Glenbrook South 2014, Northwestern 2018, now Dartmouth, he/him/his

Email chain: c.callahan45@gmail.com

General thoughts:

The older I get and the more time out of debate I spend, the more of a curmudgeon I become. I am interested in in-depth, well-researched debate, and uninterested in things that are not that. This has two implications.

First, I am most likely to vote for strategies that are based in coherent literature bases, lend themselves to high-quality and detailed evidence, and have deep defenses of the way their conclusions arise. I care a lot about interactions between flows -- I'm most comfortable voting for teams that structure coherent narratives across multiple flows and through multiple speeches, and I'm uncomfortable when basic thesis claims are in tension across positions.

Second, I find that I am more willing than other judges to issue decisions in T or theory debates that amount to "I know it when I see it." Just because one relatively reasonable practice might justify the most extreme form of that practice doesn't mean those two are indistinguishable. This doesn't mean I'm unwilling to vote on T or theory. On the contrary, I'm perfectly happy to do so when the other team has engaged in a facially unreasonable practice -- just not otherwise.

K things:

If recent history is any indication, I am an excellent judge for the neg when going for a critique like security or neolib against a typical policy aff. I do think, however, that objective truth is a real thing and that well-defined actions to improve the world are generally good, so I tend to be reluctant to accept most flavors of political or philosophical nihilism.

I'm also willing to vote for teams that don't read plans. My biggest concerns in T/framework debates are the role of the negative and the kind of debates that would take place in an alternative vision of the topic. This means going beyond the typical "you could have read the cap K" and developing a coherent theory for how debate operates and why a topic without a resolutional focus would still promote clash and in-depth debate. I find it hard to vote aff when the neg has won that the aff's interpretation makes debate shallow and prevents the specific testing of aff arguments.

Old man yells at cloud:

If you answer arguments included in the previous speech's document but not read, your speaker points will suffer.

If you spend a significant amount of cross-ex time just figuring out which cards were and weren't read, or asking the speaker to simply restate their arguments, your speaker points will suffer.

If you ask the speaker to remove everything they didn't read from a speech doc, I will tell them they don't have to do that.

Better-than-average for:

50-state fiat bad, dedev, the intrinsic perm against process counterplans, author indicts/debates about qualifications

Worse-than-average for:

Climate change not real, the perm double bind, con con, any argument that could be described as trolling, cards with sentences highlighted across multiple paragraphs, impact arguments that use the word "miscalc" as a substitute for explanation

Ethics stuff:

In general, my priority in cases of ethics questions is to maximize the amount of good-faith debating that can occur. If there is a way to resolve the issue and continue the debate, I will do my best to find it.

I would generally like to assume ignorance rather than malice when it comes to things like mis-citing or mis-cutting evidence. By this I mean cards being cited incorrectly, parts of cards not appearing in the original article, cards being cut in the middle of paragraphs, etc. If this kind of thing happens, I would prefer to just disregard a piece of evidence rather than deciding an entire debate about someone's card-cutting practices. Mistakes happen and people are people, and I would like to think that all debaters are here in good faith. However, if something is super egregious, I can be convinced that it should be a reason for a team to lose.

There needs to be a recording to accuse someone of clipping cards. This is a debate-ender: if you accuse someone of clipping, I will decide the debate on that issue. It has to be clear and repeated, not just missing a line or two. I will often glance at speech docs during a debate, but I do not closely read along with the debaters.

Joshua Clark

Montgomery Bell Academy

University of Michigan - Institute Instructor
Email: jreubenclark10@gmail.com

Past Schools:
Juan Diego Catholic
Notre Dame in Sherman Oaks
Damien

Debating:
Jordan (UT) 96-98
College of Eastern Utah 99
Cal St Fullerton 01-04

Website:
HSImpact.com

Speaker Points
Points will generally stay between 27.5 and 29.9. It generally takes a 28.8 average to clear. I assign points with that in mind. Teams that average 28.8 or higher in a debate mean I thought your points were elimination round-level debates. While it's not an exact science, 29-29.1 means you had a good chance of advancing in elimination rounds, and 29.2+ indicates excellence reserved for quarters+. I'm not stingy with these kinds of points; they have nothing to do with past successes. It has everything to do with your performance in THIS debate.


Etiquette
1. Try to treat each other with mutual respect.

2. Cards and tags should have the same clarity
3. Cards MUST be marked during the speech. Please say, "Mark the card," and please have you OR your partner physically mark the cards in the speech. It is not possible to remember where you've marked your cards after the speech. Saying "mark the card" is the only way to let your judge and competitors know that you do not intend to represent that you've read the entirety of the card. Physically marking the card in the speech is necessary to maintain an accurate account of what you did or didn't read.

Overview
My 25 years in the community have led me to formulate opinions about how the activity should be run. I'm not sharing these with you because I think this is the way you have to debate but because you may get some insight about how to win and earn better speaker points in front of me.

1) Conceded claims without warrants - These aren't complete arguments. A 10-second dropped ASPEC is very unlikely to decide a debate for me. Perm, do the CP without a theoretical justification; it also makes zero sense. Perm - do both needs to be followed by an explanation for how it resolves the link to the net benefit, or it is not an argument.

2) Voting issues are reasons to reject the argument. (Other than conditionality)

3) Debate stays in the round -- Debate is a game of testing ideas and their counterparts. Those ideas presented in the debate will be the sole factor used in determining the winning team. Things said or done outside of this debate round will not be considered when determining a winning team.

4) Your argument doesn't improve by calling it a "DA" -- I'm sure your analytical standard to your framework argument on the K is great, but overstating its importance by labeling it a "DA" isn't accurate. It's a reason to prefer your interpretation.

Topicality vs Conventional Affs: I default to competing interpretations on topicality but can be persuaded by reasonability. Topicality is a voting issue.

Topicality vs Critical Affs: I generally think that policy debate is a good thing and that a team should both have a plan and defend it. Given that, I have no problem voting for "no plan" advocacies or "fiat-less" plans. I will be looking for you to win that your impact turns to topicality/framework outweighs the loss of education/fairness that would be given in a "fiated" plan debate. Affirmative teams struggle with answering the argument that they could advocate most of their aff while defending a topical plan. I also think that teams who stress they are a pre-requisite to topical action have a more difficult time with topical version-type arguments than teams who impact turn standards. If you win that the state is irredeemable at every level, you are much more likely to get me to vote against FW. The K aff teams who have had success in front of me have been very good at generating a good list of arguments that opposing teams could run against them to mitigate the fairness impact of the T/FW argument. This makes the impact turns of a stricter limit much more persuasive to me.

I'm also in the fairness camp as a terminal impact, as opposed to an emphasis on portable skills. I think you can win that T comes before substantive issues.

One note to teams that are neg against an aff that lacks stable advocacy: Make sure you adapt your framework arguments to fit the aff. Don't read..." you must have a plan" if they have a plan. If a team has a plan but doesn't defend fiat, base your ground arguments on that violation.


Counterplans and Disads: The more specific to the aff, the better. There are few things better than a well-researched PIC that just blind sites a team. Objectively, I think counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy are not legitimate. However, I still coach teams to run these arguments, and I can still evaluate a theory debate about these different counterplans as objectively as possible. Again, the more specific the evidence is to the aff, the more legitimate it will appear.


The K: I was a k debater and a philosophy major in college. I prefer criticisms that are specific to the resolution. If your K links don't discuss poverty and redistribution strategies this year, then it's unlikely to be very persuasive to me.

Impact comparisons usually become the most important part of a kritik, and the excessive link list becomes the least of a team’s problems heading into the 2nr. It would be best if you won that either a) you turn the case and have an external impact or b) you solve the case and have an external impact. Root cause arguments are sound but rarely address the timeframe issue of case impacts. If you are going to win your magnitude comparisons, then you better do a lot to mitigate the case impacts. I also find most framework arguments associated with a K nearly pointless. Most of them are impacted by the K proper and depend on you winning the K to win the framework argument. Before devoting any more time to the framework beyond getting your K evaluated, you should ask yourself and clearly state to me what happens if you win your theory argument. You should craft your "role of the ballot" argument based on the answer to that question. I am willing to listen to sequencing arguments that EXPLAIN why discourse, epistemology, ontology, etc., come first.


Conclusion: I love debate...good luck if I'm judging you, and please feel free to ask any clarifying questions.

To promote disclosure at the high school level, any team that practices near-universal "open source" will be awarded .2 extra per debater if you bring that to my attention before the RFD.

He/him

These are most of the predispositions I have about arguments that I can think of, these are not ironclad as my views on debate are constantly in flux. However, without being instructed otherwise, the below points will likely influence how I evaluate the debate.

Top Level:

-Please add me to the email chain, fifelski@umich.edu and please make the subject something that is easy to search like "NDT 4 - Michigan DM v UCO HS."

-I prefer to flow on paper, but if you would like me to flow on my computer so I can share the flow after the debate, just ask.

-I read along with speech docs and prefer clear, relatively slow, and organized debates. I am still trying to hone flowing in online debate.

-I cannot emphasize enough how important card quality and recency should be in debates, but it requires debaters to frame arguments about that importance.

-If you break a new aff and you don't want to share the docs, I will chalk it up to academic cowardice and presume that the aff is largely a pile of crap.

-Evidence can be inserted if the lines were read in CX, but otherwise this act is insufficient. I will only look at graphs and charts if they are analyzed in the debate.

-I generally think war good arguments are akin to genocide good. I also think dedev is absolute nonsense.

-The past year of my life has been filled with the death of loved ones, please don't remind me of it while I'm judging a debate. I categorically refuse to evaluate any argument that could have the thesis statement of death good or that life is not worth living.

-Affs should be willing to answer cross-x questions about what they'll defend.

Topic thoughts:

-I'm not a fan of this topic, but I don't think "aff ground" arguments make much sense in terms of the topicality debates from fringe affs. The topic is not "adjust nuke policy" so even if "disarming" was a poorly choice word, it doesn't mean you can just get rid of a handful of bombs. Anything else makes the triad portion of the topic irrelevant. It sucks, but the negative should not be punished because the community came to consensus on a topic. Want to fix it? Engage in the thankless work that is crafting the topic.

-Russia is 100% a revisionist power, at war in Europe, and is evil. My thoughts on China are more complex, but I do believe they would take Taiwan if given the chance.

How to sway me:

-More narrativization is better than less

-Ev quality - I think higher quality and recent ev is a necessity. Make arguments about the qualifications of authors, how to evaluate evidence, and describe what events have happened to complicate the reading of their evidence from 2012.

-The 2nr/2ar should spend the first 15-20 seconds explaining how I should vote with judge instruction. If you laid a trap, now is the time to tell me, because I’m probably not going to vote on something that wasn’t flagged as an argument.

-I can flow with the best of them, but I enjoy slower debates so much more.

-More case debate. The 2ac is often too dismissive of case args and the neg often under-utilizes them.

-If reading cards after the debate is required for me to have comprehension of your argument, I’m probably not your judge. I tend to vote on warranted arguments that I have flowed and read cards to evaluate particular warrants that have been called into question. That said, I intend on reading along with speech docs this year.

-I think internal links are the most important parts of an argument; I am more likely to vote for “Asian instability means international coop on warming is impossible” than “nuclear war kills billions” OR “our patriarchy better explains x,y,z” instead of “capitalism causes war.”

-I like when particular arguments are labeled eg) “the youth-voter link” or “the epistemology DA.”

-If you're breaking a new aff/cp, it's probably in your best interest to slow down when making highly nuanced args.

Things I don’t like:

-Generally I think word PICs are bad. Some language obviously needs to be challenged, but if your 1nc strategy involves cntl-f [insert ableist term], I am not the judge for you.

-Overusing offensive language, yelling, being loud during the other team’s speech/prep, and getting into my personal space or the personal space of others will result in fewer speaker points.

-If you think a permutation requires the affirmative to do something they haven’t, you and I have different interpretations of competition theory.

-Old evidence/ blocks that have been circulating in camp files for a decade.

Critical Affs:

-I am probably a better judge for the K than most would suspect. While the sample size is small, I think I vote for critical args around 50% of the time they're the center of the debate.

-A debate has to occur and happen within the speech order/times of the invite; the arguments are made are up to the debaters and I generally enjoy a broad range of arguments, particularly on a topic as dull as this one.

-Too often I think critical affs describe a problem, but don’t explain what voting aff means in the context of that impact.

-Is there a role of the ballot?

-Often I find the “topical version” of the aff argument to be semi-persuasive by the negative, so explain to me the unique benefit of your aff in the form that it is and why switching-sides does not solve that.

-Framework: Explain the topical version of the aff; use your framework impacts to turn/answer the impacts of the 1ac; if you win framework you win the debate because…

Kritiks:

-Links should be contextualized to the aff; saying the aff is capitalist because they use the state is not enough. I'm beginning to think that K's, when read against policy affs, should link to the plan and not just the advantages, I'm not as sold on this as I am my belief on floating pic/ks (95 percent of the time I think floating PIC/Ks aren't arguments worthy of being made, let alone voted on)

-Alternative- what is the framework for evaluating the debate? What does voting for the alternative signify? What should I think of the aff’s truth statements?

-I’m not a fan of high theory Ks, but statistically vote for them a decent percentage of the time.

-When reading the K against K affs, the link should problematize the aff's methodology.

Answering the K:

-Make smart permutation arguments that have explained the net benefits and deal with the negatives disads to the perm.

-You should have a framework for the debate and find ways to dismiss the negative’s alternative.

Disads:

-Overviews that explain the story of the disad are helpful.

-Focus on internal links.

Counterplans:

-I am not a member of the cult of process. Just because you have a random definition of a word from a court in Iowa doesn't mean I think that the counterplan has value. I can be swayed if there are actual cards about the topic and the aff, but otherwise these cps are, as the kids say, mid.

-Your CP should have a solvency advocate that is as descriptive of your mechanism as the affirmative’s solvency advocate is.

Theory/Rules:

-Conditionality is cheating a lot like the Roth test: at some point it’s cheating, otherwise neg flex is good.

-Affs should explain why the negative should lose because of theory, otherwise I’ll just reject the arg.

-I'll likely be unsympathetic to args related to ADA rules, sans things that should actually be rules like clipping.

-I’m generally okay with kicking the CP/Alt for the neg if I’m told to.

email: eforslund@gmail.com

Copied and Pasted from my judge philosophy wiki page.

Recent Bio:

Director of Debate at Pace Academy

15 years judging and coaching high school debate. First at Damien High School then at Greenhill. Generally only judge a handful of college rounds a year.

Zero rounds on the current college topic in 2020.

Coached at the University of Wyoming 2004-2005.

I have decided to incentivize reading strategies that involve talking about the specifics of the affirmative case. Too many high school teams find a terrible agent or process cp and use politics as a crutch. Too many high school teams pull out their old, generic, k's and read them regardless of the aff. As an incentive to get away from this practice I will give any 2N that goes for a case-only strategy an extra point. If this means someone who would have earned a 29 ends up with a 30, then so be it. I would rather encourage a proliferation of higher speaker points, then a proliferation of bad, generic arguments. If you have to ask what a case strategy involves, then you probably aren't going to read one. I'm not talking about reading some case defense and going for a disad, or a counterplan that solves most of the aff. I'm talking about making a majority of the debate a case debate -- and that case debate continuing into the 2NR.

You'll notice "specificity good" throughout my philosophy. I will give higher points to those teams that engage in more specific strategies, then those that go for more generic ones. This doesnt mean that I hate the k -- on the contrary, I wouldn't mind hearing a debate on a k, but it needs to be ABOUT THE AFF. The genero security k doesnt apply to the South Korean Prostitutes aff, the Cap k doesnt apply to the South Korea Off-Shore Balancing aff - and you arent likely to convince me otherwise. But if you have an argument ABOUT the affirmative --especially a specific k that has yet to be read, then you will be rewarded if I am judging you.

I have judged high-level college and high school debates for the last 14 years. That should answer a few questions that you are thinking about asking: yes, speed is fine, no, lack of clarity is not. Yes, reading the k is ok, no, reading a bunch of junk that doesn't apply to the topic, and failing to explain why it does is not.

The single most important piece of information I can give you about me as a judge is that I cut a lot of cards -- you should ALWAYS appeal to my interest in the literature and to protect the integrity of that literature. Specific is ALWAYS better than generic, and smart strategies that are well researched should ALWAYS win out over generic, lazy arguments. Even if you dont win debates where you execute specifics, you will be rewarded.

Although my tendencies in general are much more to the right than the rest of the community, I have voted on the k many times since I started judging, and am generally willing to listen to whatever argument the debaters want to make. Having said that, there are a few caveats:

1. I don't read a lot of critical literature; so using a lot of terms or references that only someone who reads a lot of critical literature would understand isn’t going to get you very far. If I don’t understand your arguments, chances are pretty good you aren’t going to win the debate, no matter how persuasive you sound. This goes for the aff too explain your argument, don’t assume I know what you are talking about.

2. You are much better off reading critical arguments on the negative then on the affirmative. I tend to believe that the affirmative has to defend a position that is at least somewhat predictable, and relates to the topic in a way that makes sense. If they don’t, I am very sympathetic to topicality and framework-type arguments. This doesn’t mean you can’t win a debate with a non-traditional affirmative in front of me, but it does mean that it is going to be much harder, and that you are going to have to take topicality and framework arguments seriously. To me, predictability and fairness are more important than stretching the boundaries of debate, and the topic. If your affirmative defends a predictable interpretation of the topic, you are welcome to read any critical arguments you want to defend that interpretation, with the above stipulations.

3. I would much rather watch a disad/counterplan/case debate than some other alternative.

In general, I love a good politics debate - but - specific counterplans and case arguments are THE BEST strategies. I like to hear new innovative disads, but I have read enough of the literature on this year’s topic that I would be able to follow any deep debate on any of the big generic disads as well.

As far as theory goes, I probably defer negative a bit more in theory debates than affirmative. That probably has to do with the fact that I like very well thought-out negative strategies that utilize PICS and specific disads and case arguments. As such, I would much rather see an affirmative team impact turn the net benefits to a counterplan then to go for theory (although I realize this is not always possible). I really believe that the boundaries of the topic are formed in T debates at the beginning of the year, therefore I am much less willing to vote on a topicality argument against one of the mainstream affirmatives later on in the year than I am at the first few tournaments. I’m not going to outline all of the affs that I think are mainstream, but chances are pretty good if there are more than a few teams across the country reading the affirmative, I’m probably going to err aff in a close T debate.

One last thing, if you really want to get high points in front of me, a deep warming debate is the way to go. I would be willing to wager that I have dug further into the warming literature than just about anybody in the country, and I love to hear warming debates. I realize by this point most teams have very specific strategies to most of the affirmatives on the topic, but if you are wondering what advantage to read, or whether or not to delve into the warming debate on the negative, it would be very rewarding to do so in front of me -- at the very least you will get some feedback that will help you in future debates.

Ok, I lied, one more thing. Ultimately I believe that debate is a game. I believe that debaters should have fun while debating. I realize that certain debates get heated, however do your best not to be mean to your partner, and to the other team. There are very few things I hate more than judging a debate where the teams are jerks to each other. Finally, although I understand the strategic value to impact turning the alternative to kritiks and disads (and would encourage it in most instances), there are a few arguments I am unwilling to listen to those include: sexism good, racism good, genocide good, and rape good. If you are considering reading one of those arguments, don’t. You are just going to piss me off.

Updated 9-26-2013

Kevin McCaffrey

Assistant Debate Coach Glenbrook North 2014-
Assistant Debate Coach Berkeley Preparatory School 2010-2014
Assistant Debate Coach University of Miami 2007-2009
Assistant Debate Coach Gulliver Preparatory School 2005-2010

I feel strongly about both my role as an impartial adjudicator and as an educator – situations where these roles come into conflict are often where I find that I have intervened. I try to restrain myself from intervening in a debate, but I make mistakes, and sometimes find myself presented with two options which seem comparably interventionary in different ways, often due to underarticulated argumentation. This effort represents a systematic effort to identify the conditions under which I am more or less likely to intervene unconsciously. I try to keep a beginner’s mind and approach every debate round as a new learning opportunity, and I do usually learn at least one new thing every round – this is what I like most about the activity, and I’m at my best when I remember this and at my worst when I forget it.

My default paradigm is that of a policy analyst – arguments which assume a different role (vote no, performance) probably require more effort to communicate this role clearly enough for me to understand and feel comfortable voting for you. I don’t really have a very consistent record voting for or against any particular positions, although identity- and psychology-based arguments are probably the genres I have the least experience with and I’m not a good judge for either.

Rather, I think you’re most interested in the situations in which I’m likely to intervene – and what you can do to prevent it – this has much less to do with what arguments you’re making than it does with how you’re making them:

Make fewer arguments, and explain their nature and implication more thoroughly:

My unconscious mind carries out the overwhelming majority of the grunt work of my decisions – as I listen to a debate, a mental map forms of the debate round as a cohesive whole, and once I lose that map, I don’t usually get it back. This has two primary implications for you: 1) it’s in your interest for me to understand the nuances of an argument when first presented, so that I can see why arguments would be more or less responsive as or before they are made in response 2) debates with a lot of moving parts and conditional outcomes overload my ability to hold the round in my mind at once, and I lose confidence in my ability to effectively adjudicate, having to move argument by argument through each flow after the debate – this increases the chances that I miss an important connection or get stuck on a particular argument by second-guessing my intuition, increasing the chances that I intervene.

I frequently make decisions very quickly, which signals that you have done an effective job communicating and that I feel I understand all relevant arguments in the debate. I don’t believe in reconstructing debates from evidence, and I try to listen to and evaluate evidence as it's being read, so if I am taking a long time to make a decision, it’s probably because I doubt my ability to command the relevant arguments and feel compelled to second-guess my understanding of arguments or their interactions, a signal that you have not done an effective job communicating, or that you have inadvertently constructed an irresolveable decision calculus through failure to commit to a single path to victory.

In short, I make much better decisions when you reduce the size of the debate at every opportunity, when you take strategic approaches to the debate which are characterized by internally consistent logic and assumptions, and when you take time to explain the reasoning behind the strategic decisions you are making, and the meta-context for your arguments. If your approach to debate strategy depends upon overloading the opponent’s technical capabilities, then you will also likely overload my own, and if your arguments aren't broadly compatible with one another, then I may have difficulty processing them when constructing the big picture. I tend to disproportionately reward gutsy all-in strategic decisions. As a side note, I probably won’t kick a counterplan for you if the other team says just about anything in response, you need to make a decision.

Value proof higher than rejoinder:

I am a sucker for a clearly articulated, nuanced story, supported by thorough discussion of why I should believe it, especially when supported by high-quality evidence, even in the face of a diversity of poorly articulated or weak arguments which are only implicitly answered. Some people will refer to this as truth over tech – but it’s more precisely proof over rejoinder – the distinction being that I don’t as often reward people who say things that I believe, but rather reward fully developed arguments over shallowly developed or incomplete arguments. There have been exceptions – a dropped argument is definitely a true argument – but a claim without data and a warrant is not an argument. Similarly, explicit clash and signposting are merely things which help me prevent myself from intervening, not hard requirements. Arguments which clash still clash whether a debater explains it or not, although I would strongly prefer that you take the time to explain it, as I may not understand that they clash or why they clash in the same way that you do.

My tendency to intervene in this context is magnified when encountering unfamiliar arguments, and also when encountering familiar arguments which are misrepresented, intentionally or unintentionally. As an example, I am far more familiar with positivist studies of international relations than I am with post-positivist theorizing, so debaters who can command the distinctions between various schools of IR thought have an inherent advantage, and I am comparably unlikely to understand the nuances of the distinctions between one ethical philosopher and another. I am interested in learning these distinctions, however, and this only means you should err on the side of explaining too much rather than not enough.

A corollary is that I do believe that various arguments can by their nature provide zero risk of a link (yes/no questions, empirically denied), as well as effectively reduce a unique risk to zero by making the risk equivalent to chance or within the margin of error provided by the warrant. I am a sucker for conjunctive/disjunctive probability analysis, although I think assigning numerical probabilities is almost never warranted.

Incomprehensible value systems:

One special note is that I have a moderate presumption against violence, whether physical or verbal or imaginary – luckily for me, this has yet to seriously present itself in a debate I have judged. But I don’t think I have ever ended up voting for a pro-death advocacy, whether because there are more aliens than humans in the universe, or because a thought experiment about extinction could change the way I feel about life, or because it’s the only path to liberation from oppression. While I’d like to think I can evaluate these arguments objectively, I’m not entirely sure that I really can, and if advocating violence is part of your argument, I am probably a bad judge for you, even though I do believe that if you can’t articulate the good reasons that violence and death are bad, then you haven’t adequately prepared and should probably lose.

Email me:

I like the growing practice of emailing flows and debriefing at the end of a day or after a tournament – feel free to email me: kmmccaffrey at gmail dot com. It sometimes takes me a while to fully process what has happened in a debate round and to understand why I voted the way I did, and particularly in rounds with two very technical, skilled opponents, even when I do have a good grasp of what happened and feel confident in my decision, I do not always do a very good job of communicating my reasoning, not having time to write everything out, and I do a much better job of explaining my thinking after letting my decision sit for a few hours. As such, I am very happy to discuss any decision with anyone in person or by email – I genuinely enjoy being challenged – but I am much more capable and comfortable with written communication than verbal.

Brad Meloche
he/him pronouns

Piper's older brother (pref her, not me)

Email: bradgmu@gmail.com (High School Only: Please include grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com as well.)

(I ALWAYS want to be on the email chain. Please do email chains instead of sharing in the zoom chat/NSDA classroom! PLEASE no google docs if you have the ability to send in Word! If you send docs as PDFs your speaker points will be capped at 28.5)

The short version -

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and many forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Stealing this bit of wisdom from DML's philosophy: If you would enthusiastically describe your strategy as "memes" or "trolling," you should strike me.

Specifics

Non-traditional – I believe debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game to some folks, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction with me. Approaches to answering T/FW that rely on implicit or explicit "killing debate good" arguments are nonstarters.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not a very good judge for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life. Similarly, I don't want to mediate debates about things that happened outside the context of the debate round.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to roleplaying as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest. "Let's flip a coin to decide who wins and just have a discussion" is a nonstarter.

4) Name-calling based on perceived incongruence between someone's identity and their argument choice is unlikely to be a recipe for success.

Kritiks – If a K does not engage with the substance of the aff it is not a reason to vote negative. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. Good k debaters make their argument topic and aff-specific. I would really prefer I don't waste any of my limited time on this planet thinking about baudrillard/bataille/other high theory nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K or to permute an uncompetitive alternative.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, especially when they are introduced as "the alt is compatible with politics" and then become "you dropped the floating PIK to do your aff without your card's allusion to the Godfather" (I thought this was a funny joke until I judged a team that PIKed out of a two word reference to Star Wars. h/t to GBS GS.). In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go.

Theory – theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” are rarely reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged in the speech as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - ...are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual to the tournament, division, round, etc. I am more likely to reward good performance with high points than punish poor performance with below average points. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style. Being rude to your partner or the other team is a good way to persuade me to explore the deepest depths of my point range.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision. Inserting a chart where there is nothing to read is ok.

Glenbrook North- he/him

If you are visibly sick, I reserve the right to forfeit you and leave.

spipkin at gmail. Please set up the chain at least five minutes before start time. I don't check my email very often when I'm not at tournaments.

1. Flow and respond to what the other team says in order.

2. You almost certainly are going too fast for how clear you are.

3. Kritiks on the neg: Probably a bad idea in front of me.

4. K affs: You definitely want to strike me.

5. No inserting anything into the debate besides like charts or graphics (things that can't be read aloud). You don't need to re-read the plan and counterplan text, and you can say perm specific planks, but if you are reading a more complicated perm than that, you should read the text. The litmus test is "insert the perm text."

6. I generally flow cross-x but won't guarantee I'll pay attention to questions after cross-x time is up. I also don't think the other team has to indefinitely answer substantive questions once cx time is over.

7.Plans: If you say you fiat deficit spending in CX, you don't get to say PTIV on T taxes. If you say normal means is probably deficit spending but it could be taxes, you get to say PTIV but you also risk the neg winning you are taxes for a DA or CP. Fiat is limited to the text of what you have in the plan. Implementation specification beyond the text requires evidence and can be contested by the neg.

8. Highlighting should form a coherent sentence. If it's word salad, I'm not going to waste my time trying to parse the meaning.

9. I like counterplans that are germane to the topic. Most of the process counterplans I've seen this year are not that They either can't solve the net benefit or they're not competitive or both.

Colin Quinn
University of North Texas

Highland Park High School (TX)

Please include me in email chains, thanks: aqof05@gmail.com

Framing how I should evaluate things is the most important thing to do. When that doesn't happen I have to intervene more and rely more on my predispositions rather than the arguments made.

Topicality: I like T debates. I think that for the neg to win a T debate there needs to be a well established competing interpretations framework and a good limits or ground argument. Affs need to have a reasonability argument paired with a decent we meet or counter-interpretation.

Counterplans: The neg needs to establish competition and a clear net benefit. I think i'm generally aff biased although they need to focus on what they can win (Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument except conditionality bad, I think most condition/consult-esque counterplans are legitimate but not competitive, etc).

Disadvantages: Impact calculus should be a priority. I do not think that there's always a risk of anything and can be persuaded that there's zero risk.

Kritiks: Impact framing arguments are the most important thing to win. They filter how I evaluate the rest of the debate in terms of deciding what is important to win and what isn't. I think that negatives need to make definite choices in the 2NR in terms of how to frame the K and what to focus on otherwise the aff is in a strategic place. Link/Impact scenarios that are specific to the plan make the debate much harder for the aff.

Affs: I think that framework is useful and can be won but I am sympathetic to affs that are topical without maybe defending a resolutional agent. I think a winning framework argument should be centered around a method that encourages the best discussion about the topic rather than just the government. When negs lose framework debates they fail to win links to the aff c/i or role of the ballot arguments. Topical version arguments are useful but negs need to remember to explain the reason they solve the affs offense; "you can still talk about x" often doesn't cut it. I think that affs that don't defend a plan need to focus on framing the ballot because that's how I will filter all of their arguments. I think that it is difficult for aff's to win framework debates without a we meet or counter-interp that can frame any other offense you have in the debate.

I may not know the very specific part of the topic/argument you are going for so make sure it's explained. I'm pretty visible in terms of reactions to certain arguments and it will be obvious if i'm confused as to what is going on.

Don't cheat.

Aaron Vinson

Debate Coach, New Trier High School, Illinois

Formerly, Head Coach, Princeton High School, Ohio

Glenbrook North Alum, Miami University of Ohio Alum

email = vinsona@newtrier.k12.il.us

==Updated 8/1/23==

Overarching philosophy of debate/judging (scroll down for thoughts on arguments)

I used to judge a good amount. That has not been the case. I taught at Michigan this summer and probably judged about 15 debates there .

Debate is about having fun - you should read arguments that you enjoy regardless of my past debate background or what arguments my students may or may not read.

Debate is about communication, response, and oral argumentation - if it wasn't in the debate or if it was not clear to me in a debate, it's not a thing. All arguments should have some level of engagement with what the opposing team is saying or they are just floating statements. I try to judge all debates through a lens of, how will I explain to the losing team why they did not win and how can I explain how they could have won.

Debate should be a safe space - be respectful to your partner and opponents; if your "thought experiment" includes trivializing genocide, suicide, x identity, you should consider the impact that that argument might have on your opponents and anyone watching the debate. I understand that discomfort in engaging new areas of literature can be beneficial but there is a line between that and making people feel uncomfortable talking about their own identity (literally referring to CX exchanges with this example). If this is egregious I will feel compelled to intervene.

Thoughts on specific arguments

Topicality - it's fine. Probably hard to win in front of me. What I would call a "low probability victory" because I think most debates fall down into infinitely regressive limits debates that are easily resolved - for me - with reasonable interpretations (that means the aff would have to extend a reasonable interpretation!). To be successful in front of me I think that debating topicality more like a DA (link explanation + impact) and then debating interpretations like a CP (what the debates under each interpretation would be like and why they are good).

Counterplans - they're good. Consult CP's are fine. Condition CP's are fine. Process CP's are mostly fine. Delay CP's are mostly fine. Advantage CP's are good. Agent CP's are good. International Actor CP's are fine. States CP's are good. 2NC CP's are questionable. Offsets CP's can be fine. Affs can be most successful in front of me by explaining what is different between the plan and counterplan and then explaining why that difference is impacted by a specific aff advantage / internal link scenario). Final thought is that the aff often forgets to point out that the billion plank advantage cp prolly links to politics.

Counterplan theory - conditionality is probably good because the alternatives create worse debates. I evaluate these debates technically, which often gives a slight advantage to the neg, and look for impact calculus that never materializes (which is also good for the neg). Also, most things just don't make sense as voting issues except conditionality. If you want to be successful with counterplan theory in front of me, see my notes about topicality. And be very clear about what you want me to do and why (reject the argument, stick them with it, they lose, etc).

Disadvantages - they're good. Politics DA's are good. Elections DA's are okay. Rider DA's are so-so. Tradeoff DA's are good. Economy DA's are good. Spending DA's are so-so. I think intrinsicness is interesting, turns case is a big deal, contextualizing size of DA vs size of case is helpful for all. Negs who make their DA's bigger in the block (impact wise) are often successful in front of me.

Kritiks - they're good. I believe my voting record skews neg because of most aff teams' inability to generate offense. Aff perm strategies are okay but should be contextualized with offense, solvency deficits, etc. I default to fiat meaning "imagine" so sure we arent going to start a world revolution but I could certainly imagine that or we could talk about if that's a good thought experience. I would give myself a "B" for K literacy fluency.

T USFG/Framework - it's good. But ... I believe my voting record skews the other way. I've had the pleasure of many coaches angrily asking me about arguments that weren't in the debate. I view debate as a communication activity and I only consider the arguments presented in the debate. Coaches get upset when this emphasis on technical execution seems to "hurt" their framework team. I think the data bears out that I am winnable for either side. I will say that affs that don't read a plan AND are not in the same direction as the resolution OR don't read a plan AND are not related to the resolution have a low win rate in front of me. See notes about debating topicality in front of me.

Ethics - clipping is bad. Miscutting evidence is bad. Misrepresenting evidence is bad. Misdisclosing is bad. Are any of these things auto-losses in-front of me? Probably not. Context matters. If one piece of evidence is miscut or misrepresented, it seems reasonable to just imagine that card wasn't read. If someone does want to stake the debate on one of these things that can be verified, I can be persuaded. If team A asserts that team B has clipped or miscut evidence, and stakes the debate on it, and is wrong, team A would lose. That's what it means to stake the debate on something.

Speaker points - I know I look 16 but I'm much older. So are my points. I'm trying to be better to represent changing norms but that's a thing. If you lose you're probably getting a 28 something if you were reasonable. If you weren't reasonable you're probably getting a high 27. If you win I try to think about if I would expect the team to break at the tournament. If so they're probably getting a 29. Then relative comparisons to other people in the debate kick in. Things that bump your points up: clarity, cx, respecting your opponent, judge instruction, evaluation and assessment based arguments at the end. Things that can bump your points down: being hard to understand/follow, being mean, not kicking arguments correctly, not attempting line by line, only reading cards, not answering / not letting your partner answer in cx, not disclosing to your opponent before I get there, tech incompetence, prep shenaningans.

Updated 1/7/23 for clipping/ethics challenge policy (at bottom)

4 years in Kansas in high school, 4 years at Baylor University, now a grad student and coach at KU and Barstow.

Add me to the email chain please: aewalberg@gmail.com and rockchalkdebate@gmail.com (college only)

Top Level

Do what you do best, I will do my best to be unbiased when evaluating arguments. I tend to take a long time making decisions regardless of the round, so don't read into it.

Judge instruction/telling me how to write my ballot is really important, points will be higher and you'll be more likely to win if you put the pieces together in the 2NR/2AR, are honest about the parts of the debate you're winning and losing, actually make decisions about what to go for, etc.

As I continue to judge, I find myself prioritizing tech over truth more and more, exception being when arguments/debates are violent, unsafe, etc. This means that you might think an argument is totally nonsensical, nonresponsive, etc. and I might agree, but you have to make those arguments in a speech in order for me to consider them when making my decision. If you want me to evaluate the debate through a lens other than tech, you should say that and explain what that means/why that mode of evaluation is better.

I think you should probably have to read re-highlighted ev, not just insert it. Open to persuasion but debates where both teams are inserting re-highlightings without analysis or explanation are negative persuasive to me.

I am generally open to whatever arguments you want to run, the substantive exception is wipeout. More critical arguments about death are fine, but I am not particularly interested in listening to or voting on suffering outweighs any potential for pleasure/we are primed to be afraid afraid of death but should die anyway.

I will read along with you in the doc while you are reading cards but I will not read along with the analytics you send, that's not a substitute for clarity or slowing down to give pen time. I also don't generally re-read a ton of evidence at the end of the debate unless told to, your analysis/explanation in round is much more important to me. If I'm in a position at the end of the debate where I have to put things together myself by sorting through a lot of evidence that received very little explanation, neither of us will probably be particularly happy with the decision.

Pet peeves: talking over each other in CX excessively---I cannot hear or understand anyone when this happens especially online, asking what cards were/weren't read in a speech if it's not prep time or cx, not having the email chain ready or sent when round start time hits, stealing prep (if it's not speech, cx, or prep time you shouldn't be typing/talking), calling me by my first name when we don't know each other. They're small things and old grumpy judge complaints, but they'll give you a sizable speaker point boost.

Online Debate

Slow down, be clearer. Make sure you can hear judges/other people in the round so you don't miss people telling you to pause or repeat an order.

Theory

I will vote on it if you win it, but that probably means you need more than one sentence on it in the 2AC. Slow down on these debates. I lean condo being the only reason to reject the team.

T

Slow down some. Impact it out in the 2NR. Don't forget to explain what winning competing interps or reasonability actually means for you.

DAs and CPs

I don't do a lot of topic research, so it'll be helpful for both of us if you do a little more explanation on topic specific things like link stories/solvency mechanisms/etc.

Good analytics can definitely beat a crappy DA. Winning terminal defense/zero percent risk is possible.

Ks

Explain why winning framework matters for you and how you still win the debate even if you lose framework.

You don't necessarily need a material alt to win if you go for framework.

2ACs should explicitly answer each of the link arguments even if it's just by explaining that it's a link to the status quo, a block that can impact out a dropped link argument well is likely to get my ballot as long as they are somewhat ahead on the framework or impact framing debate.

K Affs

Good. I do think it is possible to vote neg on presumption, so specific analysis about aff solvency or method is important. I find myself voting overwhelmingly aff in debates where the negative concedes the aff in the 2NR, so I strongly recommend extending your best 1 or 2 case arguments regardless of what else you're going for.

Framework

Neg: Best neg args are usually about models but can be persuaded it's about this round. Explain why fairness, clash, etc. is an impact and how your model accesses the aff's impacts. A well-developed TVA is great. These debates are pretty hard to win in front of me if you fully concede case.

Aff: Explain what debate looks like under your counter interp or counter model of debate or explain why you don't need a counter model. I am not a huge fan of the 2AC strategy of saying as many disads to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out, two well-developed disads are more powerful than seven one-line ones.

Debate Ethics

If I cannot follow along in the evidence as you're reading it due to clarity issues or I can see you're skipping words as I'm following along, I will clear you once. If you continue skipping words or clipping and the other team does not call it out, I will let the debate continue and give feedback for educational purposes but will drop the team clipping. If you're clipping and the other team does call it out and issues an ethics challenge or otherwise ends the debate, I will end the debate, drop the team clipping, and give feedback based on the debate thus far.

If there is an ethics challenge issued and the debate is stopped, the team who is correct (about the clipping, miscut evidence, citation problem, etc.) wins the debate. Arguments about evidence ethics can be made absent an ethics challenge and without stopping the debate; for example, when connected to a citational politics argument. However, if one team says to stop the round because something is an ethics challenge, the round will stop and the team who is correct about the issue will win.

Arguments that are racist, transphobic or queerphobic, sexist, or that otherwise make the debate violent or unsafe will result in contacting your adults/coaches and a response proportional to/appropriate given what is said.

Background: Currently coaching at MSU and assistant coach at Niles North High School

General:

Do what you do best.

Tech>Truth. Evidence quality is important.

Slower = better. Don't assume I know every single acronym.

Our community suffers from a clipping epidemic that often flies under the radar. Clipping voting issues will be enforced regardless of whether or not it's an argument made in round. I will militantly follow along speech docs and if I believe you to be clipping, I will drop you without hesitation. Please do not put me in this situation.

There are many competing views on whether or not teams should be allowed to insert re-highlightings of their opponent's evidence without having to read the new highlighting. I encourage teams to insert re-highlightings because I believe it to be necessary in order to deter bad card cutting practices. That being said, there are qualifications to this. You can't just say "Smith concludes AFF".... there must be a warrant for why Smith concludes AFF. You also can only insert re-highlightings of evidence if the part that you are inserting was part of the original card that your opponent read. Inserting a re-highlighting of a part of the article three paragraphs after your opponent stopped cutting the card is NOT acceptable.

Don't steal prep. If you do, it'll be reflected in your points.

Don't bother asking me, always just put me on the email chain. lucwalkington [at] gmail

Speech times are static. No partner speeches after the 1AC/1NC.

Topicality/Theory:

Needs impacting out in any context. Case lists are often underutilized. I typically view topicality as a question of competing interpretations.

Go slower here - topicality/theory can be hard to flow.

Kritiks:

I don't particularly enjoy some critical debates but I will not insert my own predispositions into my judging. I am much more interested in hearing a case-specific critical debate, not your same old Baudrillard/D&G/Bataille nonsense that gets read from year to year.

The best type of kritiks are ones that impact turn central components of the 1AC.

Weakest part of most kritiks is the alt. A clear articulation of how the alt functions and how it resolves the link claims is important in front of me.

Counterplans:

Case-specific CP debate is better than your generic process CPs.

I'm AFF leaning on questions of competition regarding CPs that compete off of the certainty/immediacy of the plan. The more that your CP is well supported by topic literature, the less likely you are to lose to theory/competition args.

Non-Traditional AFFs:

AFFs are more persuasive when they have a tie to the topic. I'm very transparent - my proclivities are that debate is often better when the AFF defends the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan. If going for framework in front of me, it's important that the NEG clearly articulate their impact because teams often conflate internal links for impacts (i.e. predictability, deliberation, limits are internal links and NOT impacts). Framework debates favor the NEG when they explain how their method better resolves the structural impact claims outlined by the AFF.

I'm currently a head coach at New Trier Township High School outside of Chicago, IL. I've been at New Trier since 2012. Prior to that I was the director of debate at Cathedral Preparatory School in Erie, PA. I debated at the University of Pittsburgh ('07) and at Cathedral Prep ('03).

Here are some defaults into the way I evaluate arguments. Obviously these are contingent upon the way that arguments are deployed in round. If you win that one of these notions should not be the standard for the debate, I will evaluate it in terms of your argumentation.

*I evaluate the round based on the flow. Technical line by line debating should be prioritized. That's not to say that I'm always a "tech over truth" judge. I'm willing to listen to reasonable extrapolations, smart debating, and bringing in some context. However, I don't think I can interpret exactly how an argument in one place should be applied to another portion of the flow/debate unless the debater does that for me. To me, that injects my understanding of how I would spin one argument to answer another and I don't want to do that.

*Offense/Defense - I'm not sure if I'm getting older or if the quality of evidence is getting worse, but I find myself less persuaded by the idea that there's "always a risk" of any argument. Just because a debater says something does not mean it is true. It is up to the other team to prove that. However, if an argument is claimed to be supported by evidence and the cards do not say what the tags claim or the evidence is terrible, I'm willing to vote on no risk to that argument. Evidence needs to have warrants that support tags/claims.

*I prefer tags that are complete sentences. The proliferation of one word tags makes with massive card text (often without underlining) reduces the academic integrity of the activity.

*Evidence should be highlighted to include warrants for claims. I am more likely to vote on a few cards that have high quality warrants and explained well than I am to vote on several cards that have been highlighted down to the point that an argument cannot be discerned in the evidence.

* Teams are getting away with some real scholarly shenanigans on evidence. I've seen cards that run 6-7 pages long and they are highlighted down to a few sentences. I think it is up to the debaters to exploit this, but I'm less and less impressed by the overall scholarship in the activity.

*Arguments require claims and warrants. A claim without warrant is unlikely to be persuasive.

* A note on plan texts: start defending things. I find that most plans are extraordinarily vague and meaningless. They are "resolutional phrase by X." There's no plan text basis for the fiat claims AFF teams are making. All of the sudden, that becomes some wild extrapolation on how the plan is implemented, what a Court decision would look like, that it is done through some random memo, etc. all in an effort to avoid offense. I've just grown a little tired of it. I'm not saying change your plan because of me, you need to do what you need to do to win the round, but the overall acceptance of plans that do not say anything of substance is trend a frown upon.

*Performance/Non-traditional Affirmative -

I can still be persuaded to vote for an AFF that doesn't defend the topic, but it's become much harder for me. I find myself being increasingly on the side of defending the resolution.

My old paradigm read as follows: I would prefer that the debate is connected to the resolution. My ultimate preference would be for the Affirmative to defend a topical plan action that attempts to resolve a problem with the status quo. I think that this provides an opportunity for students to create harms that are tied to traditional internal link chains or critical argumentation. Teams should feel free to read critical advantages, but I would prefer that they access them through a topical plan action. For example, reading an Affirmative that finds a specific example of where structural violence (based on racism, sexism, heteronormativity, classism, etc.) is being perpetuated and seeks to remedy that can easily win my ballot. Debaters could then argue that the way that we make decisions about what should or should not be done should prioritize their impacts over the negative's. This can facilitate kritiks of DA impacts, decision calculus arguments, obligations to reject certain forms of violence, etc.

Teams who choose not to defend a topical plan action should be very clear in explaining what their advocacy is. The negative should be able to isolate a stasis point in the 1AC so that clash can occur in the debate. This advocacy should be germane to the resolution.

I am not wedded traditional forms of evidence. I feel that teams can use non-traditional forms of evidence as warrants explaining why a particular action should be taken. An Affirmative that prefers to use personal narratives, music, etc. to explain a harm occurring in the status quo and then uses that evidence to justify a remedy would be more than welcome. I tend to have a problem with Affirmative's that stop short of answering the question, "what should we do?" How a team plans to access that is entirely up to them.

*Kritik debates - I like kritik debates provided they are relevant to the Affirmative. Kritiks that are divorced from the 1AC have a harder time winning my ballot. While I do not want to box in the negative's kritik options, examples of kritiks that I would feel no qualms voting for might include criticisms of international relations, economics, state action, harms representations, or power relations. I am less persuaded by criticisms that operate on the margins of the Affirmative's advocacy. I would prefer links based off of the Affirmative plan. Kritiks that I find myself voting against most often include Deleuze, Baudrillard, Bataille, etc.

*Theory - Generally theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team. The exception is conditionality. I find myself less persuaded by conditionality bad debates if there are 2 or less advocacies in the round. That is not to say I haven't voted for the AFF in those debates. I am willing to vote on theory if it is well explained and impacted, but that does not happen often, so I end up defaulting negative. Avoid blips and theory blocks read at an incomprehensible rate.

*CP's CP's that result in the plan (consult, recommendations, etc.) bore me. I would much rather hear an agent CP, PIC, Advantage CP, etc. than a CP that competes off of "certainty" or "immediacy."

*Case - I'd like to see more of it. This goes for negative teams debating against nontraditional Affirmatives as well. You should engage the case as much as possible.

Other things
*If your strategy is extinction good or death good, genocide good, racism good, patriarchy good, etc. please do all of us as favor and strike me. These arguments strike me as being inappropriate for student environments. Imagine a world where a debater's relative recently passed away and that student is confronted with "death good" for 8 minutes of the 1AC. Imagine a family who fled slaughter in another part of the world and came to the United States, only to listen to genocide good. These are things I wouldn't allow in my classroom and I would not permit them in a debate round either. Since I can't actually prevent people from reading them, my only recourse is to use my ballot.

Contact Info:
jzuckerman@glenbrook225.org
gbsdebatelovesdocs@gmail.com

Questions/comments:
If you contact me for feedback, please CC your coach in the email or I will not respond.

Current School:
Glenbrook South

Prior Schools:
Glenbrook North, 18-23
Blue Valley Southwest, 10-18
Blue Valley North, 04-10

Greenhill Disclaimer:

–I did not work a camp this summer and thus have little familiarity with topic specific terminology, mechanisms, or the basic t arguments. Please take that into account.

-I spent the past 2-3 years working with students in congressional debate and novice policy.

-Don't assume I know as much as you do about how the economy works.

General Disclaimer:

–Slow down, care about clarity, and have speech docs in a usable format that both teams can use. Manage your own prep and start the debate on time.

–I don’t know anything about non-policy arguments. I err neg on the importance of being topical.

–I am not qualified to judge a debate based on things taking place outside of the round.

–On a scale of evidence versus in round performance, I slightly learn towards the performance.