] to endorse/reject [something]", then go win the link.

These rounds are where I can offer my most helpful feedback, whether you're running a K or debating against one.

Non-topical criticisms:

Win your framework. Explain why the criticism is a prerequisite to topical debate, answer the TVA/TVN, and the perm.

Remember that I default presume to the side of the ballot closest to the status quo, whether you're reading a Non-T K or debating against one.

Presumption can be flipped either way. If you do a performance or narrative of some sort, implicate that stylistic choice.

"Off-case" Criticisms:

I'm not quite as fond of these for time constraint reasons (they often result in messy back-halves), so if you read one, do so in 2nd constructive or first rebuttal.

If you're critiquing a specific problematic discourse your opponent advances, consider running it as a short theory shell instead (example: I don't need you to spend 120 seconds dissecting gendered structures of power to claim misgendering is bad - it's pretty straightforward).

Topicality:

I prefer T be read in shell form with an interpretation, violation, standards and voter(s).

I believe that fairness is an internal link to various more objective impacts, rather than an impact itself. If you go for "drop the team" on T, it should be the whole FF.

T against kritiks should center standards for why I should hold the line for the resolution.

Theory:

Strong theory debates should focus on defining best practices for the activity.

"Theory bad" arguments are inherently theory arguments themselves and I'll evaluate them the same way I evaluate other forms of theory.

I prefer competing interpretations, but if the theory is clearly infinitely regressive or needlessly punitive, my threshold for reasonability lowers. This is especially true for theory "tricks".

Disclosure is good; Open-source disclosure is the gold standard; from my experience and observation, disclosure serves to benefit small programs and under-resourced programs; community minimums for disclosure are debatable. Paraphrasing, rather than reading actual evidence, is unethical.

Evidence:

Cut cards are an ethical standard for debate and non-negotiable at the varsity circuit level. Paraphrasing is not an automatic loss, but I will have no basis to trust your analytics absent you producing a marked copy of your evidence.

I have a low threshold for voting for paraphrasing theory against you, absent a performative contradiction from the other team.

Novices should learn to cut cards, but for them this a goal, not an expectation.

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

Policy:

I'm a little rusty, but regularly judged policy between 2016 and 2020. K v. K and K v. FW/T rounds were my favorites.

Hello again! It's been a minute! If you have me in a policy round, my most important request is that you help me flow you. I can normally follow at decently quick speeds, but if I "clear" you, it's a request for you to help me catch what you're saying. Sign posting is important and please please read tags and shells more slowly than your internals.

I debated policy in HS and coached/judged for a few years before moving to more PF. That said, policy directly informed the way I coach and evaluate PF. I don't have particularly strong opinions about most arguments, so run what you're good at running. I understand that this is quite vague, so if you're unsure how you'll pref me, or what to run in front of me, just ask.

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

Lincoln-Douglas:

Run what you want, but understand that I don't know the norms as well here.

You can likely infer my judging style from the PF and Policy sections above. Any questions, just send an email.

For some reason, I have two separate Tabroom accounts at the moment, so this paradigm is copy-pasted from the account I usually use:

Add me to the email chain -- lucyli547@gmail.com

Background

Blue Valley North '17, Harvard '21

I debated for four years in high school. Most of those debates were on the Kansas circuit, with a few national circuit tournaments now and then. I haven't judged on this year's topic, so I probably won't be familiar with topic-specific language or acronyms. I also haven't been too involved in debate since my high school career ended, so I'm probably a little rusty -- adjust accordingly.

General

1) There are arguments I like or don't like more than others, but don't let this dissuade you from reading what you're good at. I will do my best to keep an open mind and evaluate the debate based on the flow.

2) I'll clear you a couple times if I can't understand you, but after that, you're on your own. Signposting and differentiating between tags and cards is also extremely helpful.

3) Arguments must include warrants, and when you extend them, you should contextualize them.

4) Tech over truth. I won't read evidence unless there's a dispute about its content in the round.

5) Please be respectful, especially during CX.

6) Write my ballot for me in the 2NR and 2AR.

Non-traditional affirmatives

I'm probably not the best judge for these --I generally think the affirmative should defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan. However, I can be persuaded otherwise by a good defense of the aff's mechanism, and I try to decide the debate based on what happens in the debate itself. That being said, know that I do lean a bit on this issue.

Topicality

I love a good T debate. Because of its intricacy, you should slow down on T -- please don't bulldoze through your standards; I probably won't be able to write them all down. Unless told otherwise, I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability can be persuasive sometimes, but only when you explain what it means. I think topicality is always a voting issue.

Disads

Impact calculus needs to begin in the block and be developed in the 2NR. Good turns case analysis is paramount and gets you a long way in the impact calc debate. I think I subscribe a little less to the offense-defense paradigm than many -- if the aff wins a low enough risk of a link, I think that can make a lot of the neg's offense on the disad irrelevant.

Counterplans

I will listen to any type of counterplan -- delay, PIC, agent, process, etc. -- and I read them all in high school. I'm also willing to reject a counterplan if the aff wins the theory debate. I don't think "CP solves better" is a good net benefit.

Kritiks

This is the style of argumentation I am least familiar with. The only thing this means is that I am probably not well read in your literature and will not understand what your alt does unless you explain it to me. It's also not a good idea to throw buzzwords at me, because I may not know what they mean. I started dabbling in K lit at the end of high school -- I'm familiar with cap, neolib, and security -- but if you're reading a K in front of me, be ready to contextualize and explain. Tell me a clear story.

Case

Good case debates can be extremely compelling to me. Offense is obviously very important, but I think defense is underrated. I love a good impact turn debate, but I will not accept racism or sexism good arguments.

Theory

With the exception of condo, I generally think theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I also almost always think condo is good. Contextualize your theory arguments to the debate; please don't just read your blocks straight down.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Yes, include me on the email chain. zhaneclloyd@gmail.com

Brooklyn Tech: 2011 - 2012 (those three novice UDL tournaments apparently count), 2017 - 2021 (coach)
NYU: 2014 - 2018
The New School: 2018-2020 (coach)

***I used to keep my video off for rounds, but I've since learned that it's a mistake for the morale of the debater as well as for confirming whether or not I'm actually in the room. If my camera is off, I am not in the room. Please do not start speaking***

I currently work a full-time job that has nothing to do with debate. I still judge because that full-time job does not pay enough (does any job nowadays?) and I've built community with people that are still very active in debate, so seeing them is nice. It is also means I'm VERY out of touch with what the new norms in debate are. But everything below still applies for the most part.

In case you're pressed for time

1. Do you. Have fun. Don't drop an important argument.

2. If there is an impact in the 2NR/2AR, there's a high chance you've won the debate in front of me. I like going for the easy way out and impacts give me the opportunity to do that. Impact comparisons are good too. NEG - LINKS to those impacts matter. AFF - how you SOLVE those impacts matter. Outside of that context, I'm not sure how I should evaluate.

3. I flow on paper, so please don't be upset if I miss arguments because you're slurring your words or making 17 arguments/minute.

4. Don't assume I know the acronyms or theories you're talking about, even if I do. This is a persuasion activity, so no shortcuts to persuading me.

5. Obviously, I have biases, but I try not to let those biases influence how I decide a round. Usually, if debaters can't accomplish #2, then I'll be forced to. I prefer to go with the flow though.

6. If at the end of the round, you find yourself wanting to ask my opinion on an argument that you thought was a round winner, know that I have one of two answers: I didn't consider it or I didn't hear it. Usually, it's the latter. So try not to make 5 arguments in 20 seconds.

7. There's no such thing as a "good" time to run 5+ off, but I'll especially be annoyed if it's the first or last round of the day. 10+ off guarantees I will not flow and may even stop the round. I'm not the judge for those type of rounds.

8. I've grown increasingly annoyed with non-Black debaters making "helping Black people" as part of their solvency. A lot of you don't know how to do this without either a). sounding patronizing as hell or b). forgetting that "helping Black people" was part of your solvency by the time rebuttals come around (#BackburnerDA). I'm not going to tell you to stop running those arguments, but I strongly recommend you don't have me in the back of the room for them.

**ONLINE DEBATE**: You don't need to yell into your mic. I can hear you fine. In fact, yelling into your mic might make it harder for me to hear you. Which means you may lose. Which is bad. For you.

If you're not so pressed for time

I debated for four years at NYU and ran mostly soft left affs. I think that means I'm a pretty good judge for these types of affs and it also means I'm probably able to tell if there is a genuine want for a discussion about structural violence impacts and the government's ability to solve them or if they're just tacked on because K debaters are scary and it makes the perm easier.

I do think debate is a game, but I also think people should be allowed to modify the "rules" of the game if they're harmful or just straight up unlikeable. I've designed games from time to time, so I like thinking about the implications of declaring debate to be "just" a game or "more than" a game. Now to the important stuff.

Speed: Through a card, I'll tolerate it. Through a tag or analytics, I'll be pretty annoyed. And so will you, because I'll probably miss something important that could cost you the round. When reading a new card, either verbally indicate it ("and" or "next") or change your tone to reflect it.

Planless affs: Even in a game, some people just don't want to defend the government. And that's perfectly okay. But I would like the aff to be relevant to the current topic. Though I do understand that my definition of "relevant" and a K debater's definition of "relevant" may differ greatly slightly, so just prove to me why the aff is a good idea and why the lack of government action is not as relevant/bad/important as the negative's framework makes it seem.

CP: Wasn't really much of a CP debater and I don't really coach teams that run CPs, except the basic novice ones that come in a starter kit. I think they're a fine argument and am willing to vote on them.

DA: You could never go wrong with a good DA. DAs, when run correctly, have a really good, linear story that can be extended in the neg block and could be used to effectively handle aff answers. Feel free to go crazy.

Ks: I can't think of a neg round where I didn't run a K. I've run cap, security, queerness, and Black feminism. But please, do not talk to me as if I know your K. If you're running pomo, I most definitely don't know your K and will need to be talked through it with analogies and examples. If you're running an identity K, I probably do know your K but expect the same from you as I expect from a pomo debater. Cap, security - you get the memo.

T: My favorite neg arg as a senior. I'm always down for a good T debate. I do think that sometimes it's used as a cop-out, but I also think that some affs aren't forwarding any sort of plan or advocacy. Just stating an FYI and a neg can't really argue against that. So T becomes the winning strategy.

Framework: Not exactly the same as T, but I still **like** it. Please just call it framework in front of me. I've heard various names be used to describe it, but they're all just arguments about what should be discussed in the round and how the aff fails to do so.

Theory: Important, but the way debaters speed through their theory shells makes me question just how important it is. Again, slow down when reading theory in front of me so it's actually an option for you at the end of the round.

Jacob Loehr

Debated for 4 years at UT Dallas.

jacobloehr94@gmail.com

My only real guiding principal is that debate rounds are about the arguments debaters make. I do not think judges should attempt to bias or skew decisions based on personal leaning about an argument. Debate is inherently about how the debaters make arguments. Essentially do what you do best because I'm not here to impose any ideological standards.

I will say that I was a 2A and out of habit I think about theory arguments habitually from that perspective. I try my best to not let that frame how I decide on theory. Then again I think no one really wants to have to decide a debate on theory anyhow.

Debated at Emory. Coached at Harvard and Northwestern and Dartmouth.

Put me on your email thread, thanks: ksten52@gmail.com

TL;DR: Be attentive, prepared, and invested. I will do the same in return.

- Judge instruction is the most valuable skill you have and the most important one for you to use. Good judge instruction establishes tenets for judging the situation at hand by declaring what criteria I should care about when making choices.
- More often than not you can understand how I feel about an argument by monitoring my reaction
- My hearing is in the B- to B+ range but it's definitely not an A. Let's aim for a 10% clarity increase.

Clash Debates *Updated in 2020
I care about my flow, following assumptions to their logical conclusions, internal link defense, and answering the arguments the other team is making not the caricature of the argument you assume they're making.

I try to keep my opinions out of my judging in all contexts, but in this context the opinions that I am predisposed to agree with are:
- People shouldn't have to refute the subjective experiences of others.
- Without explaining the causal pathway, an assertion that debate makes us good or bad at something is an incomplete argument.
- Novelty for the sake of itself is silly
- Being told you're wrong isn't the same thing as being told you're bad.
- The debate round is not the same thing as Debate. Endowing the debate round, the single facet of Debate that is engineered to produce dissensus and us-them thinking, with a preeminent role in achieving community good has never made any sense to me.

Kritiks
- Links should have impacts.
- I tend to measure the utility of theories by my understanding of the consequences of adoption. Debate's understanding of consequence is often too narrow. But if you can't explain the material implications of your thing... we will struggle.
- Solving problems is an invaluable skill, but identifying them is a rather cheap one. I find that this belief influences how I think about the K more than any other.

Theory
- I don't think conditionality is that bad... but if saying it is constitutes your cleanest path to victory then do that.
- I’m generally persuaded that if a prepared 2A could have anticipated the CP, the CP belongs in debate.

Disads/Counterplans/Other
- A disad cannot be low risk unless you've substantively demonstrated that's the case with defensive arguments. Describing the nature of conjunctive risk bias is not that.
- People stopped doing good terminal impact calculus at some point? Don't love it. Please fix.
- Making courageous choices and knowing when to cut your losses is one of the hardest debate skills to master. I reward debaters who do it well.

Best of luck.

XP: 3 years policy in Texas, competed both statewide and regionally, UIL, TFA and NFL. Currently the head policy coach at Desert Vista HS.

General thoughts:

I believe debate is a game between two opponents that must be respected and respectful of the debate space. Ultimately, rules have been constructed to maximize discussion. Break those rules, tear them down and erode the foundations for all I care. That being said, you aren’t Michigan KM, and I expect that if you read ANYTHING from them you’d better know what you’re doing.

Tech over truth in most cases. Don’t get up and read me some BS that is obviously not true, and I’m not going to vote neg if they happen to win one irrelevant on case card.

Case:
Do it. Obviously if you can do a full takeout on any of the stock issues I’ll be voting neg. Specifics: don’t attack only one solvency contention and be shocked when I vote aff because they kicked it; your inherency takeout must make clear sense; any harms takeouts must be explained and weighed during rebuttals; and for the love of God give me some impact calc!

T:
Must have: interpretation, violation, standards/grounds, and voters. Aff must have: counter interpretation, standards/grounds, and voters. If these aren’t present for either team I will not flow the argument for them. This also applies to framework because of similar structure. If you’re vague, I will vote you down immediately. You’re not being cool by being dodgy.

CP:
It would do you credit to understand the relationship of your Counter Plan to your other arguments. You get brownie points for solving your DAs or Ks (the ones without alts, that’s a whole other discussion) with a well oriented Counter Plan. That being said, the perm debate here really matters. I expect a good switch-side debate, so be prepared to argue the merits of your links and solvency.

PICs are fair game, but your solvency needs to be well fleshed out. I tend to flow aff in perm debates here because the neg usually doesn’t spend enough qualitative time on it.

DA:
I find that most of these arguments are easily proven to be non-unique. That’s just the nature of most DAs. Too many neg debaters get sloppy in the link debate and focus on their impacts. I hate general DAs, they’re often too easily turned and super boring. The more specific the better.

K:
This should be obvious: know your stuff! If you can’t explain any portion of your K in CX, you shouldn’t be running it. Link debate, root cause and real solvency alts are crucial for my ballot. Aff: perm debates are common enough that you don’t have to do a whole lot of work in finding evidence. In lieu of that, I expect you to weigh the round for me in terms of solvency.

Theory/Framework:
Slow down and take your time with this. I will not listen to a spreaded theory argument, it does no good for anyone if you’re moving too fast. If I can’t understand what you’re trying to run, I won’t bother flowing it. A note on framework: Most of your prescripted blocks should have some advocacy, it’s there for a reason. Don’t give me any and chances are I’m going to completely ignore your argument.

Speed:
If you mumble at any point, I will stop flowing. Speak clearly and concisely at whatever speed you feel like.

CX:
This is not a part of the debate to be ignored. CX is an art form, one that you will use in life far, far more than what you learn by performing your 1AC or the 2NR. That being said, I will flow CX and mark when arguments are made. Nearly all your speaker points will be decided based on CX.



LD

Sometimes I have to judge LD rounds. My prefs are simple: do whatever you want. Root cause debates are awesome, I like hearing how your contentions clash. Be as progressive as possible, I’m used to hearing way, way more progressive stuff in policy. I’m a policy coach and only competed in a few rounds like 6 years ago in LD, so what I know is mostly from judging rounds.

Updated February 2023

Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.

The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).

1. The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.

2. Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.

3. “Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.

4. Share me to the speech doc (maierd@gosaints.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.

5. Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.

6. Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been a delegate to the NFHS Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 (all years for Mississippi except 2022 when I voted on behalf of NCFL) and was on the Wording Committee from 2018-2020, the last of those years as chair. There’s a lot of work that goes into crafting resolutions and since you’re coming here by choice, it should be respected. Advocate for or against the resolution and I’ll give you a pretty wide degree of latitude on method. If you’re just going to ignore the resolution, the bar is pretty low for your opponent to clear to get the W (though I have seen teams bungle this).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes please, but understand I’m only flowing that which comes out of your mouth that I can understand – I don’t flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I only go to the speech doc if a) I lost concentration during the speech through no fault of your own, b) I need to read evidence because there is a dispute about what the evidence says, or c) I want to steal the evidence for a future round. If you bust out ten blips in fifteen seconds, half of them aren’t making the flow. Getting it on my flow is your job and I have no problem saying “you didn’t say that in a way that was flowable”.

Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So while I understand K’s like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality, I have a harder time with those that are based on some Continental European whose name ends with four vowels in a row who says that not adopting their method risks all value to life. Your job is to put me in a position to be able to make the other team understand why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. If you don’t do the work, I’m not doing it for you. Regarding “framework” or “role of the ballot” arguments – if what you’re advocating isn’t at least reasonably accessible to both teams, I reserve the right to ignore it.

Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I’m willing to work slightly harder to adjudicate the round than you do to advocate in the round (basically, if neither debater does the work and the round’s a mess, I’m going to look for the first thing I can embrace to get out of the round). If you ask me to read evidence, especially your evidence, you’ve given me a tacit invitation to intervene.

Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

1. Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.

2. Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.

4. Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.

5. Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.

2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.

3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.

Public Forum Specific Observations

1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.

2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.

3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”

4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.

5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.

Director of Policy Debate @ Stanford University; Director of Debate @ Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School

(High School Constraints - Edgemont)

(College Constraints - Kentucky)

Email Chain: brian.manuel@uky.edu

2020-2021 Update: Christmas Edition

Misunderstanding Tech over Truth: Those three words hurt my soul because they've become to only symbolize that a dropped argument is a true argument in most circles; however, it should symbolize that well-done technical debate overcomes the truthful nature of any argument. I want to see you technically execute an argument you've spent time learning and understanding and I'm willing to listen to any argument that shows me this was done. This is significantly different from "I will listen to anything."

Research->Knowledge->Execution: That's the order! I love when students do a lot of column A to make column C easy.

Clarity Trumps: Speed is irrelevant to me. I've been doing debate for a quarter-century and I've judged people at various speeds. The most important part of the debate is clearly communicating ideas to an audience. I speak very fast, so I realize it's inevitable; however, if you're not understood then nothing you do matters. Remember, what you think you said is not always what the other person hears you say.

Policy Debate: What happened to strategies? The trend is to read 3-4 counterplans in the 1nc, rather than debating the case. Fewer off-case positions, with more time invested in debating the case, is usually a more successful strategy to create pressure on 2a's helping you win more ballots.

2020-2021 PF Update: December 21, 2020

I want to see the best version of you debating! As you can tell my opinions on PF have changed dramatically in the past six seasons; however, I still enjoy judging debates when you're trying your best!!

Theory: I'm totally uninterested in PF theory. It's underdeveloped, not well explained, and has no foundational basis in the activity.

Evidence: If the tournament doesn't adhere to a specific set of evidence rules, I will default to NSDA evidence rules. Paraphrasing is allowed unless otherwise prohibited, but must follow the rules.

I will no longer ask for cases or cards before the debate. I do expect that if a piece of evidence or a card doc is requested that it can be produced in a timely manner. To expedite this process, I will allow the other team to prep during the transfer time for a card doc to be sent to the other team unless it's specifically prohibited by the tournament.

Wiki: I don't look at it. My personal preference is that teams would disclose if the other team asks but I am not policing these conversations. I personally believe that understanding the arguments you are debating (if they've been read before) produces better debate; however, am uninterested in listening to a debate about disclosure being good or bad unless something unethical was done during the disclosure process.

2017-2018 PF TOC Update: April 23rd, 2018

As you can see I used to have a very strong leaning towards how evidence needs to be presented during a debate. I've backtracked pretty substantially on this point. Therefore, I won't ask for your case ahead of time. However, I do still prefer evidence that is directly quoted and cited according to the rules of the tournament we are at. I do not like paraphrasing and will only accept paraphrasing as a logical argument to be made in the round and will not credit you for reading a qualified author.

I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. I have an extremely competitive set of students that are constantly talking about the topic, I tutor students around the world in PF, and I generally like to be educated on the things that students will debate in front of me.

Beyond what I've said above, I'll give you an additional piece of advice: If you would strike Stefan Bauschard or Amisha Mehta then you'd probably want to strike me. I tend to fall somewhere in between where they are at in their philosophies.

Last but not least, I don't intend to steal your cards...we have more than we can use...however if it means you'll throw me up on a Reddit post that can get over 100+ responses then maybe I'll have to start doing it!

**Disregard the section about asking me to conflict you if you feel uncomfortable debating in front of me since I've judged minimally and don't have any experience judging any of the teams in the field more than once therefore, it doesn't apply to you**

2016-2017 Season Update: September 11, 2016

HS Public Forum Update: This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, miscited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact-check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead, I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me, this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that, the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you.

NDT/CEDA Update: I'm getting older and I'm spending increasingly more hours on debate (directing, coaching, and tabulating at the HS and College level) than I used to. I really love the activity of debate, and the argumentative creativity being developed, but I'm slowly starting to grow hatred toward many of the attitudes people are adopting toward one another, which in turn results in me hating the activity a little more each day. I believe the foundational element of this activity is mutual respect amongst competitors and judges. Without this foundational element, the activity is doomed for the future.

As a result, I don't want to be a part of a debate unless the four debaters in the room really want me to be there and feel I will benefit them by judging their debate. I feel debate should be an inclusive environment and each student in the debate should feel comfortable debating in front of the judge assigned to them.

I also don’t want people to think this has to do with any single set of arguments being run. I really enjoy academic debates centered on discussions of the topic and/or resolution. However, I don’t prefer disregarding or disrespectful attitudes toward one another. This includes judges toward students, students toward judges, students toward observers, observers toward students, and most importantly students toward students.

As I grow older my tolerance for listening to disparaging, disregarding, and disrespectful comments from the participants has completely eroded. I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. I got way better things to do with my time than listen to someone talk down to me when I've not done the same to them. I treat everyone with respect and I demand the same in return. I think sometimes debaters, in the heat of competition, forget that even if a judge knows less about their lived/personal experience or hasn’t read as much of their literature as they have; the judges, for the most part, understand how argumentation operates and how debates are evaluated. Too many debaters want to rely on the pref sheet and use it to get judges who will automatically check-in, which is antithetical to debate education. Judges should and do vote for the "worse" or "less true" arguments in rounds when they were debated better. Debate is a performative/communicative activity. It's not about who wrote the best constructive only. It's about how teams clash throughout the debate.

Therefore, as a result, I will allow any person or team to ask me to conflict them if they feel uncomfortable debating in front of me or feel that the current system of judge placement requires them to prefer me since I'm a better fit than the other judge(s). I won't ask you any questions and won't even respond to the request beyond replying "request honored". Upon receiving the request I will go into my tabroom.com account and make sure I conflict you from future events. I feel this way you'll have a better chance at reducing the size of the judge pool and you'll get to remove a judge that you don't feel comfortable debating in front of which will narrow the number of judges available to you and might allow you to get more preferable judges. My email is brian.manuel@uky.edu. Please direct all conflict requests to this email.

2014-2015 Season Update: September 2, 2014 (The gift that keeps on giving!!)

The following are not for the faint of heart!

Some days you just can't get ready in the morning without being bothered. Then you just need to be cheered up and it fails or someone threatens to eat your phone.
However, when it's all said and done you can at least sleep having sweet dreams.

**On a more serious note. Dylan Quigley raised a point on the College Policy Debate Facebook group about what "competition" means when people are judging debates. Therefore, I'll go with this answer "Because this is an emerging debate with no clear consensus, I would encourage judges to let the debaters hash out a theory of competition instead of trying to create one for them. I think in an era where students are taking their power to mold the "world of debate" they debate in it is especially important for us judges to *listen* to their arguments and learn from their theories. No shade towards the original post, I just think it's worthwhile to emphasize the relationship between "new debate" (whatevs that is) and student's ability to create theories of debate on their own instead of choosing a theory that's imposed on them." However, in the absence of these debates happening in the round I will default to a traditional interpretation of "competition." This interpretation says the neg must prove their alternative method/advocacy is better than the affirmative method/advocacy or combination of the affirmatives method/advocacy and all or part of the negatives method/advocacy. Also in these situations, I'll default to a general theory of opportunity cost which includes the negative burden of proving the affirmative undesirable.

2013-2014 Season Update: December 25, 2013 (Yes, it's Christmas...so here are your presents!!)

If you love to debate as much as Sukhi loves these cups, please let it show!!

If you can mimic this stunt, you'll thoroughly impress me and be well rewarded: Sukhi Dance

And you thought you had a sick blog!!

Also, why cut cards when you can have sick Uke skills like these and these!!

To only be shown up by a 2-year-old killing it to Adele

Finally, we need to rock out of 2013 with the Stanford version of the Harlem Shake by Sukhi and KJaggz

2012-2013 Season Update: August 22, 2012

Instead of forcing you to read long diatribes (see below) about my feelings on arguments and debate practices. I will instead generate a list of things I believe about debate and their current practices. You can read this list and I believe you'll be able to adequately figure out where to place me on your preference sheet. If you'd like to read more about my feelings on debate, then continue below the fold! Have a great season.

1. TKO is still in play, and will always be that way!

2. You must win a link to a DA - if you don't talk about it I'm willing to assign it zero risk. Uniqueness doesn't mean there is a risk of a link.

2a. "Issue Specific Uniqueness" IS NOT a utopian answer to all affirmative arguments.

3. You must defend something on the aff - by doing so it also implies you should be able to defend your epistemological assumptions underlying that advocacy.

4. T is about reasonability, not competing interpretations. This doesn't mean every affirmative is reasonably topical.

5. Debate should be hard; it's what makes it fun and keeps us interested.

6. Research is good - it's rewarding, makes you smarter, and improves your arguments.

7. "Steal the entire affirmative" strategies are bad. However, affirmative teams are even worse at calling teams out on it. This means they are still very much in play. Therefore, affirmatives should learn how to defeat them, instead of just believing they'll somehow go away.

8. There are other parts to an argument other than the impact. You should try talking about them, I heard they're pretty cool.

9. Your affirmative should have advantages that are intrinsic to the mechanism you choose to defend with the aff. Refer to #6, it helps solve this dilemma.

10. Have fun and smile! The debaters, judges, and coaches in this activity are your lifelong friends and colleagues. We are all rooting you on to succeed. We all love the activity or we wouldn't be here. If you don't like something, don't hate the player, hate the game!

Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: I hear that this is coming back. To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.

An additional caveat that was discussed with me at a previous tournament - I believe that the status quo is always a logical option for the negative unless it is explicitly stated and agreed to in CX or it's won in a speech.

Newly Updated Philosophy - November 18, 2011

So after talking to Tim Aldrete at USC, he convinced me that I needed more carrots and fewer sticks in my philosophy. Therefore, I have a small carrot for those debaters who wish to invoke it. It's called a T.K.O (Technical Knockout). This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, a strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but it's unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely affected. Who dares to take the challenge?

Past Updated Philosophy - September 9, 2010

I am currently the Assistant Coach @ Lakeland/Panas High School, College Prep School, and Harvard Debate. I’m also involved with Research & Marketing for Planet Debate. This topic will be my 14th in competitive debate and 10th as a full-time coach. Debate is my full-time job and I love this activity pretty much more than anything I’ve ever done in my life. I enjoy the competition, the knowledge gained, and the people I’ve come to be friends with, and likewise I really enjoy people who have the same passion I have for this activity.

I last posted an update to my judge philosophy a number of years ago and think it is finally time I revisit it and make some changes.

First, I’ll be the first to admit that I probably haven’t been the best judge the last few years and I think a majority of that has come from pure exhaustion. I’ve been traveling upwards of 20+ weekends a year and am constantly working when I am home. I don’t get much time to re-charge my batteries before I’m off to another tournament. Then while at tournaments I’m usually putting in extremely late nights cutting cards and preparing my teams, which trades off with being adequately awake and tuned in. This year I’ve lessened my travel schedule and plan to be much better rested for debates than I was in previous years.

Second, since my earlier days of coaching/judging, my ideology about debate has changed somewhat. This new ideology will tend to complement hard-working teams and disadvantage lazy teams who try and get by with the same generics being run every debate. Don’t let this frighten you, but rather encourage you to become more involved in developing positions and arguments. When this happens I’m overly delighted and reward you with higher speaker points and more than likely a victory.

tl;dr yeah, you can go fast

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: jrmartin707@gmail.com

--

Debated in college for UC Berkeley, have coached high school and college teams at local and TOC levels, etc. Doing a bit of occasional coaching and judging now but I'm not plugged into the circuit hardcore; you should assume I'm familiar with everything argumentatively/stylistically and very little on the topic. Generally, same stuff everyone says: debate like you want to debate, explain things and impact them, tell me why you winning or losing an argument does or does not influence my decision, and have fun. Otherwise, here’s some things you probably want to know:

- My own argumentative evolution has been from a pretty exclusively K debater early on to almost all policy work by the end, though I've coached all kinds. For what it’s worth, if you need an easy way to rank me, I lean more and more towards enjoying straight-up policy debates the more I judge. It's tough to disentangle "what are you a good judge for" and "what are you gonna have more fun watching" sometimes, even though they're definitely different, so I'm just gonna be honest and say that if you have no good reason to pick the K or the DA or which of your affs you're gonna read, might as well read the policy one. My favorite debates to judge are: huge in-depth case throwdowns, techy aff-specific counterplan debates, K on K clashes that are grounded in true disputes in the literature, impact turn debates (on the case or against a DA/K), and well-executed topicality debates.

- I do fundamentally believe that framework is true and debate would be better if people read plans, not that that means I exclusively vote negative in those debates. Predictability and debatability sound like pretty important things to me, and I think most aff framework counter-interps do not develop a feasible role for the negative and what neg prep should look like in their version of debate, but that doesn't mean any given neg team executes properly. I think like most everyone I’d rather here some clever unique strategy, but I dislike the dichotomy that framework isn’t a “substantive” argument and that the negative “didn’t engage the aff” by reading it. It's a good argument. The best aff answers lay out really clear alternatives for what debate should look like and impact turn all the skills that policy-focused debate generates.

- I’m generally unpersuaded by arguments along the lines of “the permutation/framework/etc. is violence/stealing our advocacy/etc.”, arguments that the negative doesn’t have to disprove the affirmative, purely nihilistic alternatives, and K speeches that consist entirely of buzzwords where you expect me to fill in what I already know about your concepts. I’m not afraid to give decisions which consist mostly of “I have no idea what you were talking about most of the time” if you just repeated the words “rhizome” or “foundational antagonism” at me, even if I know what you were trying to mean. Additionally, I'm super not down with arguments that are about things outside of the debate, like "show us your prefs" style stuff. I think the other team needs like a ten second defense of "you can only critique stuff we actually said" and I'm checked out.

- I have relatively few strong predispositions about common theory arguments; conditionality is probably fine but not necessarily, etc. I'll be extremely flow-centric here: I have absolutely voted for really bad theory args that got dropped, and also refused to vote for dropped ones when they were never a full argument with an impact in the first place.

- Evidence comparison, and calling out your opponent’s terrible, terrible evidence for what it is, is both extremely important and probably the best way to rack up your speaker points, alongside detailed impact calculus. The best ways to hurt your speaker points are to be a jerk to your partner, to get angry for no reason in cross-ex, and to spend your whole speech behind your laptop not paying any attention to the judge's reactions. Try to be a kind person who knows their stuff and the rest will follow.

- Because so many debates start with the question, "Can we do open CX?", the answer is always the same: you can, technically, there's no rule against it. But I would really recommend you don't - it's always better to get practice handling your CXs alone, going to your partner only as a last resort. It's important that they have the time to prep their next speech (that's three full minutes of free prep time!) and it's also much better for both of your speaker points if you each look organized and have mastery of your material.

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

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.

Manny Medrano

Polytechnic ’15 (“Polytechnic HM”)

Harvard ’19 (“Harvard AM”)

Top-Level

-          Affirmatives: Affirmatives should defend something. However, my definition of “something” is flexible. It can potentially take the form of a “traditional” plan, a “non-traditional” advocacy statement/method, or anything in-between. The negative should be able to identify some method of the affirmative and say that it is bad. If I don’t think that the 1AC met that burden, then I am likely to be persuaded by a negative framework argument. “T-federal government/T-should” is a debate I am happy to judge, and not ideological about.

-          Conditionality: Two conditional options are probably good, assuming that they are not directly contradictory. More than two conditional options is justifiable, but must be defended.

-          Reasonability vs. competing interpretations: I am more likely than others to buy a well-developed defense of APPLIED reasonability. I am also more likely than others to reject a poorly developed one. What does the topic look like under your interpretation? Is that change/restriction of the topic meaningful? These are core questions.

-          Kritiks: I made these arguments in high school, and have continued doing so in college. That means that well-explained negative kritiks are highly enjoyable. Conversely, well-explained affirmative defenses of their plan/method/etc. are equally persuasive. Links need impacts. I won’t kick the alternative without you asking. Permutations are not advocacies—they are tests of competition. The affirmative should be able to weigh the 1AC, but what “weigh” means is of course up to debate. Alternatives must solve the impacts to the links.

-          DAs: Great. 2NC link wall is important, and spin is essential. Conversely, I can be convinced by a smart uniqueness overwhelms argument, smart link defense, etc. It’s all about persuasion. The negative’s job is to tell the story. Evidence is a portion of that narrative, but at the end of the debate I’ll likely be evaluating the truth value of your DA, not card 6 in the 12 points subpointed at the bottom of the 1NR.

-          CPs: Great. Sufficiency framing makes sense to me, but I am very much open to affirmative reasons that such framing either doesn’t apply, is undesirable, etc. Kick out of CPs.

-          Evidence: I will read evidence from relevant areas of the debate. I like good evidence, but great analytics are better than good evidence.

-          Humor: Please. Even if not well-executed. Bad humor can be good, good humor is good, but OK humor is bad. Pick a side. Debate is a training ground, but not just for argumentation.

Questions? Please ask. More than willing to answer them. 

Debated for UWG ’15 – ’17; Coaching: Notre Dame – ’19 – Present; Baylor – ’17 – ’19

email: joshuamichael59@gmail.com

Online Annoyance

"Can I get a marked doc?" / "Can you list the cards you didn't read?" when one card was marked or just because some cards were skipped on case. Flow or take CX time for it.

Policy

I prefer K v K rounds, but I generally wind up in FW rounds.

K aff’s – 1) Generally have a high threshold for 1ar/2ar consistency. 2) Stop trying to solve stuff you could reasonably never affect. Often, teams want the entirety of X structure’s violence weighed yet resolve only a minimal portion of that violence. 3) v K’s, you are rarely always already a criticism of that same thing. Your articulation of the perm/link defense needs to demonstrate true interaction between literature bases. 4) Stop running from stuff. If you didn’t read the line/word in question, okay. But indicts of the author should be answered with more than “not our Baudrillard.”

K’s – 1) rarely win without substantial case debate. 2) ROJ arguments are generally underutilized. 3) I’m generally persuaded by aff answers that demonstrate certain people shouldn’t read certain lit bases, if warranted by that literature. 4) I have a higher threshold for generic “debate is bad, vote neg.” If debate is bad, how do you change those aspects of debate? 5) 2nr needs to make consistent choices re: FW + Link/Alt combinations. Find myself voting aff frequently, because the 2nr goes for two different strats/too much.

Special Note for Settler Colonialism: I simultaneously love these rounds and experience a lot of frustration when judging this argument. Often, debaters haven’t actually read the full text from which they are cutting cards and lack most of the historical knowledge to responsibly go for this argument. List of annoyances: there are 6 settler moves to innocence – you should know the differences/specifics rather than just reading pages 1-3 of Decol not a Metaphor; la paperson’s A Third University is Possible does not say “State reform good”; Reading “give back land” as an alt and then not defending against the impact turn is just lazy. Additionally, claiming “we don’t have to specify how this happens,” is only a viable answer for Indigenous debaters (the literature makes this fairly clear); Making a land acknowledgement in the first 5 seconds of the speech and then never mentioning it again is essentially worthless; Ethic of Incommensurability is not an alt, it’s an ideological frame for future alternative work (fight me JKS).

FW

General: 1) Fairness is either an impact or an internal link 2) the TVA doesn’t have to solve the entirety of the aff. 3) Your Interp + our aff is just bad.

Aff v FW: 1) can win with just impact turns, though the threshold is higher than when winning a CI with viable NB’s. 2) More persuaded by defenses of education/advocacy skills/movement building. 3) Less random DA’s that are basically the same, and more internal links to fully developed DA’s. Most of the time your DA’s to the TVA are the same offense you’ve already read elsewhere.

Reading FW: 1) Respect teams that demonstrate why state engagement is better in terms of movement building. 2) “If we can’t test the aff, presume it’s false” – no 3) Have to answer case at some point (more than the 10 seconds after the timer has already gone off) 4) You almost never have time to fully develop the sabotage tva (UGA RS deserves more respect than that). 5) Impact turns to the CI are generally underutilized. You’ll almost always win the internal link to limits, so spending all your time here is a waste. 6) Should defend the TVA in 1nc cx if asked. You don’t have a right to hide it until the block.

Theory - 1) I generally lean neg on questions of Conditionality/Random CP theory. 2) No one ever explains why dispo solves their interp. 3) Won’t judge kick unless instructed to.

T – 1) I’m not your best judge. 2) Seems like no matter how much debating is done over CI v Reasonability, I still have to evaluate most of the offense based on CI’s.

DA/CP – 1) Prefer smart indicts of evidence as opposed to walls of cards (especially on ptx/agenda da's). Neg teams get away with murder re: "dropped ev" that says very little/creatively highlighted. 2) I'm probably more lenient with aff responses (solvency deficits/aff solves impact/intrinsic perm) to Process Cp's/Internal NB's that don't have solvency ev/any relation to aff.

Case - I miss in depth case debates. Re-highlightings don't have to be read. The worse your re-highlighting the lower the threshold for aff to ignore it.

LD

All of my thoughts on policy apply, except for theory. More than 2 condo (or CP’s with different plank combinations) is probably abusive, but I can be convinced otherwise on a technical level.

Not voting on an RVI. I don’t care if it’s dropped.

Most LD theory is terrible Ex: Have to spec a ROB or I don’t know what I can read in the 1nc --- dumb argument.

Phil or Tricks (sp?) debating – I’m not your judge.

15ayushm@gmail.com

Update for Gonzaga 2022: I haven't judged a debate in over 2 years. I still understand what's going on, but I will probably be less comfortable flowing very fast speakers, and I won't be fluent with topic-specific acronyms/abbreviations. Please slow down, thank you!

Please do not threaten your opponents with violence. If you do this, I will vote against you.

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

I make decisions by determining the important questions of the debate, starting with the most broad (does the case outweigh the DA? does the solvency deficit outweigh the net benefit to the CP? does the K outweigh the case?) and paring that down to the specific disagreements (does economic decline cause war? do the consequences of actions matter more than their ethical import?) based on sets of evidence. Given this model of decision-making, it would behoove you to articulate those questions and keep in mind how you would like them answered. Very clear judge instruction about the big picture at the beginning of speeches goes a long way. Reasonably assess what you and your opponent are each winning and present the case for a ballot in your favor. Teams very rarely win all of their arguments, so the team that convincingly and reasonably evaluates the debate is more successful.

Clash and engagement usually matter above the content of any particular argument (with some important exceptions). Given this emphasis on engagement, it is important for both teams to highlight points of disagreement.

Regarding theory and topicality, effective comparison of the impacts of standards wins debates. Beginning this process early in the debate increases your chances of winning and makes these debates more interesting. The argument that counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive is easily winnable, especially if the 1AR engages the line-by-line and defines relevant words.

Framework debates almost always require debating about the case. A topical version of the aff has varying levels of value depending on the aff's best offense against framework. T standards about the value of engagement and clash are more intuitively persuasive than nebulous "decision-making" impacts, but I am open to hearing both. Most importantly, articulating a clear, salient impact that interacts with the other team's offense is the most valuable strategic choice for the beginning of the final rebuttals.

If left undebated, I will not "judge kick" advocacies extended in the 2NR, and I will weigh the case against Ks.

Lincoln-Douglas
My debate experience has mostly been in policy debate, and while I am familiar with the differences in LD, mostly everything above applies.

"Conditionality bad" is substantially more winnable in LD than in policy, but the mechanics of how I think theory should be debated remain the same. Reasonability is also more winnable in LD given the rise of absurd theory arguments. I would prefer to judge a debate that does not center upon theory.

Debate History: St. Mark's '10/Trinity University '14
Assistant Director of Speech and Debate - Hendrickson HS (2017-2023)
Director of Speech and Debate - Sandra Day O’Connor HS (2023-present)

Lincoln Douglas thoughts

I come from a policy debate background so I definitely feel the most comfortable judging debates where the negative utilizes things like CPs, DAs or Ks. However, I am totally game to judge a traditional value/value criterion debate.

Pet Peeves:
1) Do not run a disclosure theory or any other argument based on pre-round norms unless it TRULY rises to the level of making the round IMPOSSIBLE to debate - 99% of rounds do not rise to this level and I am tired of judging rounds with constantly moving goalposts (wikis, 30 mins before round disclosure, full open source) for what constitutes "proper disclosure".
2) Have a plan before the debate for evidence sharing - I prefer an e-mail chain but SpeechDrop works too, but please do not wait until the end of the first speech to decide how this will be done.
3) I honestly lose respect for debaters who I feel are running identity based arguments for the sake of a ballot without either authentic personal connection to their scholarship or the ability to make authentic connections to the topic. If you are just running Race War because you saw some other team do it or you think it makes you a cooler debater, it doesn't and please stop. Racism doesn't exist for you to pick up debate ballots.
4) Not a pet peeve - but the debaters I enjoy watching the most are the ones who treat the debate like a game of chess in terms of setting up well-planned strategic moves through targeted cross-ex questions and well planned argumentation and blocks. The more strategic and prepared you seem in my eyes, the better your speaker points will be.

Public Forum thoughts

Please for all that is holy - do not try to become a policy debater just because my background is predominantly in policy debate. I have judged and coached PF consistently for over 5 years at this point and recognize its value as an event that is distinct from policy. There is nothing worse than PF debaters who attempt to cosplay as CXers.

Going off of what is stated as above, there is no circumstance in which a lack of disclosure makes a PF round impossible to access/participate in. Therefore, there is no circumstance in which I will decide a PF round on disclosure theory - you only get a month to debate your topic, lets actually debate it please.

In terms of what I actively DO look for, impact calculus actually grounded in evidence and active analysis. I feel like "debater math" is often arbitrary and replaces actual contextual impact analysis.

Please don't skip crossfires or grand cross, these are the moments where clash often occurs - to me it is tantamount to skipping a speech and speaker points will reflect it.

Smart and strategic choices to invest or divest from flows/arguments reflect public forum debaters with great critical thinking skills and knowledge of their case/the topic at hand. Speaker points will be rewarded to those who make smart, necessary, strategic choices instead of collapsing/extending purely for the sake of it.

Policy/CX thoughts

I treat each debate round as an academic exercise in decision making. I leave many questions of framework and impact calculus to the teams debating, however if not otherwise explicitly stated I will default to a policy making framework and utilitarianism, respectively.

T/Framework:
I typically evaluate this from a competing interpretations standpoint and an offense/defense framework but can be persuaded otherwise. When making these kinds of arguments, negative teams typically forget that their interpretation is of how the debate space should operate and thus must defend it as so. Negative teams MUST explain why their interpretation is better for the overall debate space in order to get my ballot. In round abuse arguments are compelling, however, they are nearly impossible to prove and I have a high threshold for voting on them.
I am a fairly firm believer that debate is a game and that structural fairness is an impact. However, this also means that fairness should be utilized as a lens or impact filter for all the other impacts in the framework debate.

Counterplans:
Many of my thoughts in the above section apply to my thoughts on counterplan theory. I feel that 2 conditional advocacies is the most that the negative should run, much to the chagrin of most folks (new affs are an exception). That being said, I won't default certain ways in theory debates. I will be considerably more compelled to deem that a counterplan solves an affirmative if it is a specific CP than if it is your typical agent CP. Specific PICs that have functional impacts on plan implementation are so much better than your generic process counterplan. So, so, so much better.

Kritiks:
Many kritik teams tend to focus more on tricks than substance. The most important portion of this debate for me is the link debate and I expect a clear explanation of why the specific affirmative links. It is the negative's task to explain why the permutation cannot possibly solve back/overcome the links. I will default affirmative in many of these debates. I feel that the best kritik debaters are the ones who are willing to adapt their strategy and link debate to the specific affirmative that they are debating.
Links of omission are functionally spotting the aff a uniqueness overwhelms the link argument to the net benefit to a very vacuous alternative. Please have link specificity.

Disadvantages:
I didn't think I had thoughts on this until recently. There are very good disads and very bad disads. If you are aff against a very bad disad, don't be afraid to point this out! I feel like I am more likely than most to say there is zero risk of a disadvantage when the uniqueness very clearly overwhelms the link or there is zero link specificity.

Speaking:
-Yes email chain: alymithani91@gmail.com. Every time a varsity debater forgets to hit "reply all" on an email chain, a kitten cries and you will lose 0.5 speaker points.
-Do not clip cards! If there is an ethics challenge, I will stop the debate and have the accused debater re-read their speech with either their speech document on my computer or standing over their shoulder. That being said, ethics challenges are serious, if you are making one, then you are willing to lose the debate if you are wrong. Strategic ethics challenges will result in horrific speaker points from me.
-I will call you out if you are blatantly stealing prep and it will hurt your speaker points.
-For paperless teams, I do not run prep time for saving/flashing the speech unless this time starts to become excessive or it becomes evident that prep is being stolen.
-It drives me crazy when debaters are disrespectful to each other. There is no reason why competitiveness needs to turn into aggression. Treat the debate space like a classroom.
-Another pet peeve: debaters who do not seem to legitimately enjoy what they are doing. Debaters who go through the motions are usually the ones that end up with the lowest speaker points from me. Even if you are not keeping up with the technical aspects of the debate, if you remain engaged and committed throughout the debate, I will definitely feel more comfortable with giving you higher speaker points.

Read a topical plan--------------x-----------------------------say anything

Tech-----------------x-------------------------Truth

Usually some risk--------------------------------x----------Zero Risk

Conditionality Good----------------------x--------------------Conditionality Bad

States CP Good-------x------------------------------------States CP Bad

Process CPs--------------x-------------------------------Ew Process CPs

Competing off immediacy/certainty--------------------x------------------------No

Reasonability-------------------------x------------------Competing Interps

Limits---------x-----------------------------------Aff Ground

CP linking less matters-------------------x-----------------------links are yes/no

Read every card--------------------x-----------------------Read no cards

Judge Kick------------x-------------------------------Stuck with the CP

Reject the Team---------------------------x----------------Reject the Arg

CPs need cards-----------------------------------x-------Smart CPs can be cardless

K links about the plan-----------x--------------------------------K links about a broad worldview

Roberto Montero, Bronx Science ’16, Binghamton ’20. I debated 4 years in high school and broke at the ToC if that means anything to you.

There are two types of arguments in debate (and their inverses): smart arguments and good arguments. Some arguments happen to be both but most of the time they are neither (thus either a bad argument or a not-so-intelligent argument). A smart argument is well-researched, nuanced, and interesting. Good arguments are strategic and effective at winning debates. For example, the politics disad is a ‘good argument’ in that it wins a lot of debates and can be executed and deployed to perfection in the correct hands. That doesn’t make it a smart argument because every novice can tell you that it doesn’t reflect real politics outside of a basic uniqueness claim (which half the time is cut out of context because news articles aren’t written as conclusive as cards are purported to be). A smart argument isn’t always good however. If you have a critique that you’ve put a grad thesis amount of work into, it might make some interesting observations about the world/aff but may not be the most strategic.

Understanding the distinction between these two types of arguments is a recipe for combining them and developing the most well rounded arguments and a higher quality of debates. However, it isn’t my job to sit behind my laptop and mock the quality of your arguments, rather it is up to you as debaters to develop and articulate your arguments as such. When judging I do my best to let debaters do the debating so regardless of what my opinions/thoughts on your arguments are, as long as they are warranted, impacted and clearly extended throughout the speeches. This is also important for understanding how I judge debates—framing your rebuttals with important technical concessions on the line by line is valuable in making my decision easier and not make me sift through dropped arguments on both sides.

The biggest problem in most debates starts with that whole line by line thing. Teddy Albiniak taught me that one of the ways that high schoolers develop bad habits is through imitating prominent college debaters. The thing that bothers me the most is the reliance on 7/8 minute overviews. While this may be something that works for some very talented college debaters, generally it shouldn’t be a tactic employed by most. There is a place for an overview, and it serves a valuable and strategic function but there is such a thing as excessive. This is one of the biggest tradeoffs with engaging in the line by line in general which is pretty important.

*This last portion, like most of my paradigm, assumes a basic model of debate. This means that if you present an alternative model of debate and a different metric for evaluating arguments I will accept that. To quote Alain Badiou It’s only a principle, it’s not a programme. Debate isn’t standard and that is one of the things that makes it such an enjoyable and valuable activity, so take this with a grain of salt.

The second biggest problem is case debating. ~~Newsflash~~ most affs are bad. Not even most, definitely all of the affirmatives are bad. One of the best way to satisfy judges (and me) is by exploiting that on the case page. The threshold for smart 1nc case analytics is a little high but by the block some smart engagement with the warrants and internal links of the 1ac, especially at a basic, logical level, can only help you in the long run. This is particularly important for me as a judge because I can easily justify pulling the trigger on a presumption/0 risk of the aff type argument if mishandled by the affirmative and well-articulated/nuanced by the negative. This is not to say it’s impossible to be aff or that even that the standard is higher but that you should be prepared to defend the 1ac against larger level solvency questions.

We also need to talk about presumption. It is important, especially versus critical affirmatives. If your aff cannot answer the question of why the ballot is key or implicate it in any sense, you have abdicated my role as an adjudicator. All I can really do is enter a team that is victorious on a ballot, just saying that this is obvious does not mean the issue goes away. Perhaps this contradiction is too much to overcome in 8 minutes of a 1ac, and maybe is a problem with how we construct affirmatives but something persuasive needs to be said that doesn't amount to "You're right nothing we said or do matters but you should vote for us anyways" in 1ac cross-x.

Tl;dr please debate the case. Just do it. Like cigarettes and overviews it’s not cool just because the big kids do it.

As for specific arguments I don’t have much to say on all the ~nuances~ of agent counter plans or the intricacies of politics disad theory. I think the go through every issue thing is cliché and generally just a waste of time. If you have any specific questions about my thoughts on some random thing I’d be happy to answer it but I won’t bother to write down an arbitrary opinion on the 7th subpoint of some condo block from 2006. The only issue worth addressing (and what I’m almost confident is the only thing people look at) is framework.

Framework

The biggest problem with framework is that a lot of 2nr’s seem to forget to extend an impact. And when they do remember to extend an impact it turns out to just be a really bad impact. Although I’m willing to vote on a dropped fairness argument I’m still skeptical that the age old phrase ‘Debate is a game so fairness you broke the rules you lose’ meets the necessary threshold of an argument. If you plan on going for this impact in front of me make sure it is clearly articulated and not the same circular claim without a warrant.

What I think the so called ‘intrinsic’ value of debate is can be loosely understood as clash. The ability for two teams to debate the merits of competing positions seems valuable not only for education but is just plain fun. Not to say that clash is an impact in it of itself because at some level it’s fundamentally inevitable, but it’s a question of what that clash looks like. This should structure how you articulate a framework impact (or answer one for that matter) most likely to get my ballot. If framework is a question of competing models or visions of debate then you just have to prove comparatively that your model produces better debates, skills or education.

The second biggest problem with framework debates is that negative teams let affs get away with too much. If the 2ar gets to stand up and weigh the entirety of the 1ac versus framework it puts you way behind. The easiest way for an affirmative to defeat framework is to complicate and problematize the way they have constructed the world. This means if you win some truth claims about your aff and the way the world operates through your theory or interpretation then it nullifies a lot of their arguments. For example if you read an affirmative that says the global system of capitalism is bad and the 2nr doesn’t answer the case debate, then what do their skills matter if they can only reproduce a system of capital you have critiqued. This, like any good framework rebuttal, requires a lot of framing and contextualizing the line by line through these bigger picture questions.

The best way for negative teams to check back against this is to just reduce the risk of the aff. You can look back up to that whole portion about case debating, it applies to K affs as well. The other necessary piece is a topical version of the aff. Obviously not helpful against an anti-topical aff but in a majority of framework debates a persuasive and nuanced topical version of the aff goes a long way in resolving a lot of their offense. It still requires a larger impact in conjunction because at the end of the day it is still a defensive argument.

Tl;dr don’t waste time, make good arguments, do line by line, debate the case, extend a framework impact, don’t say talks about how.

.

I believe debate is about the debaters, and when deciding I will evaluate the decision-making logics presented in the 2NR and 2AR trying not to intervene. I don't have anything against any type of argument, and I believe you should be able to answer rape good without my help. If I cannot understand you I will stop flowing without yelling clear and without remorse. An argument is not dropped simply because it is not mentioned by 'argument tag' ; its logic must be unscathed.

I struggle to see why topicality as such is conservative or regrettable in any way, but particular visions of the topic or the role of the debaters/judge in relation to the topic certainly can be and often are.

Do your thing in front of me; this is your event, your round, your work and your speeches. I will listen with all the hospitality I have.

I was a circuit debater who went for Ks and T exclusively.         

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DR. SYDNEY PASQUINELLI

• Director of Debate @ Wayne State University
• Program Director of the Detroit Urban Debate League
• BA- Wayne State University
• MA - Wake Forest University
• PHD - University of Pittsburgh
• she/her
• email chains: wayneCXdocs@gmail.com

Stylistics:

- I like debates with a lot of direct clash and impact calculus.

- I am very flow-oriented, and I often vote on based on "tech over truth." In other words, I like debates where teams debate LBL, and exploit the other team's errors and use technical concessions to get ahead strategically.

- I really dislike tag-teaming in CX, especially when the result is that one person dominates all the CXs.

- I don't usually read along in the speech docs during your speeches, because I like to stay true to the flow.

- I would appreciate if you sent me compiled card docs at the end of the round.

Default Voting Paradigm:

- If the aff is net beneficial to the status quo, I default to voting aff unless the negative wins another framework.

- If the neg wins a substantial risk of a DA, which has an external impact that outweighs and turns the case, the affirmative is probably going to lose my ballot. The 1AR can't drop "turns the case" arguments and expect the 2AR to get new answers.

- If the neg wins a substantial risk of the K, which has an external impact and turns the case, the negative still has to win an alternative or a framework argument (to take care of uniqueness), and beat back the perm.

- The perm which includes all the aff and all or part of the CP/Alt is a legitimate test of competition. If the neg proposes a framework to exclude perms, it has to be very well-justified, because I see the role of the neg is to win a DA to the aff as it was presented.

- Severance perms are not a reason to vote aff - if the aff is abandoning ship, this signals to me a neg ballot.

Topicality / Theory:

- I do not default to competing interpretations on framework or topicality. Winning that AFF could've started the round debating within a net-better "competing model" does not fulfill the role of the negative, which is to disprove the desirability of the aff.

- I think topicality is a question of in-round debatability. If you win that the aff was so unpredictable, vast, conditional and/or a moving target, and thus made it implausible for you to win the debate, then I will vote for T as a procedural issue. (A TVA or a net beneficial model is not a substitute for doing the work to prove their model is undebatable).

- Theory is also a question of in-round debatability. If you win that your opponent did something theoretically objectionable, that made it impossible for you to win this debate, I can see myself voting against your opponent. This includes excessive conditional worlds. I want to reiterate here that competing interpretations don't help in theory debates - procedurals are a yes/no question of in-round abuse.

I am finishing my PhD at MIT.

I debated for a brief period while I was at Harvard, with William Karlson, and in high school at Bellarmine (San Jose, California) where Sagar Vijay and I were in the finals of the 2009 TOC.

I don't have substantive preferences that should impact the way in which you normally debate --- just do what it is that you do to win rounds. I tend to err towards teams that do substantial and intelligent impact calculus that starts early in the debate. What are the crucial impacts the status quo avoids or that you solve? Why should I care? What will your vision of debate mean for future debate(r)s? Comparative analysis, at the micro-level within arguments, and at the macro-level from the perspective of the round and its implications for future rounds, is key. Teams that do it well will be rewarded.

Ravi Raghavan

Lexington High School '17

MIT '21 (Currently debating for Harvard)

Last Updated: January 2018

Please put me on the email chain: ravi1998@gmail.com

Overview

Feel free to run whatever you want, as long as it’s appropriate for the debate. I would rather you debate what you’re good at and do it well, rather than adapting to what I want and giving me a poor debate. I like to think that I am pretty ideologically flexible, having defended big stick policy affs, more soft-left affs that advocated for USfg action to solve systemic harms, and planless affs, while my 2NR choices have ranged from T to the politics DA to antiblackness. This year at Lexington, I am coaching a wide range of teams, from a team that reads antiblackness arguments on the aff and the neg, to other teams who defend topical plans and go for DAs/CPs. I think debate is fundamentally a game where any argument can win, as long as you debate it better than your opponents do, so a lot of these thoughts below are just minor predispositions, and I will try to judge as objectively as possible.

Speed- It's fine but don't let it compromise your clarity. As one of my coaches put it, “there’s no point of saying more if the judge can’t understand what you’re saying.” I will say “clear” twice, and after that, if you are still unclear, I will stop flowing. You should see this and substantially decrease your pace in order to get back to an acceptable level of clarity.

Tech over truth, but within limits- I think the best debaters effectively combine these two things, arguing strategically and methodically, but also with rhetorical power. That being said, I will judge by the flow. A dropped argument is a true argument. This means it must have a claim, warrant, and implication. I do expect debaters to do line-by-line, which is a way to earn good speaker points from me. I am a 1A/2N, so I inevitably give leeway to the 1AR on certain things, especially when a position is functionally non-existent in the 1NC and then suddenly develops in the block. However, I also try to protect the 2NR, and can sense when the 2AR is BS-ing.

Evidence is great, but so are logical arguments- Not every argument requires evidentiary support. Illogical claims can be answered with sensible, uncarded arguments. That being said, evidence is awesome, and I place a high value on good evidence quality. I will read cards after the debate, because I think that too many teams get away with bad evidence. Evidence comparison within the round will filter how I read certain pieces of evidence after the round, which will most definitely help the teams that do it.

Inserting rehighlighting- I'd prefer you read the rehighlighting instead of inserting it. I will be lenient about this, in the sense that you don't have to rehighlight the whole card, but just the small portion that you think goes your way.

Aggressiveness is great, being rude is bad- I really like aggressive debaters. Debate is a competitive place, so a slight level of discomfort within the round can not only be strategic, but it can also foster better debating. However, there is a fine line between where this aggression can turn into being rude. If you are going out of your way to make someone's weekend terrible, just for the sake of being a jerk, then I will not be happy. Having said this, very few debaters cross this threshold from productive aggression to needless rudeness. Furthermore, this should go without saying, but any racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive behavior based off an individual's identity will not be tolerated.

Impact stuff out- I will not do work for you. If you make me do work for you, I will not be happy, and speaker points will reflect it. Tell me why I should care about your impact over that of your opponents. Does it happen faster? Is it more probable? Does it affect more people? Impacting things out doesn’t just mean regurgitating how you get to nuclear war.

Paperless- I don’t take prep for flashing unless it’s taking a ridiculous amount of time. However, I would like to see a greater effort among all debaters in the round to lower the amount of "dead time."

I'm bad at keeping a perfectly straight face- Use this to your advantage. If I'm confused about an argument that you're making, I will likely show that. On the other hand, if I like an argument you're making, then you will be able to see that also. I figure that I should try to be less transparent but these reactions will sometimes be inevitable.

Strategy is cool- I appreciate and reward well-researched strategies. In addition, smart and/or bold decisions during the debate that demonstrate unique strategic vision are awesome.

Education Topic

I have done minimal research on the education topic coming into the year, so all of your acronyms and programs that your aff implicates will need to be explained. That being said, I am coaching for Lexington High School this year, so hopefully I can get on board with the jargon sooner rather than later. Err on the side of explanation if in doubt.

Ethics Violations

Card clipping- It seems like the number of card clipping incidents in debate is increasing, and this bothers me. Card clipping is failing to read sections of the card without marking audibly during the speech and on the speech doc (or on paper). It can be definitively determined whether a violation has taken place by recording the speech and playing it back with the speech doc. If an accusation of clipping occurs, I will stop the round, and ask the accusing team whether they would like to stake the round on this claim. If they say no, the round will continue. If they say yes, I will stop the round, and listen to the evidence provided by both teams to make my decision. If the accused team is found to have clipped, it results in an automatic loss, and 0 speaker points for the debater who is found guilty of clipping. If the accused team is found to have not clipped, the accusing team gets a loss and both debaters will receive 0 speaker points.

Stealing prep- Don’t do it. 8 minutes is more than enough anyways. If I catch you stealing prep, I will tell you to stop. After that, I will start to dock speaker points.

T

I default to reasonability over competing interpretations, but this is totally up to the debaters to tell me which way I should evaluate the T debate. It is imperative that lots of impacting happens within these rounds, and there are clear descriptions of each team’s vision of the topic. Tell me what debates under each interpretation would look like, and explain the implication to all of your internal links. Don’t just assert “limits” and “overlimiting” and expect me to randomly pick one of those. I also prefer limits and predictability arguments to ground arguments. This isn't to say that you should avoid making arguments about ground, but just that these arguments shouldn't be the sole justifications for your interp.

DAs

No problems here. I think most people, regardless of their current argumentative preferences started learning how to debate the DA/Case strategy at the beginning of their debate careers. I like the politics DA, because it incentivizes lots of research, and has lots of intricacies, but it sometimes is really crappy and there exist better DAs out there that I'd prefer you read instead of your "one size fits all" politics solution. I don’t like giant DA overviews, but I often think it’s fine to explain why your impact outweighs and turns the case in the overview. Both teams should make a lot of turns case arguments, and answer those of the other team. I do think if you are going for a DA/Case strat, impact calculus is essential, and I find that whichever team does more effective impact calc wins the round. Affs should exploit holes in the internal link chains of DAs.

Impact Turns

I love impact turns. I often find that strats which involve impact turns can be executed brilliantly. I prefer these debates to have meta-level framing rather than just being a giant card-war, but feel free to read a lot of evidence- That is usually what happens in these debates. Just don’t let that get in the way of necessary explanations.

CPs

I’m fine with them, and I think they are very strategic against some affs when you don’t have that many substantive answers to engage the actual case. CPs do need solvency advocates and should have a clearly articulated net benefit. I am probably an easier sell than most judges on the aff arg that the "CP links to the net benefit" unless the neg develops a complete argument about why the CP avoids the net benefit (cards on this really help). Advantage CPs are awesome, especially when they implicate the aff’s ability to solve for one of their advantages. PICs are sweet if they’re actually substantive (I dislike word PICs, but I’ll vote on them if I have to). Other theory concerns will be addressed below.

Ks

I really like a good K debate. I have significantly increased my tendency to go for K arguments and think that I am deep into the literature in certain areas. I’m most comfortable with race theory, but am also great for mainstream Ks like cap or security. I am becoming more familiar with more high theory kritiks. I still think they will take some more explanation than other Ks, but if that's your jam, go for it. Good technical debating on the K is one of the most satisfying things to watch. As I said above, I do not want to have to do work for you. Please, explain your argument- I don’t want you to be hiding behind blocks that your coach wrote for you and then not understand what you’re saying when asked to explain it. I expect link analysis to be contextualized to the 1AC, and a clear impact to the links.

I think the most important part of debating the K is the alternative. Sure, you can identify problems with the aff through the link and impact debate, but I need to know what the hell the alt does to resolve those. I was always happy when teams that went for a K against me kicked the alt in the 2NR, because that just meant that the debate was case advantages against a non-unique DA. If you go for a K, I expect the 2NR to also interact with the case, otherwise I will be very convinced by the inevitable 2AR “case outweighs” claim.

I think meta-level framing is important within these debates, but I also do expect you to do line-by-line. I’m ok with overviews, but I would much rather this explanation be on the line-by-line. In these debates, I always look to the framework debate first, because that tells me how I should evaluate the round. I don't care what framework you run, but I think the aff probably gets to weigh their impacts, unless you win that they don't get to.

Planless Affs

I’ll preface this by saying that I’d guess about 80% of my 2NRs against planless affs have been T-USfg. On the other hand, I have defended multiple planless affs, because there is definitely some strategic aspect to doing so. I also can enjoy listening to planless affs if they actually advocate to do something.

Topicality- I really enjoy listening to these debates. I think T is usually the most strategic argument against affs that don’t defend a plan, so I am a decent judge for the neg in these debates. With that said, however, I am also open to the ideas that the aff brings to the debate about why the resolution or the structure of debate is flawed, and often find that the 2NR fails to extend an external impact. Thus, while my personal belief is that the aff should defend topical government action, I still vote aff in some of these debates.

I was never a fan of the “soft left," institutions framework arguments because the internal links become a lot weaker and the aff can definitely access some of your impacts. I think arguments about defending a topical governmental policy for the sake of engaging a well-prepared opponent are a lot more convincing. Predictable limits arguments are the most convincing as internal links to clash and in-depth research. Procedural fairness is definitely an impact, and one that has consistently been persuasive to me, but you will still have to articulate a good set of internal links and an impact in a non-arbitrary way. I think procedural arguments about the balance of prep and clash are more effective impacts and often serve as internal links to whatever other skills-based impacts you want to go for (Lundberg, Steinberg and Freeley, etc). Arguments like the topical version of the aff and "do it on the neg" are essential chunks of defense and should be made to filter aff offense.

I think that aff teams need to do a better job when answering topicality. From my own personal experience, I have found that aff teams get too drawn up in the exclusionary nature of T, and they try to impact turn everything about it. Although impact turns are absolutely necessary, I think sometimes this detracts from exploiting some internal link issues. I have yet to hear a team contest the terrible internal link between clash and portable skills to stop extinction from climate change. I think that some top-level impact turns and overall impact comparisons are good when answering T, but they should be coupled with arguments that attack shoddy internal links, and prove that you also access some of the benefits of their interpretation. Your counterinterpretation should set at least some kind of limit on the topic. Final note: Please don’t try to go for “we meet” in front of me if your aff is blatantly not topical- Even if you do win that part of the debate, it will make me very sad voting for you, which probably translates to mediocre speaks.

Judge instruction is vital in topicality debates. In a lot of these debates, I am left with large pieces of offense and defense floating around from both sides with no metric for weighing them against each other. Tell me why I should prioritize competitive equity over the cruel optimism DA, or vice-versa. Weighing arguments can only benefit you, since lack of such comparison invites intervention on my part, which may yield a different result than the one you desire.

Other strats- I’m fine with teams who want to engage the aff through a counter-advocacy or a K of their own. I will leave it up to the debaters within the round to tell me why or why not the aff should get a permutation in these types of debates.

Case Debate

Please engage in a case debate regardless of the aff that is being run. It is impressive to me when you can beat the other team on not only your arguments but theirs also. Also, case debates probably create the greatest amount of direct clash within a round when done correctly, which is great. If you can get me to vote neg on presumption or a small bit of offense that outweighs a minimal risk of case, speaker points will generously reflect it. (The same can be said about an aff that reduces the risk of a DA to functionally nothing).

Theory

I default to rejecting the argument on theory for everything except conditionality, unless I am convinced otherwise. Although I do have predispositions, I can easily be persuaded by good technical debating. Here are my predispositions when it comes to theory:

Advantage CPs- Very neg leaning

Substantive PICs- Very neg leaning

Conditionality- Neg leaning (1-2 are definitely good, 3 is ok, 4+ is pushing it)

Agent CPs/International CPs- Aff leaning (It becomes a much different story when the neg has a good solvency advocate)

Process CPs- Aff leaning

50 State CPs- Slightly aff leaning (Uniform 50 state fiat is probably bad.)

Word PICs- Aff leaning

Object fiat- Very aff leaning

Multiplank CPs are fine. Aff teams should clarify whether the neg can add/kick planks otherwise I'm letting the neg do whatever they want.

Judge-Kick- Absent a 2NR argument for judge-kick, I will refrain from doing so.

Final Thoughts

I like when debaters connect with me on a personal level- Feel free to make jokes, whether they be about debaters I know, or funny things that happened in the round. I just ask you to make sure that these don't come at the expense of the other team. References to the Patriots, Celtics, or other sports teams/players are more than welcome.

Some of my favorite judges in high school were Kevin Hirn, Shree Awsare, Malcolm Gordon, Yao Yao Chen, and Michael McCabe. I generally agree with most of their thoughts about debate.

I encourage you to ask questions of, and even disagree with my RFD. I just ask that you give me at least some level of respect, and allow me to articulate how I evaluated certain arguments. I usually take more time than usual to make decisions, because I like to make sure that I evaluated the possible "ways out" for the losing team, and I like to provide a typed up RFD that the individual debaters can see on tabroom following a tournament.

If anything is unclear here, feel free to ask me before the round- I have to admit that I do like to rant about my thoughts on debate, so I will not be bothered at all if you have a question about my paradigm.

Updated for ASU 2021

I spent the first half of my debate career reading primarily "policy" arguments and the second half of my career experimenting with critical literature. Most of my 2NRs my senior year consisted of either psychoanalysis, politics (and CP/case), T, or framework. I've debated and coached both sides of the framework debate. I'm currently a lawyer. I have not judged any debates on this topic and have done almost no research on it either.

Contact info: rsrajan93@gmail.com (add me to the email chain)

Big picture:

-Each side should have offense (solvency deficits, DAs, etc.) to the other side's proposed advocacy (1AC, TVAs, CPs, K alts, etc.). In terms of impacts, however, I am comfortable believing that there is such a low risk of something happening that it is not a concern.

-Impact COMPARISONS frame my decision regardless of the genre of debate. Your final speech ought to provide some insight into why the strategy you are going for is a good one.

-While I care a lot about both evidence quality and spin, how you debate your evidence matters the most. Evidence quality will influence speaker points.

-Even...if argumentation is good because you're not likely to win every argument.

-Less is more. Final speeches ought to value breadth over depth. Fewer arguments that are better impacted out have a greater chance winning in front of me than hoping your opponent drops a poorly impacted one.

-I am quite good for impact turns, especially in Policy v. K debates.

-I have to be able to trace any argument that is in the 2AR to the 1AR. I will not reward aff vagueness or any attempt to obfuscate the debate up until the 2AR.

Note: Each debater gets one constructive and one rebuttal. After the 1AC/1NC, I will not evaluate what you say during your partner's speeches. This presumption can only be overcome with a very good and explicit reason.

Specific Arguments:

Framework: I judge this debate the most often. Fairness is far more persuasive as an internal link than it is as an external impact. The two most persuasive negative strategies are either: (a) an explanation of how the negative's conception of the activity promotes certain beneficial skills or a model of research (or engagement with the world) that links to some larger impact that outweighs and is mutually exclusive with the aff OR (b) a reason for why conceiving of debate as more than just a game structured by competitive incentives is bad. Negatives should still play defense to the substance of the aff via case answers, TVAs, state engagement good args, an SSD claim, etc. Such defense should also address aff impact turns to framework.

Affirmatives need a connection to the topic. Affs should also defend doing something and that advocacy should extend beyond the aff debaters. Otherwise, it's very easy for me to find that any impact on framework outweighs the aff. To effectively hedge against procedural fairness offense, affirmatives ought to have a vision of what debate looks like under their interpretation. I've noticed that I've been voting negative more often because affirmatives spend too much time describing the content of the aff and not enough time explaining how they grapple with the competitive structure of debate. Explain how you deal with the fact that debate is a competitive activity and how you would change our relationship to or channel the benefits of competition.

Lastly, I have a hard time completely separating "form" from "content." I am willing, however, to believe that one may be more important than (or control how I evaluate) the other.

Kritiks: Examples matter. While specificity to the aff is not required, specificity does influence how likely I am to believe the thesis of your K.

For the aff, if the negative critiques a methodological underpinning necessary for the aff to be true/function, the burden is on the affirmative to answer that critique. It behooves the aff to have a defense of their epistemology, ontology, representations, etc. or reasons why those considerations should not matter. The aff can and should make arguments about specificity, but needs to contextualize these arguments for the purposes of impact calculus or internal link takeouts.

When answering framework on the K, the aff should defend their model of engaging the resolution. I'm not too persuaded by arguments grounded in predictability or fairness.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability arguments should be phrased as reasons why the negative's interpretation is bad. I also believe that T is about what you justify so potential abuse is a voting issue. I'm not too persuaded by plan text in a vacuum type arguments. For both sides, it's important to contextualize any standards to specific arguments grounded in topic literature.

CPs/Theory: I heavily lean neg on conditionality. I lean aff on theoretical objections to CPs that compete off the certainty of the aff. The negative can obviate a lot of these concerns by having a topic-specific solvency advocate defending the value of discussing the CP. My default is to reject the argument and not the team.

I will kick the CP if I think it's worse than the status quo. A neg team does not have to say judge kick. Affs can make arguments about why judge kick is bad, but I'm a tough sell.

If you have any questions or would like a typed up version of my RFD, please email me.

Overall Notes- I don't really like speed or spreading. If you choose to spread then you will need to make your taglines clear. If I cannot understand your tags then I cannot flow the argument. Also do not expect me to be able to understand all the analysis from your arguments if you do not slow down for it.

LD- I tend to consider myself to be more of a traditionalist when it comes to LD. I enjoy a solid framework debate. I tend to vote for the debater that impacts out their arguments the best. I tend to judge based off the quality of arguments not the quantity of arguments. I think that one good argument can win the round for either side. I am not as comfortable with policy arguments in LD, but I was a CXer, so if you are in a panel situation I won't automatically vote you down for running them.

CX- I am a policy maker judge. I tend to judge based from a util mindset unless you give me another framework to work through. I really like to hear debate that focus on balance between terminal and real world impacts. I tend to like cohesive negative strategies that work together. Personally I am okay with conditionality, but if you want to get into the theory debate and impact it out in the round go for it. I am fine with any sort of theory debate. On T I default to reasonability. If you have any other questions feel free to ask.

delete

The most important thing to me is that you are clear and intentional about laying out the big picture. It will help a lot for you to very explicitly say 1) what you're winning and 2) how that interacts with the other team's important arguments in a way that adds up to a ballot. I think the essential skill that the best debaters have is the ability to do this eloquently, concisely, and with the right strategic instincts. Even if you do this in a clunky and inefficient way that's still much better than not doing it at all.

The second most important thing to know is that I am not a good flow, and will miss a lot of what you're saying if you don't accommodate this. I'll try to make it clear if I'm struggling to keep up.

Finally, I've gone for and voted for lots of different arguments, and I'm happy to vote on anything as long as you keep the above in mind. For what it's worth I went for mostly DAs at the end of my career but enjoyed reading and thinking about critiques as well.

Matt Schnall Judging Philosophy (updated February 2021)

The three most important things to know about debating in front of me are: First, I am an exceedingly open-minded listener; I am willing to take most any argument seriously. Second, in convincing me, argument strength (logic, appropriately evidenced premises) is generally more important than technique. Third, debate should involve interaction — between you and your opponent; between you and me.

A short explanation:

“Taking all arguments seriously” means that I am open to persuasion on almost all issues in a debate, outside of time limits and speaking order. Creative and strategic arguments tend to particularly engage me. This doesn’t mean, however, that everything you say is automatically an argument. Generally, I will only consider arguments that are complete. So, if you say x will cause y to happen (or prevent it) but do not explain why y would be good or bad, there is no argument and no response is required. Similarly, “perm do the aff” requires some explanation in order to become an argument.

In terms of truth versus tech, I appreciate technical proficiency and rhetorical skills in debate. They make it easier for me to be a good judge. Good line-by-line debate, preceded by a coherent story, is usually the best way to convince me to see things your way. Nevertheless, I do my best to evaluate arguments however they are presented, and if your opponent persuades me on a point, the fact that you have been faster, more emphatic, more eloquent, or repeated your argument in more ways will not carry the day. In evaluating evidence, I will begin by giving weight to the supportive warrants a proponent has flagged or the gaps articulated by the opponent. Once I am reading a card, however, if there is a gap that is plainly inconsistent with the proponent’s explanation, I will not ignore it merely because the opponent did not point it out.

Interaction means clash; it means listening; it means asking and grappling with difficult questions in cross-ex, not dodging them. It means I may interrupt your speech or cross-ex to ask a question. Even if I say nothing, I will provide a wealth of non-verbal feedback. If I frown or look puzzled, I probably don’t (yet) understand your argument; if I shake my head, I may not (yet) be convinced. In either case, try it again. You will be most successful if you treat me as an active listener who is working to understand and evaluate what you are saying, rather than a passive canvas on which to paint some preconceived picture.

Clarity and online debate:

I decide debates based on your arguments. To do that, I need to understand all of your words, and more generally to understand complete arguments as they are made. I can do this in person at a reasonably high rate of speed, but it does require both comprehensibility and digestible, transparent argument structure. For online debate, I would recommend slowing down to a speed consistent with your technology. I will look at evidence if resolving an argument depends on it — and to this end, please include me on the email chain — but do not expect that I am reading along with your speech doc.

More details:

My background — I debated in college and coached college teams with some success when I was much closer to your age than I now am. Over the last 25+ years, I have stayed involved by judging somewhat regularly. I did a bit of coaching and argument development and judged more heavily over the period in which my children were high school debaters (2010-2016). Harvard will be my first debate judging on the criminal justice topic.

Clarity —

(1) Comprehensibility should be the same for tags, citations, and evidence: I am listening to, and flowing, cards. If you are not comprehensible I will say something, but after 3 or 4 "clear"s you would be wise to keep an eye on me to see whether I am following, as eventually I will give up on verbal feedback.

(2) An argument is not an argument until I understand it. If you reiterate it in a later speech, I will treat it like any other new argument. Obscure wording is not your friend. If a tag is more than 10-15 syllables (not words), you probably need to simplify it. Pay attention to me when you are making any novel or intricate argument, particularly theory and advocacy statements (plan/counterplan/alternative advocacy) — if I look confused or stumped, explain further.

Predispositions — I expect that a debate will involve advocacy by the affirmative team and a response to that advocacy by the negative team after which I can determine a winner using some reasonably objective standard(s). Beyond that, I will entertain debate on framework, theory, etc. I am predisposed to resolve theory disputes in favor of competitive balance and educational value, but I can be convinced otherwise. All else being equal, I would prefer to see a debate about the topic.

Time limits and speech order are not negotiable. On a two-person team, each debater must deliver one constructive and one rebuttal speech, and I will not evaluate advocacy that takes place by a different person, including a partner, during that speech. Absent reasoned argument to the contrary, rebuttal speeches, including the 1NR, are limited to response to or elaboration of arguments from prior speeches; however, outside of the 2AR, I will not entirely discount an argument as new unless the opponent so identifies it.

Incomplete arguments — As noted above, I do not evaluate an argument if it does not contain — or I do not understand — all of the elements necessary in order for it to affect my decision making (such as an argument missing a link or impact). Whether an argument is complete is of course a subject for debate, but if you think your opponent’s argument incomplete, you should point it out. If I agree, then I will treat the argument as newly made when it is completed. This might cause the argument to be a new argument in a rebuttal speech, and it would always allow you to make new responses after the argument is completed.

**EMAIL FOR EVIDENCE CHAIN**: semplenyc@gmail.com

Coaching Background
Policy Debate Coach @

Success Academy HS for the Liberal Arts (2020 - )

NYCUDL Travel Team (2015-PRESENT)

Brooklyn Technical High School (2008-2015)
Baccalaureate School for Global Education (2008-2010)
Benjamin Banneker Academy (2007-2008)
Paul Robeson HS (2006-2007)

Administrative Background
Program Director of the New York City Urban Debate League (September 2014 - Present)

Debater Background
Former Debater for New York Coalition of Colleges (NYU/CUNY) (2006- 2009)
An alumnus of the IMPACT Coalition - New York Urban Debate League (2003-2006)

Judging Background
Years Judging: 15 (Local UDL tournament to National Circuit/TOC)

Rounds Judged
Jack Howe is the first I will judge on this LD topic.

LD Paradigm

I've judged LD in the northeast and given my policy background, I can judge a circuit LD debate. My thoughts on LD are pretty similar to Policy given that you can run whatever you want... just make an argument and impact it. My specifics on LD (which I judge similar to Policy) is listed below.

PF Paradigm
I've been coaching PF for a few years now and to talk about my judging paradigm on PF, I would like to quote from Brian Manuel, a well-respected debate coach in the debate community when he says the following:

"This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, mis-cited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in the debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead, I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me, this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that, the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you"


Policy Short Version:
I try to let you, the debaters decide what the round is about and what debate should be. However, as I enter my fifteenth year in this activity, I will admit that certain debate styles and trends that exist from convoluted plan texts/advocacy statements where no one defends anything and worse; debaters that purposely and intentionally go out of their way to make competitors and judges and even spectators feel uncomfortable through fear tactics such as calling people out in debate because one doesn't agree with the other's politics, utilizing social media to air out their slanderous statements about people in the debate community and so on is tired and absolutely uncalled for. I say this because this has been an on-going occurrence far TOO often and it has placed me in a position where I'm starting to lose interest in the pedagogical advantages of policy debate due of these particular positions. As a result, I've become more and more disinterested in judging these debates. Not to say that I won't judge it fairly but the worst thing you can do in terms of winning my ballot is failing to explain what your argument is and not telling me what the ballot signifies. So, if you are the type of team that can't defend what your aff does or how it relates to the topic and solely survives off of grandiose rhetoric and/or fear tactics... STRIKE ME!

Long Version:

The Semantics of "So-Called" Rules or Norms for Debate Rounds


THE INTRO: I try to have zero substantive or procedural predispositions prior to the round. But as I judge, judge, and judge policy debates, that tends to shift. So, in out of all honesty, I say to you that all debaters will have the opportunity to argue why you should win off with a clean slate. If you win a round-ending argument, I won't shy away from voting for you just because I think it's stupid. Of course, I expect your arguments to be backed up by persuasive reasoning (or whatever else you find persuasive), but if you fail to explain why you should win, I will feel personally licensed by you all to make things up. So at the end of the day, don’t make me have to do the work to adjudicate the round… you do it. DON'T MAKE ME HAVE TO DO THE WORK THAT YOU SHOULD DO IN THE ROUND!!! I don't mind reading evidence at the end of a debate, but don't assume that I will call for evidence, make sure that if you want me to evaluate your argument with your evidence at the end of the round just tell me what I should review, and I'll review the argument for you. Also, if you intend to use acronyms, please give me the full name before you go shorthand on me.

TOPICALITY: I've come to enjoy T debates, especially by those that are REALLY good at it. If you are that T hack that can go for T in the 2NR then I am a lot better for you than others who seem to think that T isn’t a legitimate issue. I do, which doesn’t mean I will vote for you just because you run it. It means that if you win it, that brings major weight when it is time for adjudication. FYI, T is genocide and RVIs are not the best arguments in the world for these debates but I will pull the trigger on the argument is justified. (and I mean REALLY justified). Voting on reasonability or a competing interpretation as a default paradigm for evaluating T is up for grabs, but as always I need to know how the argument should be evaluated and why it is preferable before I decide to listen to the T debate in the 2NR (e.g. predictable limits key to topic education).

COUNTERPLANS: I don’t mind listening to a good (and I mean) good CP debate. I don’t really have any set opinions about issues like whether conditionality is okay and whether PICs are legitimate. I award debaters that are creative and can create CPs that are well researched and are competitive with the AFF plan. Those types of debates are always up in the air but please note that in my experience that debaters should be on top of things when it comes to CP theory. Those debates, if executed poorly are typically unacceptably messy and impossible to resolve so be careful with running theory args on CP debates that A) makes ZERO sense, B) that is blimpy, and C) that is not necessary to run when there is no abuse. Violation of any of the three will result in me giving you a dumb look in your speech and low speaks. And it really doesn't hurt to articulate a net benefit to the CP for that would win you some offense.

DISADVANTAGE: I evaluate Disads based on the link story presented by the negative in the 1NC and what is impacted in the 2NR. To win my vote, the story needs to be clear in terms of how specifically does the affirmative link to the DA. Any case can link but it’s how specific the link is and the calculus of the impact that makes me lean more towards the neg.

KRITIKS: I can handle K debates, considering the majority of my debate career has been under critical arguments (i.e. Capitalism, Statism, Racism, Biopower…) But, if you are a team that relies on the judge being hyped up by fancy rhetoric that you learn from camp, practice, or a debate video on YouTube, you don’t want me. In fact, some of you love to read insanely complicated stuff really fast without doing enough to explain what the hell you’re saying. I like a fast debate like anyone else, but if you read the overview to your tortuously complex kritik at top speed, you’re going to lose me. If your kritik is not overly complex, go nuts with speed. I will vote on offensive arguments such as "K Debate Bad/Good or the perm to the alt solves or turns to the K, as long as you win them. Overall, I’m cool with the K game, ya dig. All I ask of you all is a comprehensive link story for me to understand... an impact and what does the alternative world looks like and how that is more desirable than the aff policy option. "Reject the aff" as the alt text.... very long stretch on winning the K if I don't know what it means.

FRAMEWORK: Like Topicality, I also enjoy framework debates, if done properly. And like topicality, I try to not have a default preference in terms of defaulting to policymaker or activist or whatever in the fairness of approaching the debate round from a clean slate. At the end of the debate, I need to know what the round should be evaluated and what is my jurisdiction as a judge to evaluate the debate on a particular framework versus the opponent's competitive framework (if they choose to present one). If there isn't a competitive framework, I'll simply default to the original framework mentioned in the debate. In essence, if I am not presented with a framework of how to evaluate the argument, I'll take the easy way out and evaluate the argument as a policymaker. However, it is up to the debaters to shape the debate, NOT ME.

PERFORMANCE/ K Affs: I'm slowly starting to dislike judging these types of debates. Not because I don't like to hear them (I've ran critical affirmatives and neg positions both in high school and in college) but more and more I'm stuck judging a debate where at the end of round, I've spent nearly two hours judging and I've learned little to nothing about the topic/subject matter but instead subjected to grandiose rhetoric and buzzwords that makes no sense to me. I really dislike these debates and the fact that these types of debates are growing more and more places me in a position where I'd rather not judge these rounds at all. As a judge, I shouldn't have to feel confused about what you are saying. I shouldn't have to feel pressured into voting a certain way because of one's pessimistic view of the debate space. Granted, we all have our issues with policy debate but if you don't like the game... then don't play it. Changing the debate space where diversity is acknowledged is fine but when we lose sight of talking about the resolution in lieu of solely talking about one's personal politics only becomes self-serving and counter-productive. For that, I am not the right judge for you.

That said, if you want to run your K aff or "performance" affirmative, do what you do best. The only burden you have is that you need to win how your level of discourse engages the resolution. If you cannot meet that burden then framework/procedural arguments become an easy way to vote you down. If you can get through that prerequisite then the following is pretty straightforward: 1) I just want you to explain what you are doing, why you are doing it, what my role is, and how I’m supposed to decide the round. 2) If you want me to engage the debate via a comparison of methodologies, you need to explain what it is and how it functions in the context of the resolution and prove that its preferable against your opponent or vise-versa. 3) I want you to act like the other team actually exists, and to address the things they say (or the dances they do, or whatever). If you feel like I should intuit the content of your args from your performance/K Affs with no explicit help from you, you don’t want me, in fact, you will just hate me when I give you lower speaks. However, if you are entertaining, funny, or poignant, and the above constraints don’t bother you, I’m fine. 4) If you answer performance/ K Affs arguments with well thought-out and researched arguments and procedurals, you’ll easily pick up my ballot.

THEORY: This is something that I must say is extremely important to mention, given that this is greatly a big issue in policy debate today, especially in the national circuit. So let me be clear that I have experienced highly complex theoretical debates that made virtually NO sense because everyone is ready to pull out their blocks to "Condo Bad" or "Vagueness Good" or "Agent CPs Bad" without actually listening to the theoretical objection. With that I say, please pay attention. Good teams would provide an interpretation of how to evaluate a theory argument. Like a procedural argument, you should prove why your interpretation of the theoretical argument is preferred for debate. It would also help you to SLOW, SLOW, SLOW down on the theory debates, especially if that is the route that you're willing to go to for the 2NR/2AR. If the affirmative or negative are planning to go for theory, either you go all in or not at all. Make sure that if you're going for theory, impact it. Otherwise, I'm left to believe that its a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

FLASHING EVIDENCE/EMAIL CHAIN: I have a love-hate relationship with paperless debate but I can accept it. That being said, please be aware that I will stop the prep time once the flash drive is out of the computer of the team that is about to speak. I take this very seriously considering the on-going mishaps of technical issues that are making the paperless debate, in general, a notorious culprit of tournament delays, considering the flashing of the evidence, the opponents searching for the correct speech file, and the infamous "my computer crashed, I need to reset it" line. If you are capable of having a viewing computer... make it accessible. I'm also cool with email chains. You can send me your speeches to semplenyc@gmail.com. Same rules on flashing apply to email chains as well.

BEHAVIOR STYLE: To be aggressive is fine, to be a jerk is not. I am ok if debates get a bit heated but that does not allow debaters to be just plain rude and ignorant to each other. That said, please be nice to each other. I don't want to sound like the elementary school teacher telling children to behave themselves, but given the experience of some debaters that simply forgot that they are in an activity that requires discipline and manners... just chill out and have fun. For example, POINTLESSLY HOSTILE CROSS-EXAMINATIONS really grinds my gears. Chill out, people. Hostility is only good in cross-ex if you making a point. And oh yeah, be nice to your partner. At the end of the day, they're the one you have to go back to practice with.

Remember, competitive debate is a privilege, not a right. Not all students have the opportunity to compete in this activity on their spare weekends for various reasons (academic and socio-economic disadvantages to name a few). Remember that debate gives you an opportunity to express yourselves on a given subject and should be taken advantage of. Although I don't want to limit individuals of their individuality when presenting arguments however I will not condone arguments that may be sexist, racist, or just plain idiotic. Remember to respect the privilege of competition, respect the competitors and hosts of the tournament and most importantly respect yourselves.

HAVE FUN AND BEST OF LUCK!!!

jon sharp

Director of Debate @ GDS (the actual GDS, not the camp, not the affinity group, not the cultural phenomenon...well, maybe the cultural phenomenon...)

(Relevant) Background: Debated in HS (program doesn't exist any more) and college (Emory); coached at Emory, West GA, USC, New Trier, Kentucky, and GDS; taught around 75 labs (including, but not limited to the Kentucky Fellows, SNFI Swing Lab, Berkeley Mentors, Antilab, and the forthcoming Quantum Lab). This is what i do - i teach, coach, and judge debate(s). This is both good and bad for you.

This is Good for You: One could say that i have been around, as it were. If you want to do something that people do in debates, i got you. If you want to do something that people don't do in debates, i won't freak out.

This is Bad for You: This ain't my first rodeo. If you want to do something that people do in debates, i have seen it done better and worse. If you want to do something that people don't do in debates, i probably remember the last time that somebody did it in a debate.

Are You For Real? Yah, mostly...i just don't think judging philosophies are all that helpful - any judge that is doing their job is going to suspend disbelief to as great an extent as possible and receive the debate in as much good faith as they can muster...but almost nobody is upfront enough about what that extent looks like.

Well, that's not especially helpful right now. OK, you make a strong point, imaginary interlocutor. Here are a few things that may actually help:

1 - Flow the Debate - I flow the debate. On paper. To a fault. If you do not take this into account, no matter how or what you debate, things are going to go badly for you. Connecting arguments - what used to be called the line-by-line - is essential unless you want me to put the debate together myself out of a giant pile of micro-arguments. You Do Not Want This. "Embedded clash" is an adorable concept and even can be occasionally helpful WHEN YOU ARE MANAGING THE REST OF THE FLOW WITH PRECISION. There is no such thing as "cloud clash."

2 - Do What You are Going to Do - My job isn't to police your argument choices, per se; rather, it is to evaluate the debate. If debaters could only make arguments that i agreed with, there would not be much reason to have these rounds.

3 - If you are mean to your opponents, it is going to cause me to have sympathy/empathy for them. This is not an ideological position so much as an organic reaction on my part.

4 - "K teams," "identity teams," and non-traditional/performance teams pref me more than policy teams - Make of that what you will.

5 - Stop calling certain strategic choices "cheating" - This is one of the few things that just sends my blood pressure through the roof...i know you like to be edgy and i respect your desire to represent yourself as having no ethical commitments, but this is one of the worst developments in the way people talk and think about debate since the advent of paperlessness (which is essentially The Fall in my debate cosmology). Reading an AFF with no plan is not cheating; reading five conditional CPs in the 2NC is not cheating; consult NATO is not cheating. Clipping cards is cheating; fabricating evidence is cheating, consulting your coach in the middle of the debate is cheating. An accusation of an ethics violation (i.e., cheating) means that the debate stops and the team that is correct about the accusation wins the debate while the team that is wrong loses and gets zeroes. This is not negotiable. Ethics violations are not debate arguments, they do not take the form of an off-case or a new page and they are not comparable to anything else in the debate.

Also - just ask.

Shirley Update

The only topic work I’ve done for Personhood is digging up my old plant ontology files, go slow and tell me your stuff.

If my camera is off I am not present - don’t start.

Short

I've read every kind of aff from straight up heg good to baudrillard, I care way less about what arguments you make than how well you defend them.

I went for the K a lot in high school and still do, but I also love a good policy round, and would much rather you debate to your strengths than to what arguments you think I'll like.

Put me on the email chain, alexsherman99@gmail.com I won't be reading along, unless you read a card that I think is so good I want to recut it for my teams, or if there's a dispute about something that was read.

Long version

I flow on paper. This means that you going slightly slower, and having a clear story will be quite helpful. I'm at the tail-end of year 10 competing and year 5 judging, so this doesn't mean you have to talk to me like I'm a parent judge, but it does mean that if you go full speed through 8 minutes of blocks, to not be surprised when I miss an argument or two. The easy fix to this, for all of you speed demons out there, is to label your arguments with a flowable tag. We already do this with cards, why not do it with our analytics too?

When making my decision. I first write up the most important arguments for both sides. This usually comes down to about 2-3 things, though that may just be because I only judge clash rounds. I then look over my flow, and try to write up an explanation of each, and what it means for both sides. I then compare these, and look for responses that the other team has forwarded. What this means for you, is that it is in your interest to identify what you think the 2-3 most important arguments for either side are, tell me why you're winning them, or why you should still win in the event that you don't win these arguments. If you do not do this, I will still do my best to identify these arguments, but, what I think is important and what you do may not line up, and as a result, our perceptions of the winner may not line up either.

When doing this, I often try as hard as I can to not read evidence. This is because I am very committed to my belief that debate is an activity about communication, and that if you did not effectively communicate an argument to me, it does not matter if you read an amazing card. While I obviously still care about research and evidence quality, I feel that the impulse to read all of the evidence to decide the round makes me more interventionist (which I would like to avoid) and also seems to fall outside of the terms of debate. I.e. outside of teams dropping stuff, if i were to just decide the round based on the cards you read, and not what you said about them, why should I even be sitting there for two hours listening to you? Couldn't you just send me your cards and have me decide at the end whose I thought were better?

This applies less and less if both sides are comparing a piece of evidence, or questioning it's qualifications, or implication, but the "this card is fire, please read it judge" has never been something I have been that inclined to do.

I judge a majority clash debates (around 80% when I last checked) and have found that oftentimes the winners in this debates are the ones who engage with the other side's approach to the world, rather than just explaining why their approach is better. While we obviously should still care about drops, and they are often useful in making decisions in these rounds, I've found that it's useful for both teams to invest a substantial amount of time in looking to where the other team clashed, as much as where they didn't.

I've noticed that I may sound kind of grumpy when giving rfds. This very rarely reflects my distaste at having to judge your round, and more so reflects that I am displeased at having to get 5 or 6 hours of sleep.

My favorite judges in high school were always the ones who seemed really excited to be there judging my round, and the ones who emphasized voting on what was in the round. I love debate and I know you care about the activity to be giving up your weekends to compete in it, and it would be rude of me if I didn’t put all my effort into making the best decision I can. If you don’t think I’m paying enough attention, go ahead and call me out. Nothing here is set in stone, but, if you don't tell me to change how I'd evaluate any of these, then they're my defaults.

1 Tech Over truth, but to an extent. True arguments require less technical explanation for me to buy what you're selling. Oftentimes when making decisions, I find that I am looking at dropped words on my flow, but am unsure how to piece them together to make a cohesive rfd. It is in your best interest to not only tell me what was dropped, but then tell me what I should think about the drops.

2 Mediocre strategies may win in front of me, but, speaker points will likely suffer. If the 1ar drops aspec that was at the bottom of your t overview, and that’s your a-strat, I’m probably not the judge for you. I prefer debates with either really tricky and nuanced strategies, or teams that are willing to just bet it all on black and go for impact turns. I've found that teams that do a better job articulating how I should evaluate arguments do better in front of me than teams that just wait for me to reconstruct what an argument means for my decision. I'm not smart so if you tell me how arguments implicate the rest of the debate, you'll be in a better spot.

3 Protecting the 2nr. There's nothing worse than giving what you think is a fire 2nr and then watching the judge nod along with an argument you're certain wasn't in the 1ar. 2ars should have a high standard for drawing arguments from the 1ar unless they were clear in the speech. I.E. new 2ar cross applications should be justified in the speech/flagged in the 1ar. If I don’t think I could have seen it coming, I probably will think it’s new.

4 Counterplans: They should compete with the aff. Theory arguments are usually just reasons to reject the counterplan, but this is primarily because most folks are afraid of going all in. If your solvency deficit is mediocre, theory is probably a good way out. You don't need a solvency advocate, but having one definitely makes your job easier. Exploit generic link chains in affs.

Generic pics are awful, and specific pics are one of the fastest ways to get good speaks, but in both cases, pics bad needs to come back with a vengeance. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR.

5 Disads: 2acs with bold strats, i.e. straight turning a disad would increase my value to life, and your speaker points. I am very much in the camp that a disad that isn't a full argument in the 1nc is a terrible strategic decision hint: 1a's pull out your impact turns. Outside of that though, I really do like them, whether you're a plug and chug politics team, or a team with the amazing topic link card that no one else has found.

6 Kritiks I like them, they’re probably my favorite argument. I’m really into high theory, and probably am a good judge for you if you like to run kritiks. I’ve run all kinds of things, mainstream stuff like cap, and apoc rhet, to stuff like dng, baudrillard, and halberstam. Examples, explanation and re-contextualization will be integral to your success. These rounds are often more about controlling the narrative than many others, which makes sense given that the focus of the debate is on whether the assumptions that the other team has forwarded are valid.

You don’t need to have an alt to win, but you should justify why. Your links should be specific to the aff. Obviously this is a sliding scale, and if you're reading a K of realism against an aff from John Mearsheimer, I won't be rolling my eyes wishing you had a card specific to the aff, but, If I can’t tell what aff your debating in your 2nc on the k, we’re both gonna have a bad time.

I was always pretty frustrated after giving a 2nr on the K when the judge was just like. "I know you both read a bunch of stuff on framework, but I couldn't really decide who won so I kinda just picked a middle option that both teams never said" Not only does this seem to heavily favor the affirmative, but also reflects a combination of arguments that was never advocated for by either team. I think the best strategy for the aff is just to have some arguments that presume that they (gasp) have to defend why their representations and scholarship are good. Given that most k's are some kind of argument about how the affirmative's theory of IR justifies violence, it doesn't seem that hard to identify the strain of IR that you have affirmed, and provide a defense of why you think about the world the way you do. If the neg has said debate is about how we craft our subjectivity, and said that the subjectivity they endorse opposes a particular world view, why wouldn't this equally apply to the aff, and the defensive realist subjectivity of the taiwan aff be a reason why you should get to say your impacts still matter.

Generally though, I think that affs need to be doing a lot better job answering k's. Please talk about your aff more and generic backfile cards less. Most cases outweigh the k, and extinction impacts are often pretty persuasive. I really do not want to die, and presume that most people do not want to die either, and one thing that always confused me was when there were debates where that comparison didnt really start until the last two rebuttals.

I also think more affs should just bite the link and impact turn the K. Obvi dont read racism/sexism/ableism good, thats the quickest way to a 25 and an L short of conceding the round, but, every K makes other claims that you can, and probably should consider reading offense against.

Two side thoughts

1. Most people read utterly incoherent theories of international relations. I.E. Ikenberry and Mearsheimer may both think that leadership is good, but are not as buddy buddy as people would like me to believe. Obviously just being like "lmao these cards are a double turn" does not meet the threshold of an argument, but, "the aff de-prioritizes the role of institutions because ___ this means that you should be skeptical of their ability to solve for the liberal international order, which Ikenberry says is cohered through a strong commitment to international institutions" is. The latter will shock and impress me, and put your baseline speaks at a 29.

2. Most people have turned against the "not our x" Sometimes this is fair, because the team is lying to get out of links. But, I don't particularly understand why a team should be punished because their author had a bad idea that they don't defend or talk about in the 1ac or 1nc. Consider if we applied this same standard to policy rounds, and the neg read a politics card from nate silver about a specific seat in the midterms. The affirmative responded with a card that said "nate silver was way off on this one super unrelated prediction" and read a card indicting the method of that poll specifically. Why would the neg be tied to defending the poll that they have not cited, and is not intrinsic to their argument? This doesn't mean that I'm waiting to vote on not our x, but, that I will be pleased if both teams can defend why their argument is or is not distinct from x, by demonstrating a command of the literature base that they are deploying.

7 Topicality: Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't really understand ground arguments - if you don't have generics ready to go for core topic areas, or arguments that make debating the aff irrelevant (impact turns, process cp's etc) that seems like a you problem. I get some affs are really small and don't do much, but either they have an absurd impact claim that you can turn or outweigh, or they'd need such a contrived interpretation of the topic to be T that you could just go for limits.

Reasonability has never really made sense to me either, because usually those debates just boil down into the same silly buzzwords that everyone uses. I think reasonability can be an incredibly gnarly argument if it's framed more in the form of an explanation of why offense/defense is bad for topicality debates. Scotty P wrote a really good explanation of what that would look like here https://hsimpact.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/what-is-reasonability/

8 Speaks

Things that will get you good speaks

5 minutes of Antonio in the 2nr (not joking)

9 Clipping- Don’t do it. I’ll be sad, and have to give you a 0

10 No argument too strange- I can be convinced to vote on anything if you do well. T is a rvi, double win theory, normativity k, silence k. If you think you can pull it off, and want to risk a ballot on it go ahead. If you execute it poorly, I'll probably be annoyed, but at the same time, no one ever did anything to radically change debate without taking a lot of risks.

11 Non-traditional affs. I think I’m a pretty good judge for these. I think these affirmatives are unfair, but, don't really know why that's bad (fairness is not an impact). I don’t really think framework is deployed effectively very often, which is unfortunate, because I oftentimes think that many of the claims from framework teams make a lot of intuitive sense. I ended up voting against framework about 60% of the time last year, but I'd attribute that a lot more to what happened in the rounds I judged than to a general predisposition.

For the neg. When I vote neg on T, it's because the negative has successfully done one of two things.

1. Proven that their impact turns the aff's offense.

2. Proven that the aff doesn't solve their offense, and have mitigated the application of case to T in a way beyond the sentence blurb "they don't get to weigh the aff because t is a procedural"

I've found that the topical version of the aff has become less persuasive to me the more clash rounds I've judged. This is not due to the argument being not strategic, but rather, me being left confused about how the topical version resolves offense that the affirmative has deployed, (and a secondary problem of most topical versions of the aff not meeting the standard of being a topical aff in a policy v policy round). The solution to this is easy. Instead of repeating any disad to the topical version doesn't prove it isn't an answer, it just proves neg ground, take some time thinking about the offense that the other team is deploying.

A second problem, is that most people seem to forget they're reading a topicality argument. I have judged almost 30 framework debates this year, and in about 5 of them, I've been clear on how the counterinterpretation solved the aff's disads, and included their affirmative. If the aff read a counterinterp they didn't meet on T-Pearson, or that didn't solve the aff's overlimiting offense why wouldn't you point that out? There's a reason why you're reading interpretations, and why we call framework a topicality argument, you should debate your shell as such.

I've also found that the repetitive "but what do you do?" presumption argument, is wholly unpersuasive. Most affs say they do something, and the neg says, but what do you do, the aff says what they do, and the neg says, yeah, but what do you do? I think this can also be fixed pretty easily, instead of carrying over this, but what do you do argument, make the implied follow on argument, which is something to the effect of, if x structure is so totalizing as their theory says it is, their method is insufficient to resolve it. Think about x as a similar example, which failed for y reason.

All this being said, I'm more than willing to vote on T, as it is obviously a strategic position, and I'm very sympathetic to teams (especially without substantial coaching resources) who would rather prepare to get really good at one argument that would answer all no plan affs, as opposed to specific critiques/disads.

For the aff - Have a clear counterinterp, tight impact turn story, and exploit the weakness of most teams at answering arguments that they are mostly unfamiliar with.

You have to answer disads, even if you dont defend hypothetical implementation of usfg action. This doesn't mean I'm waiting to vote on the aff flips the 2020 election, but rather that if you can think of a nuanced way to articulate a link I wont be a super tough sell on the aff has to defend the consequences of their epistemology. I.e. if an aff says that executive power is bad, I feel like John Yoo would have some things to say about that, even if the aff doesn't implement a policy.

I also really enjoy K vs K debates, as this gives me a break from hearing about what Steinberg and Freely need to tell me about decisionmaking, and allows both sides to engage literature bases that are often not brought into connection with each other. One side note is that I tend to find that the theory of power debate is far less compelling than specific applications. Most folks in the 2nr and 2ar tend to just be like, they dropped our theory of power, game over!!

Questions? Email me at alexsherman99@gmail.com. The longer you wait, the less specific my comments may be, but I have noticed that I recall my thoughts about rounds more than I don't.

Iowa City West '15

# of rounds judged this year: like 1 round lol 

I'll pretty much evaluate anything as long as it is well-explained and implicated throughout the round.

lol will update later 

Background: I debate four years of policy in high-school debate and I did a small bit of coaching and judging while in college. I'm currently in grad school and have not been involved to a huge extent the last 3 or so years.

I see debate as an educational exercise and so I value logic, radical arguments, consistency and respect. As a judge, I'll play by the rules/paradigm either you or your opponent set. That means set them: don't let me judge/evaluate and do impact analysis based on how I see fit. Persuade me that there is a reasons to vote for you, and you have to be prepared to justify what you are debating is fair and educational.

I enjoy cross-x. Tag team is generally okay, but don't take over for the other person.

Args: I'm less comfortable generally for T/Theory/Framework arguments, but that does not I haven't voted for them in the past. ROTB and ROTJ are key. Generally, be persuasive and not just claim abuse or unfairness.

I honestly don't know much about the topics this years, so I appreciate more context. Please slow down with tags and authors. Be careful about enunciations.

At the end of the day debate how you can, the best you can. I'm here for the impact framing and analysis. And if I don't understand what I'm voting for, I'm very likely not to vote.

TL;DR
Quality > Quantity. Explain arguments. FW/T debates need proven abuse and a deep standards debate. Use theoretical and substantive framework properly. 2AR/2NR needs to clash, weigh arguments, and tell me what I should be evaluating on my ballot. CX is binding. Flashing isn't prep. Don't be offensive. Don't be an ass to anyone or your speaks will suffer. My face is usually pretty expressive during rounds. Other than that, have a good time, I'm fairly lenient.

Background Info
I debated for four years at Chandler HS, AZ (3 CX/1 LD). I was the 2A/1N. Read Nietzsche and Marx a lot. I enjoy debaters who use the debate space as a space for education, empowerment, and growth, but the better debater wins. I'm a pretty versatile judge.

Speaker Points
27.7 - 28.2 = Mediocre.
28.3 - 28.7 = Good.
28.8 - 29.5 = Very Good.
29.5 - 29.8 = Impressed.
Be aggressive, not mean. I'll give an extra speaker point if you (successfully) make fun of these people: Tanzil Chowdhury, Manav Sevak, or Rohit Rajan.

Specifics
Counterplans
Need a good analysis of how the perm resolves the net benefit of the CP. Consult CP's are bad. Neg needs to explain the competitiveness of the CP well. Theory is usually insubstantial unless it's dropped. CP cards should be really good, and there needs to be comparative analysis from aff and neg. I enjoy PICs.
Disads
Impact scenario needs to be well explained. Any DA works for me, but there needs to be a lot of link/internal link work done to win it.
Case
I'll get mad if you just read an OV and then a bunch of cards on case and move on. Use the cards from the 1AC on the line by line and articulate your thoughts and read new cards when necessary. If I'm not able to explain your argument by the end of the 2AR, then you didn't do a good job. My threshold for case negs is lower, but if you go for case they also need to be explained well in the block.
Kritiks/Non-Traditional Affs
This is what I spent most of debate doing. If you just vomit a bunch of buzz words without explanation I'm not going to like/understand the argument and I'm going to give the other team a lot of leeway in their rebuttals. If you're able to explain your aff powerfully and concisely, I'm down to listen to anything. I enjoy smart 2AR tricks. For the neg, the same explanation standards apply. Tell me what the alt looks like, and I won't kick it for you if you're going for it as a case turn in the 2NR.
T/FW
I need to know why T/FW is a better model of debate than what the aff offers. I'm probably not going to vote on potential abuse. K affs should provide substantial DA's to the negs interpretation. Know the difference between substantive and theoretical framework (state engagement key vs. debate needs rules), and explain your standards accordingly. I default to competing interpretations.
Theory
Sure. In addition to utilizing it as a voting issue, I like teams that couple their theory with other arguments to justify/extrapolate key arguments to give them the edge on contested issues. I have a high threshold on using theory as a reason to vote aff/neg; give me a compelling reason (more than just a blip) why I should reject the team. In most cases, it's just a reason to reject an argument but if you do enough work on it, you may be able to convince me otherwise. Make sure you give some example of abuse, i.e. specific models of debate/in-round. I don't like disclosure theory.

You can catch ya boy @ nikpreet45@gmail.com

Isabel Slavinsky

Second year debating at Harvard

Debated four years at Atholton High (in Maryland)

Thoughts:

- I'm excited to judge, want the debaters to be having fun, and doing what they're best at!

- I haven't judged (before the Harvard tournament) or done research on the current high school debate topic - don't assume that I have a detailed background

- Mainly familiar with "policy" style arguments - I don't have as much experience with high-theory critical literature

People who's wikis are more comprehensive and I think similarly to about debate:

Emily Gordon (with the exception of the part where she talks about how she's gone for the K a bunch) and Advait Ramanan

Bee Smale

They/Them pronouns

4 yrs - East Kentwood High School

4 yrs - Indiana University

Grad Coach @ Wayne State

Yes on the email chain: wayneCXdocs@gmail.com

Debate is a game but the only rule is that I have to submit a ballot at the end with one winner and one loser. I expect debaters to try to win the game. I'd rather you make a controversial and innovative argument then suggesting that there were other debates or conversations to be had. I find that ethos is often much more important to my decision then the flow.

I dislike judging debates about the character of individual debaters, but will obviously do so if that's what the debate is about. My decision will ultimately rest on who did the better debating, and any judgement rendered is not final nor is it a judgement on the character of individual debaters.

1. You have to have truth

Updated – 9/05/17

Current School Affiliations:  Thomas Jefferson High School (2016-)

Previous School Affiliations:  Debated at Broad Run High School, 2x ToC Qualifier

Quick Version: Debated on both sides of the policy/K spectrum so I don’t really care how you debate. You are more likely to succeed if you stick to what you are good at rather than adapting – good debate overcomes argument I may not agree with. I do not have a great familiarity with this topic so explaining acronyms and complex education policy will go a long way.  The only rules I have are: your speech ends when the timer goes off, I will pick a winner after the debate, and you cannot interrupt an opponent’s speech on purpose. Besides that, have fun and make good arguments.

General Outlook on Debate (a lot of this is shamelessly stolen from Shree Awsare)

- Do what you're good at.  My job as a judge is to adjudicate the debate that the debaters present to me, not to influence how the debate goes down. I was coached to always be flexible in my argumentative arsenal so I am comfortable listening to and judging many different arguments. I don't have huge distaste towards particular genres of arguments (like PICs, T, Politics DAs, Ks, etc).  I am not a blank canvas, but the idiosyncrasies I display as a judge will have more to do with how you execute your position rather than argument choice.

- Tech > Truth, but with limits.  Arguments like "counterinterp: only our case is topical," OSPEC, word PICs, wipeout, and the lizard people are not doing your speaker points any favors, but I am firmly on the boat that if you can't beat a bad argument, you don't deserve to win.  However, there is a distinction between bad and offensive (eg: "racism good"), which I will not tolerate.

- In-Round Persuasion is essential. Ev quality becomes important in close debates but is a secondary concern to explanation and ev comparison by debaters.  A well-warranted and well-impacted analytic can beat a poorly warranted series of carded claims. 

- I will strongly resist "judge-kicking" a CP or a K alt. The neg can explicitly make a framing argument justifying this practice, but there is a strong likelihood that if the aff answers it to a barely adequate capacity, I won't be compelled to "judge-kick" a world the neg has chosen to defend as an option in the 2NR.

Specific Arguments

Topicality. I enjoy these debates.  You should provide a robust, comparative perspective of your vision of how the topic and/or debates should function. This requires an explicit list of what specific cases and/or practices your interpretation permits/disallows and impacting why this is beneficial for the activity.  I default to competing interpretations absent a different way of adjudication. 

T vs Critical Affs.  I’ve been in a lot of these debates on both sides of the issues – several thoughts: 
(1) It will be very hard to persuade me that an aff having no connection to the topic is good for debate, affs that have some connection even if they don’t have a plan are good.

(2) Focus on the real arguments.  Outlandish claims like "T is the logic of genocide," or on the other hand, "all teams will quit because K teams are off topic" are unpersuasive.  Smart teams will make impact arguments that are specific to the limits that are being set--either to defend the benefits of narrowing deliberation over a topic or to point out the myopia of such a curriculum. The team that debates this issue the best is most likely to win in front of me. 
(3) For teams defending the wall:  Procedural Fairness and mech-based education style impacts are more persuasive to me than "decisionmaking key to end existential threats like global warming."  Fairness can be a terminal impact rather than just an internal link, but it needs to be framed and warranted as such.
(4)  Uniqueness arguments matter.  Inevitability and access claims (and their relationship to the T version of the aff) seem to be where I begin decisions, so take care to develop or debunk them.

Theory: Slow down a bit and really warrant out your theory argument. Reading your generic 10-subpoint block at full speed is not something I consider persuasive. Think about theory debates like T debates by comparing the different versions of debates that each interpretation create. I will default to “reject the argument, not the team” on all theory arguments (except conditionalitiy) unless told otherwise.

Straight-up Strategies. My favorite straight-up strategies involve PICs (real ones... not Word PICs) or Advantage CPs (that compete either through a topic DA or impact turn of 1 advantage).  Politics, artificially competitive CPs, etc are fine. Judge Instruction is vital.  Does UQ frame the link debate, or do the links frame a close UQ debate and why?  Does the DA turns the case or the other way around, and why?  None of these questions should be left up to me.

The K: There’s nothing than I hate more than K teams who think they are smarter than everyone in the room who have long spiels of academic works without putting it into context within the debate. I will be impressed if you command significant knowledge about the theory at hand and are able to apply them to the case through examples from popular culture or empirical/historical situations. Of course, if you have no idea what you are talking about that is not good either.  Affs should take advantage of negative teams sometimes omitting discussion of one of these three things: the link, alt, or impact.

For teams debating against the K:  I am more interested in arguments (analytics and cards) that substantively engage the K while having a robust defense of the case. The K's "greatest hits" are useful but at some point, you are going to have to answer their "K turns the case" and other tricks they may have by using your aff. I won most of my neg debates when aff teams refuse to answer K tricks and I have no problem voting for that as a judge. Cover your bases while protecting your case and answering the K.  I do not necessarily need carded evidence to overcome their characterizations, smart analytics are often enough to respond to contrived link or case turn arguments.  I think the cleanest path for substantive victory vs the K is to weigh an advantage that outweighs and can't be solved by the alternative, and then win that their "impact filter" arguments (serial policy failure, RC, "your ev can't be trusted," UQ claims, etc) are fallacious in the context of the advantage you've isolated.  Debaters on the policy end of the spectrum that I've judged tend to say I evaluate K debates like a "checklist."

Miscellaneous: I won’t count flashing or uploading docs as prep as long as you do it in a reasonable manner.. I am fine with debaters timing themselves, but if for some reason you want me to time I am okay with that too. Also one of my biggest pet peeves is not being ready for a debate – stuff like taking 10 minutes to start a speech after you have flashed the document, not having adequate­­­­­­ supplies to debate, and being incompetent with paperless debate is all stuff that is likely to lower your speaks and make me mad.

I have debated for six years (middle and high school) and was an NDSA Nationals qualifier. I have experienced all sorts of argument forms. Being a K debater, I am very comfortable with Kritiks. That does not mean by simply running it, it will receive my ballot. Like all arguments, THEY MUST BE WELL ARTICULATED.

I must admit I am not a big fan of Topicality, and will take a bit of convincing to vote for T. Naturally, if well argued, and shakily contested, it may win you a ballot.

You should assume I know nothing of the topic, for the debater's burden is to convince the judge of the effectiveness of their arguments. I vote off the flow.

Lexington ‘11, Harvard ‘15

Info below is hopefully helpful, but please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions, preferences, accommodations, etc. for me to answer/keep in mind!

The biggest things to keep in mind when debating in front of me are:

• Make sure your tagline actually corresponds with the body of your cards! Misrepresentative tags go against your argument and speaker points.
• I'm comfortable with spreading, but you need to prioritize clarity over volume. If you have one less link card or can't manage to get the final impact analysis in but are speaking much more clearly and intelligibly, that's a good tradeoff. Slowing down on the tagline and author is especially critical. That's not to say that clarity in the body of a card/argument is unimportant; mumbling through these parts to the point that I cannot understand you essentially takes away the warrants, which leads me to not put much weight on your claim.
• I'm fine with stock, T, Theory, Ks, etc., but each argument should be fundamentally sound: explain to me, be it via evidence or analytics, the logical flow between your links and impacts.
• Speaking of evidence and analytics, both are fine, and while strong cards with credible authors are great, incisive or powerful analytics can take out arguments where one might have otherwise resorted to a string of cards. Point out logical fallacies in the other side's arguments, and explain why your claims, links, and impact exhibit logical consistencies. I look favorably upon counterarguments where you point out the flaw in the logic or credibility of your opponent's card, as they're more efficient and usually more grounded than just reading blocks.
• Impact calc & framing debates, especially in the final speeches, is critical. Give me voters, of course, but also give me reasons why your voters and/or value and criterion and the implications they have are more important than the other side's (magnitude vs. timeframe vs. probability; stock vs. systemic; connections between your impacts/values/criterions and those of the other side).
• Points made intelligently in CX through suggestive questioning will be noted on the flow and considered elsewhere in the round. For that reason, mentioning an argument and the fact that it was brought up in CX (assuming it was) will count—no need to reiterate a point that’s been made already.
• In LD, the value/criterion debate is important, and showing me why your pair outweighs/is a prereq to/etc. your opponent’s pair is essential. However, I’m very receptive to non-stock Neg arguments, impact calc, explanations of how your impacts apply to your opponent’s value/criterion pair, etc.
• Be assertive, but not rude. It’s a fine line, but it’s an important one. Assertive debaters look intelligent and gain speaker points for masterful handling of the clash and confusion in a debate. Being assertive will gain you speaker points. Being rude will likely bring down your speaker points.

Former debater at Harvard and Westminster. It has been a few years since I was very actively involved with the activity, the last few years my involvement with debate has consisted of judging ~5 rounds a year and remaining lightly connected to the teams of the schools I attended. Do with that information as you will.

Mostly putting an emphasis on things I suspect might be idiosyncratic:

I think offense-defense is substantially overrated. It is one thing if the debaters argue successfully for it, but I think the a lot of the time a cruxy argument can be a defensive argument that proves one of the two impact/offense stories is substantially more true/probable than the other. I have also voted on entirely defense multiple times if I thought a team was proving the opponents sources of offense were indistinguishable from statistical noise.

I increasingly think there is an overemphasis on evidence in debate, especially if the evidence being talked about is really just an oped take or the like. In many cases the debaters just making the arguments directly would be equally persusasive, and I think that is fine. Just make analytical warrants yourself.

I don't think politics disads are intrinsic, and are generally inconsistent with the negative having CPs. Don't think I've ever voted on this though.

In theory debates in general, I find I value arguments about predictability and whether or not you have a coherent idea of what debate is / should be over very tactical arguments about which interpretation is more fair. Arguing about what common-sense argument a debate-theoretical construct like a perm or a particular CP amounts to, and why that is an argument that needs to be in our lexicon, is I think a good approach.

I didn't go for Ks very much when I debated, but I think empirically my judging record is something close to 50-50, though on a probably skewed sample. I enjoy Ks of the aff/negs scholarship or proposal or assumptions what have you moreso than I do discussions about debate itself.

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

Ks

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

CP

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

T

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

hello! i started as a novice at gmu where i debated for 5 years. i then went and coached at binghamton for 2 years and then back to mason for 3.

my email is mthomasgmu@gmail.com

for hybrid, I tend to keep my camera on during speeches. If my camera is off please assume I am not there and do not begin. I’m probably not far from my computer but if it’s been a while shoot me an email. '

Do whatever you do best. i was a flex 2n and read both k affs and policy affs, so i am down for just about anything

I am pro-Palestine. It is already worrying enough how little care debaters take when debating about current events when people’s lives, families, and liberation are on the line, but for one where an ethnic cleansing is currently being funded by our tax dollars, I have very little patience for this topic coming up in policy debates in an unethical way. Tread carefully

FW - this is a huge chunk of the db8s i have judged/debated during my now decade long tenure in debate, so i have heard just about it all. i find clash impacts more persuasive than fairness. topic education das are generally not a winner in front of me - the process of debate does not translate well to the real world so i dont believe you when you say debating w/e topic is going to make you a more persuasive advocate or a better congress person. most of us are far too busy between school, debate, work, etc for this to leave the space so lets not pretend like it will. take advantage of the other teams screw ups - if their counter interp is nonsense, take advantage of that. meanwhile, make sure your tva is relevant and can actually engage with the content of the aff. please also always answer the aff - presumption and turns case args are your friends! side note, if the aff gives you disads or impact turns, i far prefer that debate and will be very grumpy if you chose to go for fw instead.

for answering fw - please defend some sort of action that solves some sort of impact. it obvi doesnt have to be capital T Topical, tho preferably it is in the direction or spirit of the revolution. i have voted for affs with no relevance to the topic, but i have a much lower threshold for fw in that world.

t - again i know little to nothing about the topic but i love a good t debate. ive voted on my fair share of bad t args before (shout out to t subs) because aff teams never seem to provide a meaningful limit with their c/i. i need it explained to me exactly what the case list is under either interp, and what ground was lost. i obvi dont really know the aff/neg ground on this topic but i like to think i can follow along.

Counterplans - not the biggest fan of cheaty cps. condo is good up until a point (probably max 3, preferably 2). dont like perf con or condo planks. not a fan of states but i guess y'all dont really have a choice this year.

case debate - big big fan of good impact turn debates. presumption is also a useful argument.

K - it would be cool if your link would be about the aff - i have judged too many clashless debates where the neg just goes on some adjacent historical tangent but never brings it back to the aff. i like alts but they are not necessary - win the framework debate and you're golden. idk why theres a trend to go for a cap k and then spend a ton of time on framework when it is functionally an impact turn debate??

some odds and ends -

im typically a big picture thinker, so meta level questions and framing args are critical to instructing my ballot, especially in debates involving a k. im very interested in what the ballots relationship is to voting for whichever side, particularly in issues involving things within and outside my social location. i dont really like being perceived as a judge, but what does my ballot as a white queer woman mean? (aka i find the ballot k persuasive more often than not)

if im in a straight up policy debate, i dont get these too terribly often, so id recommend not making it too big - id prefer depth over breadth.

ive found im a pretty expressive judge, and if i am confused or cant understand you my face will make that clear.

Have fun, be clear, be clever.

Brookings High School, 2016

Harvard, 2020

Round in the education topic: 0

At it's heart, I think policy debate is an educational activity meant to both foster better researchers, thinkers, speakers, and critical thinkers. Through this view, I think that discussion is best facilitated when both teams come ready and happy to debate the topic at hand, and in a way that promotes fairness and the best academic discourse about the best policy choice.

I consider myself relatively traditional when it comes to how I view an ideal policy round, so that overall can be a guiding principal when you are wondering what to read in front of me.

I value reasonable arguments more - large impacts are important, but often the ability to solve them/their likelihood is very low. Therefore, I value an impact that has a much greater chance of been solved/happening. However, with that note, teams should make an impact calc in order to get me to explain why their interpretation of magnitude, probability, and timeframe are taken into account.

Speed-reading

I don't really care for speed-reading. By all means you can talk fast, but I want to be able to hear every word of every card. The cards you pick should be important enough and worthy enough to read at an audible speed. If I can't hear the text of the card, I will probably not flow it.

Ks

In most cases, I would really prefer that a round free of Ks. That being said, I will flow them. If you want to have a chance that I will vote for it, make sure it is clear, make sure that it links well to the affirmative.

Aff Ks/Performance Affs

You came into the round knowing you were supposed to affirm the resolution, so I expect as much. The negative can justly argue that an affirmative should follow this rule in order to have a productive and educational debate.

Inherency

I love inherency, but most because it is neglected in most modern affirmative cases. I will vote neg on inherency if an affirmative team fails to provide an appropriate barrier to the plan happening in the status quo. Inherency is also really poorly understood in the debate community, so I appreciate a good inherency debate that helps highlight the the line between the affirmative and the negative ground.

Disads

Disadvantages are always a solid idea, but the more specific the better, of course, so keep that in mind. In general, each story of the DA should be started in the 2NC. You can add on impacts on the same impact story in the 2NC/1NR, but it is quite abusive to start a new impact story in the 2NC/1NR.

Theory

I will listen to theory if there is a reason for it in the round. I usually prefer non-theory related arguments, but I believe that theory is important to bring up in cases of abuse and/or to ensure that fair rules of debate are being followed in the round.

Counterplans

I think counterplans can be a great strategy, but I am not a fan of conditionality or stealing the affirmative plan text (PICs).

Topicality

I will vote on topicality, but I need to hear it debated well.

I was a Whitney Young K-debater. I vote on how the team did, not what they ran. Explain. I have voted on everything, it's about what the team does to show me how they won that specific debate. Good speaker points come from being pleasant and showing me that you understand the round and how you win, not by saying extintction. Interaction between aff and offcase is usually the best route. 

K's

I love when you can completely explain to me how the K links and will change what the aff does. Don't run one if you're unprepared to explain to me and the other team the implications of the K. Be ready to use analytics verses cards because K's are all about breaking the norms. Real K-debaters be prepared to answer framework, even though it makes the most boring rounds. I will vote on framework if you can win on it. 

Case/ DA's

I'm good with DA's as long as you can explain them to me. I am really chill but don't expect me to give you an extension you haven't made.

T

If you are good at explaining actual impacts/real world implications of an untopical aff then go for it, but it typically makes for a very boring round.

-Director of Debate at Little Rock Central High School
-Yes, email chain and sure, questions. Please put BOTH of these on chains: rosalia.n.valdez@gmail.com and lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com.

Virtual Debate Updates:

I am almost always using two computers so I can watch you speak and flow/look at docs. I would prefer that you debate with your camera on so that I can watch you speak, but PLEASE do feel free to turn it off if doing so stabilizes your audio.

Do NOT start at top speed. You should start a little slower anyway to allow judges to get acclimated to your speaking style, but I think this is especially important in virtual debate.

Do I understand why you don't want to flash theory/overviews/analytics? Of course. Do you have to do it? No. Will I be mad at you if you don't? Of course not. Would it help me flow better in many virtual debates? YES.

TL;DR

Do what you do and do it well. I will vote for who wins. Over-adaptation is exhausting and I can smell your soft-left add-ons a mile away. My voting record is a pretty clear indication that I judge a wide variety of debates. Who/what I coach(ed) are generally good indications of what I am about. Update: I've found myself recently in some seven off rounds. I really hate to say I am bad for any kind of debate, but I am bad for these rounds. Late-breaking debates make me tired and grumpy, and I find myself having to do way too much work in these debates to resolve them. If seven off is your thing, and I am your judge, do what you do I guess, but know this is probably the only explicit "don't pref me" in this whole paradigm.

Evidence/Argumentation/General

I care a lot about quality of evidence. I would much rather hear you read a few well-warranted cards than a wave of under-highlighted evidence. Same goes for redundant evidence; if you need six cards that “prove” your claim with the same words interchanged in the tag, your claim is probably pretty weak. Evidence does not (alone) a (winning) argument make.

I think I flow pretty throughly. I often flow in direct quotes. I do this for me, but I feel like it helps teams understand my decision as we talk after a round. I reward organized speakers and meaningful overviews. I am easily frustrated by a messy card doc.

I listen closely to cross-ex.

Ks

Neg teams lose when they don’t demonstrate how their arguments interact with the 1AC. Winning that the affirmative is “flawed” or “problematic” does not guarantee a neg ballot. In my mind, there are two ways to win the k versus a policy aff: either win that the effects of the plan make the world significantly worse OR win framework and go for epistemology/ontology links. Know when framework is important and when it’s not. Give analysis as to how your links implicate the world of the aff. This is where case mitigation and offense on why voting affirmative is undesirable is helpful. These debates are significantly lacking in impact calculus. Also - the alt needs to solve the links, not the aff - but if it does, great! If you win framework, this burden is lessened. Don’t spread through link explanations. I am seeing more debates where teams kick the alt and go for the links as disads to the aff. This is fine, but be wary of this strategy when the alt is what provides uniqueness to the link debate.

Conversely, affs typically lose these debates when there is little press on what the alternative does and little analysis of perm functions. However, some teams focus on the alt too much and leave much to be desired on the link debate (especially important for soft-left affs). Defend your reps. Your framework shell should also include a robust defense of policymaking, not just procedural fairness. The 1AR should actually answer the block’s framework answers. More impact turning rather than defensive, no-link arguments.

Also, running to the middle will not save you. Some Ks are going to get a link no matter what, and tacking on a structural impact to your otherwise straight policy aff will likely only supercharge the link. So. Read the aff you'd read in front of anybody in front of me. You're probably better at that version anyway.

K Affs vs. FW

For affs: I’m good for these although I do think that oftentimes the method is very poorly explained. Neg teams should really press on this and even consider going for presumption. Side note: I absolutely do not think that critical affs should have to win that the ballot is key for their method. Against framework, I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. The best aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good. I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than k tricks.

For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.

I feel similarly about theory debates in that they should focus on good/undesirable pedagogical practices. Arguments that explain the role of the ballot should not be self-serving and completely inaccessible by a particular team.

Topicality

Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my jam. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.

Arkansas Circuit

1. I’m not going to bump your speaks for thanking me and taking forever to start the round because you’re asking “opponent ready? judge ready? partner ready? observers ready?” for the first 20 minutes.
2. If you do not take notes during my RFD, I will leave.
3. Don’t clip. Why do debaters in Arkansas clip so much? Answer: Because I don’t judge very much in Arkansas.
4. Keep your own time.

General Info:

Call me Vega!

SHE/THEY

Proud Boriqua Educator and Artist

Middle-School Debate Coach at John D. Wells, MS. 50

Full time Paraprofessional in Brooklyn, NYC

Debate Career:

ACORN Community High School 2012-16: Policy Debate

Coached Leon M. Goldstien from 2016-17

Judging Policy and Public Forum from 2015- Present

Judging LD from 2018- Present

Judging Congressional and Speech from 2019- Present

For the majority of my debate career I was double 2s, and later became 2N, 1A.

Overall Rules and Expectations:

I do not count sharing evidence as prep unless you take a century.

I believe that judges are NOT supposed to intervene in round under any circumstances, unless in the case of an extreme emergency.

I shouldn't have to tell you be respectful or to not use hateful, racist, ableist, sexist, or homophobic language. If I hear it, I will automatically give the ballot to the other team. ABSOLUTELY NOT TOLERATED.

Some may think petty debaters or debaters with attitudes are amusing or cute, I don't. Treat your competitors with respect or it will affect your speaker points.

Judge Philosophy:

I believe that it is my responsibility as the judge of the round to remove any pre-existing notions or biases from my mind on whatever topic you chose to debate over, and act as an objective observer who decides whether or not the AFF is a good idea. Unless told otherwise in the round, this is the perspective I default to.

Minimal expectations are the following: If the NEG does not provide any DAs to voting AFF then I will vote AFF. If the AFF does not prove that the AFF is better than the status quo and has an actual solvency method, then I will vote NEG.

It is in your best interest (speaker points) to go far beyond these basic debate expectations. I'm generous with speaker points if you keep me engaged and make sure I understand you, they usually range from 27-29.5

I don't have any specific preference when it comes to argumentation and I will vote on virtually anything you want me to if explained well, but DO NOT assume I know anything.

I flow on paper.  Be particularly clear when reading cites. Signpost and make some allowances for my attention when moving between flows.

If you can spread very clearly, great. If not, put clarity ahead of speed.

Debate jargon as well as topic-specific acronyms are fine. Jargon’s great when it makes things quicker and clearer, but make sure it’s not merely substituting for thought or argument. 

I call cards pretty sparingly, to verify claims actually made in round or for my own curiosity. You need to do the work to explain your warrants in round; your evidence is no better than the use you put it to.

I’m not a very ‘technical’ judge. Quality of evidence and analysis moves me a lot more than quantity or cheap debate tricks. I’m not too eager to deem an argument dropped and dropped argument are considered true but they don’t magically morph into something stronger than they were to begin with. If you have a card that says there’s about a 10% chance of impact x, and the other team drops it, you don’t have 100% probability, you still just have 10%. If you spin all sorts of fantastic claims without warrants, I may well ignore them, even if uncontested.

My threshold on T and theory used to be pretty low, but I’ve seen the error of my ways. I’m not particular about in-round abuse, but I expect real development of the impacts before I’d vote for it: the more concrete, the better. Also, standards and voters in the 1NC/2AC ought  to resemble actual arguments, not catch-phrases or meaninglessly vague clichés, e.g. ‘education’ or ‘explodes limits.’ I wave away blippy theory arguments like some many gnats; I’m never going to decide a round based on someone dropping one of a laundry list of barely intelligible theory args.  

By default, I look at the round as a policymaker, but I’m open-minded. So framing will be important if you go for anything outside the traditional policy framework. At the same time the framework arguments I’ve seen run against K affs have rarely impressed me. In a similar vein, I find most generic k answers fall flat.  I’m not a fan of, or necessarily familiar with, ‘high theory’ sorts of Ks, though I try to be fair. You need to explain your K in a way understandable to someone with no familiarity with the relevant literature—both for my sake and your opponents’—but also in a way that doesn’t distort or caricature it. This is especially true of the alternative debate: how am I supposed to have real-world solvency when I don’t even know what I’m doing by voting neg?

Well thought-out counterplans with specific solvency evidence are awesome in my book, especially exclude PICs.  I take a pretty broad view of competition, i.e. it competes as long there are net benefits. Perms in the 2AC should have at least some basic explanation of how the perm moots competition, e.g. the perm solves at least as well as the CP because of x, and doesn’t link to net benefit because of y, where x and y are warranted claims.

Personally, I vastly prefer modest, realistic impacts with strong, high-probability link stories to high-magnitude impacts linked by a concatenation of worst-case scenarios and power-tagging. Not that you can’t argue your extinction scenario, but with good impact analysis I tend to err to probability. I’m also pretty suspicious of ‘crazy’ impact turns (e.g., death good, de-dev) though I’ve voted for them on occasion.

If you have any specific questions, just ask me. 

Boston Latin Academy '17

Email: Kwaltersgreen@gmail.com

Bio?:

Hey I'm Kaia (duh), I am currently a freshman in college. I did debate in high school for four years, two of which I spent in open division (championship level). My paradigm may not cover everything that you want to know (because I am not psychic, too bad) so please feel free to ask me questions before the round if it is absolutely necessary.

IMPORTANT: I will yell CLEAR if I can't understand your spreading, after the second time I can't promise that I will be flowing your arguments.

DAs:

- TIP: Impact calcs will help your argument

- But yeah I don't really care

CPs:

-Should have net benefits

- I don't care if it sounds crazy, I love wacky CPs and Affs, just make sure you can prove its better than your opponents plan and you'll be set.

Kritical Affs:

- I'm comfortable with these but if I can not understand what your K is saying I can not vote on it. If you know that you have an extremely jargon based K, make sure that you at least summarize the main points at some point in your constructive. THIS WILL BE CRITICAL TO YOUR SUCCESS.

- Explain what my ballot is supposed to do

- perms should have net benefits

Theory:

- I rarely ran theory arguments in high school, this doesn't mean you should avoid them but, i will end up judging based on how persuasive your argument compared to your opponent is rather than by how theory usually functions in debate.

Misc

- Don't be rude to your opponents, we are all here for debate

- Be respectful of each others prep! Feel free to shush your opponents if they're disturbing you

- Everyone should be timing themselves

- Flashing does not count as prep, unless it takes up too much time

- You won't get extra speaker points by loudly screaming your arguments, passion is great but your focus should be well prepped argumentation

Bio - Former CUNY Debater (2013-14) and current high school coach

For the e-mail chain: julwash@gmail.com

For PF: You're getting a judge with some policy background and policy (let's just face it) is a more rigorous form of debate. This means you have liberty to run more than the CBI and debate blog vetted positions in front of me. You will be better off taking advantage of that. However, I don't appreciate the mental gymnastics it takes to understand many policy positions and you folks get less speech time to spin arguments so please keep it relatively simple.

For Policy: I'll try my best to be a fair judge and vote based on the merit of the arguments presented in a given round. That being said, I think that debate (at least the way it's done at tournaments) is a game and thus do not appreciate teams who try to avoid being topical or enjoy running far left identity arguments. Beyond that, what you would deem as wise strategy and advice from most circuit judges applies for me as well. Some side notes though....

- I lean generally on the side on Condo good in theory debates.

- Any type of competition works for a counterplan. Explain the net benefit clearly if you plan to go for a CP

- Affirmative teams should spend as much time as possible on the case debate explaining why the aff is a good idea and outweighs the negative

- Good impact calc is necessary to resolve close debates and can clean up messy link clash on the off case flows.

- Politics DA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nearly every K

I did debate policy debate for four years, primarily on the nat circuit. I was a 2A and pretty much solely a K debater. I don't have much experience with the criminal justice topic. Pronouns: she/her

TL;DR: Run whatever you want; I will evaluate any arguments you make, but I will not do the work for you. You should go with whatever strategy you think you can execute best. That being said, I am probably a better judge for K-oriented teams than teams that run 7 off every neg round and love getting super techy, especially since I've been a bit removed from the debate world for a minute, although I won't hesitate to vote up FW, a DA, or a policy aff if it's the most compelling arg in the round.

Here are my personal thoughts regarding specific arguments:

T: I hold T to a high standard. Generic T shells with no insight as to why the aff is uniquely bad will not convince me. You will also need to articulate and win impacts to the T as well as why it should be an a priori issue. A 2NR on T will need to be legitimately convincing. I've noticed that a lot of teams are now trying to combine T and FW into one argument, which is basically a huge headache to listen to; either make them two separate arguments or pick one. I default to competing interps.

CPs: I don't usually have a problem with multiple CPs as long as doesn't get too wild (7 conditional CPs is probably not legit). You need to have a clearly articulated net benefit as well as an explanation of whatever aff solvency there is. If you are aff, I need an explanation of why the perm functions as well as solvency deficits/net benefits to the perm. Super complex CP theory is annoying to me because I've never really done that type of debate, I can still follow it but make sure you slow down. PICs are usually fine as long as there's a clear reason they're distinct from the aff.

DAs: Sure. Having reasons why the DA turns the case is strongly suggested.

Theory: Being primarily a K debater, I'm biased against uber conservative theory (like Ks bad, etc). You need to prove in-round abuse, you're not likely to win the round on potential abuse with me as a judge. You are also probably not going to win the round on a minor theory arg. All theory args should have a clear structure; you can make a vagueness bad arg or whatever but if you don't impact it out I'm not voting on it. Your arguments should be specific to the round and the violation at hand.

Ks: I love Ks, and I'm familiar with all of the common authors used in debate rounds. That being said, don't assume I know your lit base. The link debate is very important to me as well as the framing of the kritik; do not assume I know how you want me to weigh certain arguments or that I know how you want me to view the aff. Also, if you're going to run a K, please know what you're talking about. There is nothing more frustrating than when someone reads a K with absolutely no knowledge of the subject or what the K does. Don't do it. That being said, I love judging K vs. policy or K vs. K debates and seeing teams do cool new things with critically based argumentation, provided that it's executed well.

K affs: I'm down with K affs, but you need to have clear reasons as to why your advocacy is uniquely important and can effectively resolve whatever harms you isolate. Again, don't assume I know your lit base. I was a 2A who almost exclusively ran K affs so I can def get behind this style of debate. If you have me as a judge, it's probably better if your aff does a thing, but I don't need a plan text/advocacy statement.

Framework: If you are running framework against a K aff, I will hold it to a high standard and you will need to be able to articulate impacts/reasons why their advocacy is uniquely bad for debate. Again, I was a 2A who ran K affs for all of high school, so I would appreciate hearing new and/or less generic framework args instead of the same shells your team has been reading for years. I love a good TVA.

Speaks: 28 is average. My speaks will almost always range between 27-29.5. If you are completely apathetic about the debate (e.g. hardly using your speech time or clearly not making an effort) I will go lower than that. If you say anything seriously offensive/problematic I will give you the lowest speaks possible.

Arguments I Really Hate: Obnoxious troll arguments and racism/sexism/ableism/etc good arguments. I'll flow the arguments, but know that it will kill your speaker points and I will have a conversation with you and your coach after the round. There will be a very low threshold for the other team with these arguments.

Other: Speed is great, but be clear on tags, and slow down on your theory blocks if you read them. If I can't understand you, I cannot evaluate the arguments you make, and I won't hesitate to shout out "clear" during your speech if it comes to that. Profanity doesn't bother me as long as you don't say anything that's actually problematic, but if you say a slur you can't reclaim during the round and it's brought to my attention I will automatically vote you down. Don't be disrespectful to your opponents, your partner, or me. Don't post-round me either. Open CX is fine as long as you don't overwhelm your partner. I don't take prep for flashing evidence. Yes, I want to be on the email chain, and you can email me if you have any questions: amandawatson1119@gmail.com

Mark E. Weinhardt

Put me on the email chain: mweinhardt@weinhardtlaw.com

Background:

I debated a very long time ago: Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Washington (1975-78) and Dartmouth (1978-1982). I was fortunate to have some success (quarters at TOC in high school; quarters, finals, and semis at 3 NDT’s and #1 and #6 at large bids in college). I then left the activity entirely, returning as a judge and assistant coach in 2010 when my kids started debating at West Des Moines Dowling Catholic High School. I attend several tournaments a year and judge a mixture of competitive levels. In real life I am a trial lawyer with my own firm (see www.weinhardtlaw.com).

Overview:

I believe it is called “policy debate” for a reason, and my default approach is to evaluate the round as a policy maker in the real world (i.e., I am a U.S. Senator; the plan text is a bill before me). I can and will judge the debate differently, but you must ask me to do so and persuade me it's a good idea. Other than the kritik movement[1], debate has changed much less in 40 years than you think it has. We went fast and I can flow fast.

HOW to debate in front of me:

—This is an oral activity. At live tournaments, I must get your content from the spoken word, not the written word. And if I can't flow it, it's not in the debate. I will sometimes, however, look at evidence after the round to resolve conflicts in or weigh the evidence. I am willing to be on the email chain to get speech docs for this purpose (mweinhardt@weinhardtlaw.com), but do not expect me to look at that content during the round. At online tournaments, however, I may look at speech docs in round to makeup for lag in the electronic format. Don't depend on that, though--you'd best slow down a little.

—Line by line GOOD. Giant overviews BAD.

—During speeches and cross-ex, I allow only one team member to talk. The other debater can’t talk to his/her partner or to me. Always stand when speaking.

—When arguing analytics, don’t just stare at your laptop and read fast. You need to look at me and persuade me why you are right, especially in late rebuttals.

WHAT to debate in front of me (almost anything, but here are some thoughts):

Kritiks

I will vote on K's but am not deep in the literature. If your K is named after a concept (capitalism, security), I am probably conversant with it. If it is named after a philosopher, you'd better explain it very clearly. I will weigh the case against a K absent a compelling reason not to.

Topicality

I believe the affirmative is required to affirm the resolution. But I am generally lenient on T if the affirmative does this. That is, I like breadth over depth within the resolution but hate it when the aff wants a debate that has nothing to do with the resolution. Against policy affs, I think many negatives waste their time on T. But T is always a voting issue if the affirmative loses it.

Counterplans

I believe a counterplan must be competitive with the affirmative plan; i.e., the negative must explain why I can’t do both. I am very willing to vote on the idea that a counterplan cannot be topical. Affirmatives should argue this in front of me. I am generally not a fan of little cheating PICs.

Other theory issues

I will vote on theory but much prefer debates about the desirability of the plan text/resolution as a policy matter. Calling a theory argument a “voter” does not make it so. One conditional advocacy is OK; more than that could try my patience. Three things matter to me in theory debates: (1) Competitive fairness to both sides. (2) Education about things that transcend debate. (3) The rules of this game should attract, not repel, students from participating in it. I will vote for theory positions that do those things and I will punish positions that don't.

Miscellaneous

I applaud debaters who separate what evidence actually says from the spin their opponents put on it. I like case debates; negs invest way to little in this in most rounds.

[1] Here is how old I am: Many credit a guy named Bill Shanahan with inventing the concept of the K. I debated against him in college.

Affiliated Institution: Dr. Richard Izquierdo Health and Science Charter School (Bronx, NY)

Experience:

• Parliamentary Coach: 6 years

• Policy Coach: 5 years

Philosophy: I prefer not to list too many preferences here because I think debate rounds go best when they are scholar directed. With that being said, it is important to me that the basics of debate are not lost in more advanced rounds. Evidence of being fully prepared with a well-researched plan is first and foremost. Don’t throw something together before the round to stump your opponent if you aren’t fully ready to run it. Sign-posting, explaining complicated arguments in layman's terms, weighing the round, and explaining why you need the ballot are all techniques I look for and appreciate. I enjoy Kritik debates, but only when the argument is fairly explained to the opposing team. Don't just tell us the starting point and end goal - tell us how we're getting from point A to point B. Finally, remember to learn a ton and have fun!

Side note - I really am not swayed by "NUCLEAR WAR! EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE!" as the impact for all off cases. You'll need to do more work than that. That stands for any other impact that aligns with that train of thought.

I am a parent judge and this is my second year judging.

Explain yourself and your arguments clearly for best results.

I'm the assistant director of forensics at the University of Rochester. I'm also a history grad student. I think more debaters should be historians.

There will very likely be a pigeon judging with me. You are free to bring seeds to give to him if they're not covered in sugar or salt. No speaker points or anything, my birds don't get paid to judge debates.

Any and all styles are great since I love it when folks that come out swinging strong for their positions. When y'all can actually be RESOLVED, that's that kind of debate speech I love to see.

A few loose thoughts:

- I don't like it when people ask for high speaker points. If you want a 30, give me a speech that makes me think you're better at debate than Gabby Knight or Kaine Cherry. I'm going to ignore any requests for high speaker points, even if your opponent tells me to follow your instructions. My immediate thought when someone makes this an argument is めんどくさい

- There's a trend of teams not sending out taglines/plan texts on email chains/docs, don't do that. While I still have an aversion to paperless debate, if we're going to be debate cyborgs, be open with what your evidence/positions are so your opponents can engage in good faith.

-I do my best to keep a tight flow, but that said, please slowdown for interps/counter-interps/plan texts, especially if you're not emailing those out and you expect me to say something about that debate.

- I tend to think conditionality is good, since I think Affs should be able to beat the squo or a counterplan/alternative but I have voted on condo bad in the past.

- I'm generally not persuaded by new affs bad theory. Not saying I won't vote on it, but I'm not a fan.

For LD:

In the off chance I'm in the LD pool, I did conservative value-criteria debate during my time in high school and I'd be lying if I said I liked it. That said, I heard rumors of circuit LD and how y'all seem to have a low threshold for theory arguments and that sounds appalling. I like substantive arguments. I like kritik arguments.

Read that as you wish.

Policy > LD.

Also, I strongly suggest y'all check out Keiko Takemiya's To Terra. It's really good.

2017: I coach k teams and pay rent through /education/ (interestingly the current resolution). also, typically, i coach teams whose 2nr/2ar riff alongside either afro-pessimism or a certain european variation of philosophy.

2016: hi - i am a graduate student studying media theory and cultural studies coaching brooklyn technical high school (brooklyn, ny) and would like to be added to email chains via lzausen @ gmail

for me comprehension is a precondition to understanding. rigorous and textual argumentation, performance, theoretical impact assessment are all aesthetic choices valued highly. use the above words as stylistic assessments for my flow. in my opinion, the judge's roll is to facilitate; best case scenario, you clearly articulate an interpretation of what the round is, and I vote. i coach k teams. but, I hold performative affirmatives to the same degree as state action, and thus all the rhetorical, performative, logical turns are signs of misreading, and are considerably more noticeable to me with the critical team. even if I tend to vote for k / critical argumentation, I will similarly vote for nuanced permutation arguments as the easiest way for affirmative teams against the k - a competitive perm should have a net benefit. but as a judge, I attempt to come into the round with as little pretenses as possible, and if policy-orientation debate is your approach to the resolution I will certainly and easily vote on these types of arguments in the face of a incomprehensible criticism and/or blatant inattentiveness in this game we call policy debate. on this, I find that in-round education is a funnel that both types of debate can accomplish, and I’ve noticed myself more willing to continue these through on the flow.

Add me to the email chain - sabrinasabrinazhang@gmail.com

My past debate experience:

• 4 years of policy debate at Lexington High School
• My senior year I qualified for NDCA and the TOC national debate tournaments
• Competed in 25+ tournaments, if you want more detail, ask me about it when I judge you
• I am currently affiliated with Lexington High School in MA

Last topic debated: China topic 2016-17, I know nothing about education policy so please define acronyms during the 1AC and CX and describe lesser-known acts on education 

This was my wiki from last year if this would help you: https://hspolicy16.debatecoaches.org/Lexington/Gao-Zhang+Neg

I was a 2N and my favorite debate arguments were:

• Case-specific turns (I will vote on a flushed-out case turn)
• Well-researched DAs
• A specific CP + a generic DA
• Cap K
• Commodification/Tuck & Yang

  ***NOTE: PLEASE DEBATE WHAT YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH***

• I am a very good judge for anything you may want to run and I evaluate everything - I have written out some things that I am more/less persuaded by below, but please do not let that deter you from running what you are comfortable with - if you debate it better than your opponent then I will vote for you!!

GENERAL THINGS

• I want to be added to the email chain but I will not be looking at cards unless I have to at the end of the debate - it is your job to explain cards throughout the debate, a good card will not save you if you didn't debate it well
• I prefer technical debate - this means that if you have a sketchy I/L that wasn't answered I would vote on it, this DOES NOT mean that you can make arguments like "they dropped it, we win" - you have to flush out every argument even if it was dropped
• Know your evidence - extend the best cards throughout speeches, know what they are saying - I dislike when teams are questioned about evidence and they don't know how to answer questions - it's just awkward so make sure you read your evidence before hand
• I reward good research/preparation - this usually is granted through the speaks I give you - I think that debate is fundamentally a research/prep activity and debate is only fun and educational when both teams come into the debate prepared - Please have specific answers to arguments
• I WILL ONLY SAY CLEAR ONCE - Please be clear after that!!! If you don't listen to me when I say clear, that is your problem. Your speaker points will be affected and you will potentially lose the ballot (depends on how much of your arguments I can actually flow)
• Take advantage of CX time!!! It is not just a time for "extra prep" - this is the BEST time to poke holes in your opponents' arguments and establish flaws in them - I love good CXs
• Make your speeches easy to flow - do line by line, sign post, be clear when you are moving on, etc
• PLEASE DO IMPACT CALCULUS - I don’t care what argument you go for - tell me at the top of your speech what your impacts are and why they matter

SPEAKER POINT RANGE

• I tend to give out points generously, so please give me a reason to give you higher points - I assign speaker points on these factors: making smart arguments, asking good questions and follow-up questions, being a likable person, speaking clearly
• < 27.0 - you are rude and unlikable, please learn manners
• 27.0-27.5 - you have a lot of potential in debate, but you are still learning the ropes and it is clear you are confused about arguments/debate - keep at it!
• 27.5-28.0 - good debater but still shaky - you are missing some key arguments that you need in the round and you are making some mistakes, but I can tell that you are working on improving
• 28.0-28.5 - good debater but you made a mistake(s) that was avoidable
• 28.5-29 - great debater, but not doing anything exceptionally smart - I think you deserve to be in elims of the tournament
• 29.0-29.5 - amazing debater, you are making the right arguments and are efficient in doing so - you have a ton of potential and I believe you should be in the top 10 speakers
• 29.5-30.0 - you are making arguments that are too good not to vote for, you are the best debater and I think you deserve to win top speaker and all the tournaments from here on out

TOPICALITY

• I really love T debates when they are done correctly - this means that both teams must have offense on why their counterinterpretation is better
• Please have a caselist on the neg and please explain why each aff you choose is good for the topic whereas the aff team's is not - Caselists should be carefully thought out before the debate
• If you are aff against topicality, have offense, do not just extend reasonability and pray I will vote for it
• If you are neg in the above scenario, please go for T - don't shy away from topicality debates!!

DISADVANTAGES

• I think that the link determines the direction of uniqueness - In that regard, please have a strong link to the aff (have a specific card)
• Politics DAs - I love politics disadvantages, but make sure your evidence is recent - in these debates usually the most recent evidence is the best evidence - Establish a clear internal link chain in the 1NC and keep to the same story - Side note: I will not vote on politics theory even if it is the entirety of the 2AR
• I think the best DA is an aff-specific DA - this is where I want you to show off your extensive preparation - if you have a DA based on the implementation of the plan with good evidentiary support, I would likely be persuaded by it
• Aff teams - If you are going to go for a turn on a DA, you have to have evidence supporting your turn, make sure you have impact defense and link arguments when you answer a DA

  COUNTERPLANS

• I believe in sufficiency framing - this does not mean I vote neg on every counterplan, because I hold a very high threshhold for CP solvency - You have to spend a lot of time proving how your CP solves the impacts of the aff - on the aff side this means you have to prove why it doesn't solve/aff method is better
• Not the biggest fan of generic CPs because more often than not they don't solve - Please have a solvency card on the neg specific to the aff
• If you have multiple planks, it is my pet peeve when teams don't read a solvency advocate (s) that advocate for all of the planks
• COUNTERPLAN THEORY - here are some things I am convinced by in terms of theory - One conditional advocacy is good, Conditional planks are bad, and object fiat is bad - In general, I can be convinced by any other theory argument - Please don't be afraid of going for theory in front of me

KRITIKS

• I think that it is extremely important to be able to test how the aff makes decisions - I would vote off of FW if it is impacted out
• Links - I think that the link debate is the most important part of a K - Please make your links as specific as possible, and please make as many links as you can - it helps if your links are carded as well, but I will evaluate well-thought out analytical links as well - I do not like links of omission or generic "state bad" or "state is capitalist" links, I might vote on them but I think that is lazy debating
• Alternative - Please do not kick out of your alternative - I've voted on teams who have done that before, but it is really risky and if you are going to spend the time to explain why you don't have to win the alternative, you have the time to extend it
• Permutations - Don't have competing ideologies in the 1NC because then I am almost compelled to vote for the permutation do both, if you are aff, please extend a permutation but make sure you address links in order to go for the permutation as your main strategy
• I will NOT evaluate an impact turn if you are making an argument like "racism good" or "imperialism good" - that would be a big no-no in my book and you will get zero speaker points and a stern lecture
• If you want to read a high-theory K, please explain it in the context of the topic, please do not put together buzzwords that don't form full sentences, this is a huge pet-peeve of mine
• If you are aff, make sure you have answers on all parts of the K and make sure you can justify your assumptions to make in your aff
• I also dislike overviews that are more than 2 minutes long - I hate getting out a new sheet for an overview, this is not debate this is a rant and you are avoiding clash entirely by doing this

KRITIKAL AFFS/FRAMEWORK

• I really like hearing Kritikal affirmatives, and even though I debated mostly policy affs during my four years, I am open to listening to any affirmative you may have
• Please relate to the topic in some way - Mention it briefly, it's not hard, explain why you couldn't defend changing education policy - I believe that this helps you against potential framework arguments
• FRAMEWORK - I think fairness can be an impact on its own, but there is a high standard you have to prove that you just couldn't have debated and the debate should be over just because of the aff - It would be better if you use fairness as an internal link to other impacts - Have TVAs to make your argument better - Contextualize all your answers in the context of what the aff is
• AT FRAMEWORK - Have a lot of DAs to their interpretation of debate - contextualize everything to your aff - Explain why whatever you're doing is good for debate/why debate is bad now - Have a counterinterpretation/counter ROB as well, they are good to have and extend even if your counterinterpretation isn't a strong argument

TLDR; Make smart arguments and be good people!

Debated: Lexington High School 2013-2017, Harvard 2017—

Email Chain: ruthzheng15@gmail.com

Pretty much everything is permitted. That being said, if you do something abhorrent I will drop you. I'll evaluate the debate based on what was said in the round. If you want me to read evidence, please contest it within the debate. Framing is important. Tech \geq Truth. I won't vote for an argument if I don't understand it, though (re: grumpyface).

*Note on Framework v. Non-Topical Affs: I'm disinclined to think that fairness is a terminal impact, so persuading me otherwise will be an uphill battle (although not impossible). Limits or literally anything else is fine.