General stuff:

I've tried to keep my paradigm short for the past few years, but I realize that it's more helpful for me to provide more information for you to adapt to my expectations and know how I will see certain elements in a debate as opposed to other judges. At the end of the day, I vote for whatever team I think debated their arguments better, but I know that I have my quirks and I'll try to address them more specifically here.

I used to debate for Riverwood HS as 1/2 of Riverwood AD.

I believe that debate is an educational activity; we're all a part of the same community, so be respectful towards others.

I will vote on anything and am well versed in most argument/debate styles, so do what you want and as a judge, I will try to provide constructive feedback to help you improve it.

You don't need to read cards in debate, but please do unless you're very confident you have enough evidence to back you up without them.

If you say something extremely offensive in round (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.) I will drop your speaks like a hot potato. People who give detailed analysis and comparison of warrants, internal links, and impacts will always get the best speaks.

Please put me on email chains and email me any questions you have - my email is sayadebate@gmail.com

if you're going to be talking about me, my pronouns are they/them

K arguments:

Performance arguments were my specialty in high school and I spent several years running theory Ks as well. While I personally enjoy listening to K debates more than policy debates, I also have a much higher standard for critical arguments than most judges. I know what a well-executed K looks like, and while I will give detailed constructive feedback on any and all K arguments, that also means that I will notice internal or performative contradictions you've built into your arguments.

KvK rounds are the most entertaining to watch and also where I think a lot of the best debates happen. If you pull off one of these well, I'll be happy.

Unlike some K-friendly judges on the circuit, I do think that some T/Framework arguments can be well executed and run. I'm not afraid to vote for T, but you need some innovative arguments and good internal link and impact work.

LD:

I was a policy debater and have been coaching policy for the past couple years, so the format of LD is not as familiar to me. That said, I can follow an LD debate, my feedback on more LD-specific things like time allocation across speeches may not be quite as helpful.

Just because your speeches are short and I used to debate policy does NOT mean I want you to spread as fast as you possibly can. I'm fine with speed, but if you sacrifice intelligibility for cramming in more cards you will lose points and arguments.

Otherwise, all of the policy stuff from above should apply.

Woodward Academy

Emory

Email: mxabramson@gmail.com (yes I want to be on the chain). Feel free to email me with questions.

Top Level Stuff:

I will not hesitate to call you on card clipping/stealing prep. I don’t need the other team to call you out to vote you down on it. Clearly signpost. I’ll look at the doc if I’m totally lost, but if I have to read along to follow your speech, that’s a problem.

There is no reason not to send out docs or show highlighting of cards you are reading. If you do this you will get a 26.0 — no exceptions.

Tech over truth in general. That being said, my view on the truth of the situation will be a reason I find things more persuasive. If I know a bill has already passed, it doesn't take much to convince me in face of your evidence.

POST-JUDGING NOVICE EDIT: Yes I allow tag team, but don't be too reliant on your partner. Yes I want a roadmap, no you don't have to ask me if I want a roadmap. Please time yourself. No, you cannot start over after starting a speech.

Disclosure: Personally, I think you should post full-text of the 1AC, even if poetry. At a bare minimum, there must be a place where I can theoretically see the whole text. In the case of cites, that means I have the links to see the articles or places to access the cards beforehand. Poetry or narratives must be accessible in some way, either through online availability or being able to ask for the whole text through email. I won't do anything about it if the other team doesn't bring it up, but I am persuaded by disclosure theory.

I am not persuaded by "if you had any questions, you should've asked us," in the absence of them being able to see what they should have questions about.

I don't think new policy affs are a voting issue (because they revolve around the topic), but I think there is an argument for new non-topical affirmatives being a voting issue (because they could be about anything).

Preemption/Changing the Aff:

It's never bad. Not persuaded by links to this or PICs out of this.

Now onto the arguments —

T:

On T, I tend to vote for the vision of the topic that makes the most sense to me (which requires that the teams give me a clear picture of what the topic looks like under their interpretation). I like a good well thought out T debate, but you must have an abuse story that makes sense and doesn't rely on absurd examples. Ground, fairness, and education are all fine, but make it specific.

If this is a non-traditional debate, neg needs a TVA and a reason why their impacts outweigh or come first. Aff needs to do framing of their impact scenarios and why their vision of the topic doesn’t make it impossible to be negative.

Concessionary ground is a fine argument, and the aff needs to answer this beyond saying that they "could've read afro-pess and settlerism." That isn't responsive. The best aff response to this for me is that partial, rather than total, disagreement is best, and that total disagreement (such as DAs) are a negative form of debate (causes dogmatism, bad for education, etc.)

I don't like "fun" as an impact because I think that at best it's an internal link to other impacts and not a very persuasive one at that. I think that there are much better versions of this argument premised on the impact of having to research tons of K affs or bad clash.

EDIT: I have been voting on switch side debate a lot, mostly because people functionally drop it. I find this especially persuasive when your reason to vote aff is "we can spread our message/inject it into debate." If you can reasonably inject it on the neg, I am much more inclined to tell you to go do that. This complicates most aff offense, so I think it's imperative that you have an explicit response along the lines of a criticism of switch side debate (like Spanos or something) or a change in the way that reading it on the neg would complicate your message.

I don't like metaphors about T. I don't think that it is genocide or the settler state. Make arguments about why it is bad specifically that relies on actual implications of their arguments for what it would do to debate, not just what the USFG did previously in the context of your aff.

DAs:

I love a good status quo debate, however, think they frequently lack relative impact framing. I tend to vote for the teams that explain what they’re going to win and why that matters. Turns case is a bigger deal in debates than it often should be, but if it’s not answered it oftentimes determines my decision.

CPs (General):

I don’t judge kick by default, but I will if you make that argument. If both the aff and CP link to the DA sufficiently to trigger the net-benefit, I vote aff. I think of solvency as a sliding scale by default, you will have to prove to me why I shouldn't.

Sufficiency framing is my default until you tell me otherwise, but I'll be more generous about what counts as "sufficient" if you explain why it doesn't need to solve very much.

For specific thoughts, I'll separate these into categories:

States CPs:

Non-uniform is obviously fine, uniform is debatably fine, and multilevel (State and Fed simultaneously) is not fine. Adding on planks (other than the plan) such as funding or removal of balanced budget amendments makes me less inclined to vote that the CP is legitimate.

Advantage CPs:

They’re good. I like these a lot, but make sure you’re explaining why your specific mechanism solves (I think this is often lacking when the other team doesn’t make a lot of specific solvency deficits). Aff teams should make sure to push back against sufficiency framing.

QPQ and Unconditional CPs:

Probably fine, but that's debatable. The closer the solvency advocate is to describing the aff, the harder it is to go for theory. I tend to lean towards the aff on perm do the CP on the QPQ CP (less change), but neg on perm do the CP for the unconditional CP.

Process/Agent CPs:

Probably not fine, but I’ll hear both sides out. Make sure it’s not too contrived. The more “out there” and not related to the topic the mechanism is, the less likely I am to decide it’s legit.

International or Delay CPs:

Not a huge fan of international or delay CPs, but you can try to make your case. Debatability outweighs education as a general rule, but I’m not set in stone if one side is making better arguments.

Ks:

I'm fine with most critical literature, just be clear about what the link is to the affirmative. I'm likely to vote on the permutation if you don't explain beyond jargon. Perms are the argument I like the most, negs should make sure to explain why the perm is mutually exclusive (beyond just “it’s a method debate”). Don't try to go for it as a DA, it almost never gets my ballot.

I tend to lean towards that fiat is good even if not "real," but as with most things it's up for debate.

I dislike "gotcha!" tricks, but if explained well enough I can get on board (ie. say more than the words "serial policy failure").

I’ll also separate these into categories:

High Theory (Baudrillard, Nietzsche, etc.):

These are okay, but don’t get to jargon-y. Explain what happens post-aff if your explanatory theory of the world is true. It’s hard to win my ballot on just a case turn, so make sure you have an alt.

Identity (Wilderson, Settlerism, etc.):

This is a fine debate. Obviously, it comes down to a few critical issues related to ontology and explanatory theories of structures. I think the best versions of these debates acknowledge the extraneous examples and explain why their theory is still true. Perms are probably the hardest to win with this kind of K, so I would primarily focus elsewhere (go for that their ontology is wrong, which means the aff is a DA).

Policy-ish (Security/Neolib kinds of Ks):

Make sure you explain why it’s more productive to change structures in the way you describe before doing the aff. I find these Ks to be more persuasive when run more like impact turns (serial policy failure inev and aff bad, alt solves), rather than as high theory (at least v policy affs). Perm is a persuasive argument here, so make sure you’re playing defense to it.

Theory:

Condo is fine if 2 and under and never outweighs T. I won't vote on ASPEC (or any other spec arg). Vagueness is fine, but you have to prove abuse (I think it can be a good reason to reject perms though). Intrinsicness is almost never persuasive (use this as case defense instead).

Tldr; I'll vote on almost anything, but make it specific.

Non-Topical Affirmatives:

Args About Debate:

Spreading is good (although I am open to suggestions for making it more accessible). I leave proposed bargains (such as less speech time due to disability or other impairment) up to the debaters.

If you ask the other team to go slower and don't slow down yourself you will get very bad speaks (unless the other team agrees to this).

Debate is very good and I am very unpersuaded by arguments to the contrary (why are you here if this is true?).

If you want to speak in another language, that is fine, but make sure I know what you are trying to say (yes this has been an issue).

G-lang and other language Ks require a reason why the debate should be forfeited and could not have continued even with a sincere apology.

A Note I Never Thought I Would Have to Add:

I will not stand by while you do something that can hurt yourself in debate (including, but not limited to, setting things on fire and self-harm). You will lose the round and receive a 0 (yes this has happened).

Ways to Boost Your Speaker Points:

1. Tell jokes about Tripp Haskins, Jason Sigalos, or anyone currently on Emory or Woodward debate. However, PLEASE do not do this if you don't usually do comedy/don't know how to incorporate it into debate. If you tell a joke badly, it'll probably hurt you.

2. Be clear and concise, I prefer quality of arg over quantity. If you’re right on an argument, make sure that I know it rather than trying to marginally convince me of a lot of arguments.

3. Make sure language matches up both with your partner and the other team. It becomes very confusing very quickly if both sides have their own names for each argument (excluding flows).

Bill Batterman
Associate Director of Debate — Woodward Academy (2010-present)
Director of Debate — Marquette University High School (2006-2010)
Assistant Debate Coach — Marquette, Appleton East, Nicolet, etc. (2000-2006)
Last Updated 9/17/2021

Twitter version: Debate like an adult. Show me the evidence. Attend to the details. Don't dodge; clash. Great research and informed comparisons win debates.

My promise: I will pay close attention to every debate, carefully and completely scrutinize every argument, and provide honest feedback so that students are continuously challenged to improve as debaters.

Perspective: During the 2010s (my second full decade of judging/coaching debate), I coached and/or judged at 189 tournaments and taught slightly more than 16 months of summer debate institutes. I don't judge as many rounds as I used to — I took an extended sabbatical from judging during the 2020-2021 season — but I still enjoy it and I am looking forward to judging debates again. I am also still coaching as actively as ever. I know a lot about the water resources protection topic.

Pre-round: Please add billbatterman@gmail.com to the email chain. Respect your opponents by sending the same documents to the email chain that you use to deliver your speeches. If you create separate versions of your speech documents (typically by deleting headings and analytical arguments) before sharing them, I will assume that you do not respect your opponents. I like debaters that respect their opponents. I will have my camera on when judging; if it is off, confirm that I'm ready before beginning your speech.

1. I care most about clarity, clash, and argument comparison.

I will be more impressed by students that demonstrate topic knowledge, line-by-line organization skills (supported by careful flowing), and intelligent cross-examinations than by those that rely on superfast speaking, obfuscation, jargon, backfile recycling, and/or tricks. I've been doing this for 20 years, and I'm still not bored by strong fundamental skills and execution of basic, core-of-the-topic arguments.

To impress me, invite clash and show off what you have learned this season. I will want to vote for the team that (a) is more prepared and more knowledgeable about the assigned topic and that (b) better invites clash and provides their opponents with a productive opportunity for an in-depth debate.

Aff cases that lack solvency advocates and claim multiple contrived advantages do not invite a productive debate. Neither do whipsaw/scattershot 1NCs chock-full of incomplete, contradictory, and contrived off-case positions. Debates are best when the aff reads a plan with a high-quality solvency advocate and one or two well-supported advantages and the neg responds with a limited number of complete, consistent, and well-supported positions (including, usually, thorough case answers).

I would unapologetically prefer not to judge debates between students that do not want to invite a productive, clash-heavy debate.

2. I'm a critic of argument, not a blank slate.

My most important "judge preference" is that I value debating: "a direct and sustained confrontation of rival positions through the dialectic of assertion, critique, response and counter-critique" (Gutting 2013). I make decisions based on "the essential quality of debate: upon the strength of arguments" (Balthrop 1989).

Philosophically, I value "debate as argument-judgment" more than "debate as information production" (Cram 2012). That means that I want to hear debates between students that are invested in debating scholarly arguments based on rigorous preparation, expert evidence, deep content knowledge, and strategic thinking. While I will do my best to maintain fidelity to the debate that has taken place when forming my decision, I am more comfortable than most judges with evaluating and scrutinizing students' arguments. I care much more about evidence and argument quality and am far less tolerant of trickery and obfuscation than the median judge. This has two primary implications for students seeking to adapt to my judging:

a. What a card "says" is not as important as what a card proves. When deciding debates, I spend more time on questions like "what argument does this expert make and is the argument right?" than on questions like "what words has this debate team highlighted in this card and have these words been dropped by the other team?." As a critic of argument, I place "greater emphasis upon evaluating quality of argument" and assume "an active role in the debate process on the basis of [my] expertise, or knowledge of practices and standards within the community." Because I emphasize "the giving of reasons as the essential quality of argument, evidence which provides those reasons in support of claims will inevitably receive greater credibility than a number of pieces of evidence, each presenting only the conclusion of someone's reasoning process. It is, in crudest terms, a preference for quality of evidence over quantity" (Balthrop 1989).

b. The burden of proof precedes the burden of rejoinder. As presented, the risk of many advantages and disadvantages is zero because of missing internal links or a lack of grounding for important claims. "I know this argument doesn't make sense, but they dropped it!" will not convince me; reasons will.

When I disagree with other judges about the outcome of a debate, my most common criticism of their decision is that it gives too much credit to bad arguments or arguments that don't make sense. Their most common criticism of my decision is that it is "too interventionist" and that while they agree with my assessment of the arguments/evidence, they think that something else that happened in the debate (often a "technical concession") should be more determinative. I respect many judges that disagree with me in these situations; I'm glad there are both "tech-leaning" and "truth-leaning" judges in our activity. In the vast majority of debates, we come to the same conclusion. But at the margins, this is the major point of disagreement between us — it's much more important than any particular argument or theory preference.

3. I am most persuaded by arguments about the assigned topic.

One of the primary reasons I continue to love coaching debate is that "being a coach is to be enrolled in a continuing graduate course in public policy" (Fleissner 1995). Learning about a new topic area each year enriches my life in profound ways. After 20 years in "The Academy of Debate" (Fleissner 1995), I have developed a deep and enduring belief in the importance of public policy. It matters. This has two practical implications for how I tend to judge debates:

a. Kritiks that demonstrate concern for good policymaking can be very persuasive, but kritiks that ignore the topic or disavow policy analysis entirely will be tough to win. My self-perception is that I am much more receptive to well-developed kritiks than many "policy" judges, but I am as unpersuaded (if not more so) by kritiks that rely on tricks, obfuscation, and conditionality as I am by those styles of policy arguments.

b. I almost always find kritiks of topicality unpersuasive. An unlimited topic would not facilitate the in-depth clash over core-of-the-topic arguments that I most value about debate. The combination of "topical version of the aff" and "argue this kritik on the neg" is difficult to defeat when coupled with a fairness or topic education impact. Topical kritik affirmatives are much more likely to persuade me than kritiks of topicality.

Works Cited
Balthrop 1989 = V. William Balthrop, "The Debate Judge as 'Critic of Argument'," Advanced Debate: Readings in Theory Practice & Teaching (Third Edition).
Cram 2012 = http://cedadebate.org/CAD/index.php/CAD/article/view/295/259
Gutting 2013 = http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/a-great-debate/
Fleissner 1995 = https://the3nr.com/2010/05/20/chain-reaction-the-1995-barkley-forum-coaches-luncheon-keynote-speech/

Maggie Berthiaume Woodward Academy

Current Coach — Woodward Academy (2011-present)
Former Coach — Lexington High School (2006-2008), Chattahoochee High School (2008-2011)
College Debater — Dartmouth College (2001-2005)
High School Debater — Blake (1997-2001)
maggiekb@gmail.com for email chains, please.

Meta Comments

1. Please be nice. If you don't want to be kind to others (the other team, your partner, me, the novice flowing the debate in the back of the room), please don’t prefer me.

2. I'm a high school teacher and believe that debates should be something I could enthusiastically show to my students, their families, or my principal. What does that mean? If your high school teachers would find your presentation inappropriate, I am likely to as well.

3. Please be clear. I will call "clear" if I can't understand you, but debate is primarily a communication activity. Do your best to connect on meaningful arguments.

4. Conduct your own CX as much as possible. CX is an important time for judge impression formation, and if one partner does all asking and answering for the team, it is very difficult to evaluate both debaters. Certainly the partner not involved in CX can get involved in an emergency, but that should be brief and rare if both debaters want good points.

5. If you like to be trolly with your speech docs (read on paper to prevent sharing, remove analyticals, etc.), please don't. See "speech documents" below for a longer justification and explanation.

6. I am not willing or able to adjudicate issues that happened outside of the bounds of the debate itself — ex. previous debates, social media issues, etc.

7. In debates involving minors, I am a mandated reporter — as are all judges of debates involving minors!

8. I’ve coached and judged for a long time now, and the reason I keep doing it is that I think debate is valuable. Students who demonstrate that they appreciate the opportunity to debate and are passionate and excited about the issues they are discussing are a joy to watch — they give judges a reason to listen even when we’re sick or tired or judging the 5th debate of the day on the 4th weekend that month. Be that student!

9. "Maggie" (or "Ms. B." if you prefer), not "judge."

What does a good debate look like?

Everyone wants to judge “good debates.” To me, that means two excellently-prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues related to the policy presented by the affirmative. The best debates allow four students to demonstrate that they have researched a topic and know a lot about it — they are debates over issues that experts in the field would understand and appreciate. The worst debates involve obfuscation and tangents. Good debates usually come down to a small number of issues that are well-explained by both sides. The best final rebuttals have clearly explained ballot and a response to the best reason to vote for the opposing team.

I have not decided to implement the Shunta Jordan "no more than 5 off" rule, but I understand why she has it, and I agree with the sentiment. I'm not establishing a specific number, but I would like to encourage negative teams to read fully developed positions in the 1NC (with internal links and solvency advocates as needed). (Here's what she says: "There is no world where the Negative needs to read more than 5 off case arguments. SO if you say 6+, I'm only flowing 5 and you get to choose which you want me to flow.") If you're thinking "nbd, we'll just read the other four DAs on the case," I think you're missing the point. :) It's not about the specific number, it's about the depth of argument.

Do you read evidence?

Yes, in nearly every debate. I will certainly read evidence that is contested by both sides to resolve who is correct in their characterizations. The more you explain your evidence, the more likely I am to read it. For me, the team that tells the better story that seems to incorporate both sets of evidence will almost always win. This means that instead of reading yet another card, you should take the time to explain why the context of the evidence means that your position is better than that of the other team. This is particularly true in close uniqueness and case debates.

Please read rehighlightings out loud rather than inserting them.

Do I have to be topical?

Yes. Affirmatives are certainly welcome to defend the resolution in interesting and creative ways, but that defense should be tied to a topical plan to ensure that both sides have the opportunity to prepare for a topic that is announced in advance. Affirmatives certainly do not need to “role play” or “pretend to be the USFG” to suggest that the USFG should change a policy, however.

I enjoy topicality debates more than the average judge as long as they are detailed and well-researched. Examples of this include “intelligence gathering” on Surveillance, “health care” on Social Services, and “economic engagement” on Latin America. Debaters who do a good job of describing what debates would look like under their interpretation (aff or neg) are likely to win. I've judged several "substantial" debates in recent years that I've greatly enjoyed.

Can I read [X ridiculous counterplan]?

If you have a solvency advocate, by all means. If not, consider a little longer. See: “what does as good debate look like?” above. Affs should not be afraid to go for theory against contrived counterplans that lack a solvency advocate. On the flip side, if the aff is reading non-intrinsic advantages, the "logical" counterplan or one that uses aff solvency evidence for the CP is much appreciated.

What about my generic kritik?

Topic or plan specific critiques are absolutely an important component of “excellently prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues.” Kritiks that can be read in every debate, regardless of the topic or affirmative plan, are usually not.

Given that the aff usually has specific solvency evidence, I think the neg needs to win that the aff makes things worse (not just “doesn’t solve” or “is a mask for X”). Neg – Please spend the time to make specific links to the aff — the best links are often not more evidence but examples from the 1AC or aff evidence.

What about offense/defense?

I do believe there is absolute defense and vote for it often.

Do you take prep for emailing/flashing?

Once the doc is saved, your prep time ends.

I have some questions about speech documents...

One speech document per speech (before the speech). Any additional cards added to the end of the speech should be sent out as soon as feasible.

Teams that remove analytical arguments like permutation texts, counter-interpretations, etc. from their speech documents before sending to the other team should be aware that they are also removing them from the version I will read at the end of the debate — this means that I will be unable to verify the wording of their arguments and will have to rely on the short-hand version on my flow. This rarely if ever benefits the team making those arguments.

Speech documents should be provided to the other team as the speech begins. The only exception to this is a team who debates entirely off paper. Teams should not use paper to circumvent norms of argument-sharing.

I will not consider any evidence that did not include a tag in the document provided to the other team.

LD Addendum

I don't judge LD as much as I used to (I coached it, once upon a time), but I think most of the above applies. If you are going to make reference to norms (theory, side bias, etc.), please explain them. Otherwise, just debate!

PF Addendum

This is very similar to the LD addendum with the caveat that I strongly prefer evidence be presented as cards rather than paraphrasing. I find it incredibly difficult to evaluate the quality of evidence when I have to locate the original source for every issue, and as a result, I am likely to discount that evidence compared to evidence where I can clearly view the surrounding sentence/paragraph/context.

I HAVE NO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE.

2A for 4 years at Alpharetta High School

Current student at UGA

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

tl;dr

We are all here to have fun so make sure to be respectful and enjoy yourself. Death is bad. Racism is bad. Sexism is bad. Anything that seems slightly unethical is Bad. Tech over Truth

Long Version

Case - I love a good case debate. Aff make sure to explain your impacts and if it's a complicated screwed up internal link chain, you are going to have to spend a lot of time on that for me to vote on that. Make sure to have good impact comparison. Neg please don't undercover case just so that you can read like 8 off instead of 6, I end up leaning aff in these types of debates because they have to take the burden to explain their aff and answer all of your off case when you don't even take the time to address their internal links

DA - I have no issues with these. Again make sure to impact things out, i notice that a lot of novices don't do this and it's really important for you to win the link level and the impact level of the debate. This topic doesn't have a lot of good DA's but aff specific Disads are cool. Aff, straight turn it that's fun.

T - I love t debates. Treat this like a DA ans don't just ramble on with a bunch of t buzzwords, make sure to actually explain your impacts. Make sure to be specific on the limits question of the debate because a lot of teams don't end up explaining that well. I default aff on reasonability if not answered.

CP - Aff when they read cheating CP's go for theory, if you do it right I'll vote on it, I really hate voting for cheaty cp's. On another note, treat a CP like they would treat your aff. read DA's read impact turns and extend solvency. conditionally is usually bad but i can be convinced otherwise. Neg, you need to make sure you do comparison on the sufficiency level and also properly answer solvency deficits and DO NOT GROUP PERMS. Do some actual explanation on your answers to each perm and make sure to differentiate them. You can't group PDB with an intrinsic perm.

K - I am not well versed in K literature. I will not vote on anything I don't understand so make sure you explain well. Links need to be contextualized to the aff and not just to their impacts. I'm fine with generics like Cap, Security, and Fem, everything else will need more explanation. I won't vote on anything unethical.

Impact Turns - I actually love impact turns I have no issues with these but no unethical impact turns and make sure you do this right. A lot of novices have confusion on this type of argument but make sure you have learned how to read impact turns before you do it.

Overall - just be nice and make sure you are respectful to everyone, including me and everything will go smoothly.

Voting Criteria

I vote onclash. Embedded clash is fine. A robust back-and-forth is what I prioritize; I look for this in rebuttals and cross-ex. Extra points for a neat division of labor in the block. I love to watch students who have balanced extending issues to build their case, and making arguments as to why those args interact with their opponents'. Big fan of stealing ground through accessing your opponent's impact. I see a lot of time-wasting, and it's just not as fun to watch/judge.

While I do not necessarily consider voters to be the end-all-be-all, I find that they are very helpful for me as someone who only debated Policy and then judged LD for a year. I pick the best, most robust argument and the person who won it, as opposed to situations in which someone is waxing poetic about general arguments and taking up a lot of time on things that they might win, but in my eyes, do not outweigh the other impact. I might go as far to say that the line-by-line should essentially be your impact calculus, in that it's not your job to argue about warrants so much as it is to make clear claims about why your case wins on a more rhetorical and argument-focused manner. In short: make it easy for me to vote for you by giving a very streamlined, robust argument.

As far as etiquette and courtesy: If I hear you using slurs of any kind, I'm voting you down and telling your coaches. I understand that you're high schoolers, but I expect a certain level of maturity, courtesy, and kindness from debate kids. You're arguing all day, make sure your rhetoric reflects that of a good competitor.

Personal Preferences

Don't sneak prep. It's bad sportsmanship. You have Verbatim, and I will take points off if flashing takes you more than, like, 2 minutes at the longest. I understand insofar as far as internet issues, but I will start timing prep if you take forever. My goal is to hear stop prep, and then for that to be followed with a student who is ready to send and start their speech.

Argument Preferences

I have this weird chip on my shoulder about Foucault. He is awful, both at theory and as a human being (BLEUGH), although most relevant race theorists will build off of him for post-structuralist work. I have a high tolerance for most things left -- I am a judge where you get points for being flowery in your critique. Be well-versed in any K you want to run, and make it incredibly clear. I am not too familiar with the packets people run nowadays, but I can tolerate a lot of things that are vague and futurist because after the last couple of years, even the most milquetoast policy wins are impossible. Weird times = weird debate. That being said, high schoolers who run complex philosophy tend to pontificate a lot. I say this as gently as possible: y'all are pretentious and need to DEBATE well if you want me to vote for you.

Paideia 2019

Michigan 2023

Currently Pursuing a Ph.D. in Philosophy at Emory University

Email: harrington.joshua33@gmail.com

TLDR:

Policy debaters lie and K debaters cheat. If you believe both of these, you should pref me in the 1-25 percentile. If you believe only one of these, you should consider how much you disagree with the other then put me somewhere in the 25-50 percentile. If you disagree with both of these, consider preffing someone else. Any and all thoughts in this paradigm are malleable and determined by the debating done in a given round. My ideal tournament is one in which any judge from any program can fairly adjudicate any argument without any prior ideological commitments.

I fully believe that the role of the judge is to consider the arguments presented and do their best to render a decision that best reflects the round presented to them. Throughout my debate career I have seen judges allow personal bias and apathy render meaningless the hours of time and energy that debaters give to this activity that we all have limited time in. Therefore, I will do my best to flow all arguments made, listen to CX’s, render a decision, and give comments that I think will aid you in future debates. With that being said, this paradigm reflects my current thoughts on policy debate and how I render my decisions.

If at any point you read this paradigm and think I am referencing a specific ideological position in an attempt to cement a singular vision of debate, I am not. I find equal flaws and absurd arguments across the ideological spectrum and equally dislike most of the arguments, practices, and trends rewarded in this activity. I have felt this sentiment for a few years now. Despite this reality, the one truth I consistently return to is that I love debate. I love this activity and will do my best as a judge to make this activity a welcoming place to all argumentative styles and positions. If you have any questions or concerns, I encourage you to reach out via email or even come up to me at a tournament and introduce yourself. Far too many of us are strangers and fail to reach out, so know I am more than open to dialogue.

Background:

I am currently pursuing my Ph.D. in philosophy at Emory University and plan to continue coaching alongside. I debated for 8 total years and during that time, I was lucky enough to debate across a range of argumentative styles and strategies. I found value in all argumentative forms but have also developed my own argumentative preferences in doing so. I strongly prefer strategies that open oneself to deliberation and defend controversial positions. I believe the issue of clash and what kinds of education we produce are important ones to explore, as I continue to judge. I believe the difference between a good argument and a bad argument is often about packaging and impact calculus and often vote against teams that poorly articulate concepts and the implications of the arguments presented. Similarly, I often vote against arguments not because they are wrong, but because they have not been packaged in a manner that is responsive and/or implicated enough for me to vote on. Once again, any and all arguments are open for me, but if I cannot articulate the impact of an argument and its implications on the other arguments presented, I am very unlikely to vote on it.

Online Debate:

I encourage you to have face cams on, at least during speeches and CX but understand if you are not comfortable with that or just choose not to. I'm a pretty good flow overall, but if there is a tech issue or the speech becomes unclear, I'll do my best to let that be known.

Case/impact:

I will likely read your 1AC and be annoyed if you claim to do things and solve impacts not supported by your current 1AC construction. Many people claim the 2AR lies, but I believe the lies start as early as 1AC CX. This is not to say that new articulations, warrants, and impacts cannot be accessed throughout the process of debating, but I am annoyed by AFF inconsistency. I do not care what 1AC is read or what 2AR is given, just do your best to maintain consistency.

In terms of engagement with case, your negative strategy should implicate the case page in some way. When I say “implicate”, I mean that in the loosest of definitions possible. This can stem from going for terminal defense all the way to fully mooting the 1AC via framework. Remember, no matter what, at the end of the round, a negative ballot will likely have to answer the question, “what should I do with the 1AC?”

DA’s:

Read any and all of them as you please so long as it is substantiated by evidence. These debates often come down to impact calc and card quality. In case vs DA debates, I find myself often voting aff on try or die. Your impact calculus should anticipate that you are defending the status quo and do your best to overcome that.

CP’s:

I am fine with any counterplan so long as it has a solvency advocate, or as long as I can intuitively understand how the counterplan would function. I am working to become a better judge at in-depth counterplan competition debates, but for now err towards over explaining rather than under explaining. Judge kick seems to be good, however if I am judge kicking a counterplan, I am likely to vote on case outweighs unless sufficient case mitigation.

Theory:

I very much do not want to judge condo debates. I default to three being good, four being up for debate, and five or more being bad. The common rebuttal to this format is “number of condo doesn’t matter/it is about the practice/no clear difference between four and five”. I recognize these arguments even though I believe they are said in bad faith. This is an instance where technical execution can overcome ideology for me. However, in most theory debates (including condo), the aff needs to prove in-round abuse in order to persuade me. With theory arguments besides condo, I am likely to just reject the argument and not the team.

I care very little about negative contradictions at a theoretical level. Performative contradictions are not reasons you get to sever your reps, but they can be reasons that I ought to be skeptical of certain arguments.

Kritiks:

Any and all kritiks are viable options when I am in the back. I believe links should either be in the context of doing the plan, the assumptions around particular impacts, or the failures of a particular understanding the 1AC relies on. I find most one card kritiks incredibly unconvincing. I like kritiks that are not just kritiks of fiat and will give you a speaker points boost for developing your kritik beyond “fiat is bad”. I read and enjoy kritiks that defend a theory of power and apply that theory to the link debate; those were the kritiks that I read as a debater.

Answering Kritiks:

For answering the kritik, I am very good for many of the classical policy argumentative pushes that people use against common kritiks. That includes but is not limited to arguments such as: humanism good, psychoanalysis wrong, state inevitable/good/will crackdown, scenario analysis good etc. When a floating PIK/utopian alt is read, I am likely to be convinced by the permutation and a fairness push on framework. Otherwise, I would highly recommend going for a clash impact over fairness against most kritiks.

Defending your 1AC and implicating the kritik is the most effective and likely path to the ballot. I believe the FW (fairness) + extinction outweighs is a more than viable 2AR to give. That said, 75% of the time debaters do not articulate these arguments in a manner that is responsive to the negative’s kritik. I believe it is bad to only have extinction outweighs and fairness-centric framework in your arsenal because there are instances where clash is more responsive and debating the warrants of the kritik will increase your chances of the ballot. In addition, you should be willing to push NEG team on what they are saying. Pressing on the truth of a theory, the relevance of a link, and the viability of the alternative are all more than viable strategies and far more enjoyable to judge than the “two ships passing in the night” trend of Policy vs K debates we currently have.

K AFF’s:

K AFF’s are likely to be most successful in front of me when they take a stance on the resolution and a defend a theory of power that can be applied to the NEG’s offense. What a theory of power constitutes can be very broad, but I am likely to make you defend the implications and solvency of your 1AC. What it means to solve something likely depends upon your 1AC choice, but I must know what you are trying to do to know whether it is good, worthwhile, or even possible.

My three preferred 2NRs vs K AFFs were the Cap K, Topicality, and Afropessimism. I write this to demonstrate, I believe every AFF is answerable, and sometimes the best answer is Topicality.

Similar to the case section, I am most likely to vote NEG when NEG teams make arguments that meaningfully implicate the case page. I think presumption is a necessary tool that is often poorly deployed. I believe it can supplement most strategies and can be won in 1AC CX by a creative 2N who asks the right questions.

I enjoy topicality debates, both going for it and answering it. Fairness and clash are both impacts that should be explained more than you currently plan on. Most of these debates come down to who best articulates the role of the ballot and its ability to solve both sides’ offense. If you are AFF, I am likely to want an answer to the question, “what is the role for the negative”. Through smart defensive arguments, a counter interp, and/or a large defense of an impact turn, I can be easily convinced to never vote on topicality. On the opposite side, you should use fairness/clash to implicate case impacts and beat logical inconsistencies in most 2AC’s to framework. Different K AFF’s have different strategic strengths and weaknesses; different K AFF’s also produce different discussions and forms of clash (maybe). Recognizing the most strategic deployment of the 1AC in addition to your most strategic articulation of fairness, clash, tva, ssd, etc. will increase your chances of getting my ballot.

For K v K debates, I am increasingly conflicted on my beliefs of whether the AFF gets a perm and whether that perm requires a net benefit. I believe it is possible for 2N’s to craft competitive alternatives that disagree with core parts of the affirmative. At the same time, I recognize the potential fluidity of many K AFF’s and am thus sympathetic to different visions of competition. This analysis must be done and resolved otherwise I will abide by traditional rules of competition and consider whether the alt is mutually exclusive with the AFF. I very much dislike floating PIKs, but depending on the PIK and relevant offense, I can be convinced that PIKs in the 1NC can be good.

Procedurals/Ethics violations/RVI’s:

The only procedural I am likely to vote on is topicality. The vast majority of non-topicality procedurals that I have been exposed to are incredibly arbitrary and lose to a 2AR on “we meet”. If you find an 1AC you feel as though you cannot debate with a substantive strategy, I encourage you to find a topicality violation based in the resolution or find a way to out cheat your opponent.

Similarly, when issues of evidence become potential grounds for the rejection of the team, I am highly likely to strike the card and/or the argument rather than the team. Similar to the condo section, I do not particularly want to judge these debates and very rarely am certain enough that the practice should end the debate and/or be grounds for voting a team down.

Lastly, I am a very poor judge for strategies dependent upon out of round interactions. I believe the competitive aspects of debate makes the conversations incredibly unproductive and conversations outside of round are necessary (when possible) to resolve such disputes.

Misc:

My ideal debater combines the persuasion and ethos of Giorgio Rabbini and Natalie Robinson, the technical skill of Rafael Pierry and Elan Wilson the work ethic of DML, Kris Wallen, Don Pierce, Hana Bisevac, and Pranay Ippagunta, the judging abilities of Corey Fisher, Vida Chiri, Devane Murphy, Shree Awsare, and Taylor Brough and the attitudes of Nate Glancy, Jimin Park, Ariel Gabay, and Ben McGraw. If you are able to display any of these qualities to the level that these debaters have, you have set yourself up to thrive in this activity.

Tripp Haskins

Woodward Academy '17

University of Georgia '21

Duke University '24

tripphaskins@gmail.com

General Info

You do you. Do whatever you are good at.

If blocks don't even start with They Say: "X", what are we even doing here?

Why read a framing contention, when you could read a real advantage instead?

"Inserting highlighting into the debate" is wrong. You have to read the part of their card that makes an argument.

Topicality

Most of the time, there's no good terminal impact calculus that happens in these debates. Debaters should envision T debates like a CP and DA, with the interpretation/counter-interpretation acting as a counterplan to solve most of the other teams offense and having a DA that outweighs the offense it doesn't solve. Most T debates only have internal links, and no terminal impacts that are never weighed against other impacts in the round. I personally don't understand the recent trend of policy judges not even entertaining the idea of a T debate, establishing a coherent topic is important.

Framework

Teams should redefine the words in the resolution to something that they meet. You need to be able to win that your model of debate is preferable to the negative's model of debate. Affirmative teams would be best impact turning something that the negative's model of debate results in. Most of the impact turns to framework that get played out feel like negative ground at the end of the day, so explaining why the model of debate, not just reading a topical plan, is bad. Impact calculus and relative internal link analysis separates winning from losing. Negative teams would be best served forwarding a robust defense of procedural impacts such as fairness combined with a mechanism to resolve a large portion of the affirmative's offense. Things like advocacy skills and topic education need examples of what they influence or create to become impacts. Often times in these debates I decide that neither side wins a big risk of unique offense, so internal link and impact comparison is important for winning.

Kritiks

I did a large amount of critique research, so I am very familiar with most of the literature that will potentially be read in debates. The link debate and framework are the most important aspects for the negative to emphasize. Explain the links in the context of the affirmative, not just overarching structures. The weakest part of the kritik is always the alternative and that's where the aff should gain offense against. You need to be able to explain a specific internal link from the policy or discourse of the 1AC to something, rather than it being the logic of a system. Examples are good for giving context to certain arguments and proving a theory, but are not reasons for why the affirmative is bad. Alt causes are not offense against the 1AC either unless only the alternative and not the permutation solves it.

I find myself voting neg in rounds when the 2NR is the K when the negative wins that something is a prior question to pragmatism or the framework debate. I find myself voting affirmative when the aff wins that they get to implement the aff and weigh it against the alternative. The framework debate is basically the entire debate, it influences how the links, alt, and perm all function. As a result, the rebuttals need to explain how their interpretation solves the other offense, or why their offense outweighs. I am equally likely to disregard the plan in favor of debate's potential for subject formation as I am to exclude kritiks from debate because they are not a logical opportunity cost of the plan. That being said, framework claims are nothing more than lazy impact calculus claims that affirmative teams just accept because they are bad at debate. In the abstract it seems ridiculous that if the negative wins the rhetorical impacts should be privileged, it means that pragmatism should not be considered at all, however most affirmative teams are terrible at debating framework, and end up losing.

Counterplans

They have to be competitive both textually and functionally. Presumption goes to the team that advocates less change. Your solvency advocate for the counterplan needs to be as specific as the aff's solvency advocate. Sufficiency framing makes intuitive sense to me.

I debated national circuit LD at Starr's Mill High School '12 (GA) and did Policy at Vanderbilt University '16 (TN).

I think I am a standard national circuit LD judge. If you only have experience with local debate, this means that I'm fine with (and proactively prefer) spreading and non-traditional arguments. However, if doing so, I recommend using a email chain, for which my email is brenthu1717@gmail.com.

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

LD Paradigm

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

My general preference for debate argument types is Framework >= Plan-Focused/Util > Theory >> Kritiks.

Framework

I like philosophy debate a lot, especially analytical ethical philosophy. If you frequently read cards from Singer, Korsgaard, Mackie, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in general, I would probably really enjoy judging you.

- I enjoy cases that are balanced between framework and contention-level offense, e.g., the AC spending half its time justifying an ethical system (utilitarianism, Kant, Hobbes, virtue ethics, divine command, moral skepticism, etc.) and then the rest on offense under that framework.

- I'm extremely opposed to theoretically-justified frameworks/affirmative framework choice. I think these things kill philosophy education, which is the most useful part of debate. If you can't prove that util is objectively true, what's even the point of pretending it's true if we have no reason to believe it?

- I'm not a fan of vague standards like "structural violence" where practically anything commonly considered bad can be considered an impact. Winter and Leighton are the bane of my existence.

- Your impacts need to actually link to an ethical philosophy in the round. Explain to me why I should care about people dying, why human rights exist, and why racism is bad in the context of the round.

Plan-focused/Util

I can enjoy a Plan-focused or whole-resolution util debate just as much, however, and I've done Policy in the past.

- Weighing is wonderful, and probably the point where you will best be able to pick up high speaks.

- Things like author-specific indicts or methodological critiques of particular studies are fantastic. Tell me things like, "This study only has a sample size of n=24" or "The study's authors indicated the following problems with their own study."

- Impact turns are great. I can’t promise it’s always the best idea, but I’ll probably love it if the 1AR is four minutes of “global warming good” or "economic collapse prevents nuclear war."

- Counterplans are a very important neg tool, but I think some of the more abusive ones, like 50 States CP or Consult CP are difficult to defend in terms of making debate a good activity.

- In LD, I'd prefer you just read one unconditional CP.

Theory

- If the AC is super spiky, please number the spikes. This will make it a lot easier for me to flow. If you spout out single-sentence arguments for a full minute, I’ll be more inclined to vote on them if I can clearly tell where one ends and another begins.

- I like clearly articulated theory shells in normal Interpretation-Violations-Standards-Voters format. It makes it much easier to flow compared to paragraph theory.

- I would prefer if you shared pre-written shells in the email chain, even if they're only analytical.

- I default to competing interpretations but am receptive to reasonability if mentioned.

- I like RVIs and will often vote on them, especially for the aff. If you're the aff and you're not sure if you should go for 4 minutes of the RVI in the 1AR, my advice is probably yes.

Kritiks

- Post-fiat Kritiks are fine. I'm not very receptive to pre-fiat Kritiks. If you aren't sure about the distinction, think about whether your alternative negates the resolution. For example, if the resolution is "The US gov should do [x]", and your alternative is "The US gov should not do [x]" or "The US gov should instead do [y]", that's fine. If your alternative is only "People around the world should..." or "The judge should..." or "The debate community should...," I'm probably not going to enjoy it. If the alt doesn't even have an actor and is just to "reject the aff," that's even worse.

- Although I’m generally well-versed with the basic ones like Cap/Security/Fem K, my understanding of the more esoteric ones falls off. Although I will try to evaluate the round as fairly as possible, I haven’t spent much time reading 1970s Continentals, and you can’t assume that I’ll have intimate knowledge of their arguments ahead of time.

- I lean towards the Role of the Ballot being just whoever proves the resolution true or false (offense-defense is also acceptable).

- Fairness definitely matters. Education might matter to some degree. I am very loathe to consider anything else as an independent voter. If your argument is nothing more than "Util justifies slavery, so auto-drop them," I am not likely to be agreeable.

- If your NRs often include the claim, "It's not a link of omission; it's a link of commission," I am probably not the judge for you.

Miscellaneous

- I'm fine with flex prep (asking questions during prep time) if you want it. I think it's a good norm for debate.

- I do not care if you sit or stand.

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

Policy Paradigm

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

Read the Plan-focused/Util and Kritiks sections of the LD paradigm, but you can ignore most of the rest. Due to my LD background, I am much more willing to vote on philosophical positions. If you want to go for "Don't do the plan because objective morality doesn't exist" or "Pass the plan because that's most in line with Aristotle's notion of virtue," I'm totally fine with that.

Theory

- I still prefer clearly articulated Interpretation-Violation-Standards-Voters theory shells, even in Policy.

- I'm more willing to accept conditional CPs in Policy, although it gets really sketchy with conditional K's, especially if there's performative contradictions.

Miscellaneous

- I'm probably more willing than most Policy judges to consider analytics. I don't think you need a card for every argument you make, and oftentimes just having a warranted argument is sufficient.

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

Public Forum Paradigm

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

I understand that Public Forum has different end goals than LD or Policy. I will try to evaluate it through the following in contrast to LD or Policy:

- I will not require explicit ethical frameworks. If something sounds bad, like "It kills people" or "It hurts the economy" or "It is unfair," I'll try to evaluate that in some gestalt manner. You can probably expect a little bit of judge intervention might be necessary in the case of mutually exclusive impact frameworks and lack of weighing.

- I will generally keep in mind who is "speaking better." Although this will not change my vote in most cases, if the round is really close I might use that as the determiner.

- If I ask for a card and you can't find it, especially if it has a statistic, I will drop 1 speaker point for poor evidence norms.

rashard.leonard@gmail.com for email chains

Background

4 years of policy debate in college, first two years mainly focused on policy, last two years leaning more K-heavy

Debate is an educational game. As the judge, I am responsible for evaluating the arguments of this game as you present them to me. This activity is centered around you, the debaters. Do you, run the arguments that you usually run and I will judge them accordingly.

Aff: Open to judging all types of affs, policy and K. Aff should be topical (affirming a change within the topic, not necessarily USFG). Be sure that you make clear to me why the aff is important and why your plan will give the best results. If you kick an advantage explain to me why.

DA: I like them. I think they’re the easiest way to win debates, especially if it turns the case. Make sure you have a clear link to the aff and I clear impact that will be triggered by the plan.

CP: I love a good CP-DA combo and it can be devastating if properly used. PICs are welcome as well but they need to have a clear difference between the aff.

Condo: I think condo is good but too much can be abusive. 3 conditional worlds is my absolute limit anything more better have some kickass Condo good blocks.

Theory: Please don’t make me vote on theory. Theory args are fine within the debate space but I’d rather not have my decision based on a generic theory arg that you read in the block. However, if it does come down to that please frame the how I should evaluate the debate and why the other their methods are harmful.

T: Always a voting issue. Block needs do good impact work on why the plan is bad for debate. T has real world impacts so use that to your advantage. Neg also needs to give a Topical Version of the Aff.

FW: I generally lean aff on most framework debates. You will not win if your main arg is “the aff makes debate too hard”. As long as the aff affirms a change in the direction of the topic then I think it’s good debate. Good FW teams should show me how their approach to the topic makes debate impossible, that will get me on your side and willing to vote for you.

K: Run it, but don’t half ass it. In the block you should be able to point to evidence they read in the 1AC/2AC to prove a clear link and show that they use the same methodology that will trigger all of your impacts. Don’t rely on all the big words that your cards use. Instead paint a clear picture of how your K operates and what the alt does to make a better world. Real world examples of the alt will help you.

Misc: Please be respectful to all debaters within the space. We sacrifice our weekends, while barely getting any sleep, to come and compete. Don’t be rude or mean.

Have fun, jokes are welcome in-round. Well executed jokes get a bump in speaks.

I’d rather not hear profanity but if you use do it should be impactful.

Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. If I am unable to understand you I will yell “CLEAR” during your speech.

CX is binding and I will flow it.

Any other questions please feel free to ask me.

4 years policy debate at Alpharetta High School

Email: mutyalapranav@gmail.com

please add me to the email chain.

I am okay with anything except for critical stuff. I am not the best judge when it comes to complex critical arguments; with that said, if you do decide to run that in front of me, please do a good job explaining every small detail to me. If I do not understand it, I will most likely not vote on it.

Also 2nr/2ars should do a good job of laying out the debate for me and doing quality impact/link/evidence/etc..analysis and comparisons in front of me. If it is messy, I will try my best to fill in the dots, but more likely than not, I will default to what was said in round.

Experience: I have not judged a single round on the immigration topic. So, just make sure that you are not assuming I know what certain arguments or acronyms mean.

i am a 2N – 4th year at Chattahoochee High School. I promise to evaluate the debate to the best of my ability every round.

i'd rather you be slow than unclear. tech > truth. impact calc wins debates.

time your own speeches and prep. don't clip, or be rude.

i think it's important for judges to put their biases aside, so do what you do well and have fun.

add me on the email chain: putmeontheemailchain@gmail.com

Also I think I need to add, they conceded "X" means nothing to me, if you say "they conceded X and that matters" "or that implicates X" than that is a viable argument.

Woodward Academy - C/O 2015

University of Alabama: Birmingham - C/O 2019

Add me to the email chain: krsh1pandey@gmail.com

***I'm coming into this season with no topic knowledge whatsoever. I can keep up with general arguments and the flow of speeches just fine; however, you may find it worth your while to take time to explain more specific/niche acronyms that pop up throughout the course of the debate.

Last Updated/Written prior to: The Fall 2018 Chattahoochee Cougar Classic

Background: Debate at Woodward Academy for 3 years. Was pretty much exclusively the 2N/1A. I'm 4 years out of the activity now so I'm not very familiar with many new community norms that have developed since my time debating.

Meta/Activity Preferences:

1) Prep time: I won't take prep for emailing speech docs in Varsity unless it becomes excessive (I will inform you before I start taking prep off if I decide things are taking too long). I do take prep time in JV/Novice in order to facilitate rounds running on time.

2) Tag team C-X: Fine if it happens once (maybe twice); if it happens too much, it will reflect in your speaker points and my general view of how much I think you know your arguments.

3) Be nice and respectful to everyone in round (me, the other team, your partner).

Critical/Performance/Non-traditional/No Plan Affs - I enjoy listening to anything that you as the affirmative feel comfortable presenting. I'm highly unlikely to vote for arguments that I find morally reprehensible. But if you are reading high theory or some other very obscure affirmative, you will have a higher burden of explanation if I'm not too well versed with the literature.

Theory - Smart theory debates are fun, but bad theory debates are some of my least favorite to watch (probably second only to a round involving ethics violations or a bad T debate). I usually lean neg when it comes to conditionality.

T - If you can do it well then go for it; I do tend to lean Aff on questions of topicality.

Feel free to ask for clarification or other specific questions before round if you have them! Bear in mind, these are just general thoughts/observations that I hold going into the round; they are not set-in-stone viewpoints.

-I do not like debates that make personal identity relevant to the decision of the round. Race and identity arguments can work without doing this.

-Don't clip cards.

-Clarity > speed. Signpost and make it easy for me to follow where you're going.

-I'm pretty unlikely to vote on condo when there's 2 or less advocates.

-I don't like vague alts and you better be prepared to justify one if you read it. If your alt is communism that's fine, but tell me it's communism. If the alt is just to reject the aff, that's fine too.

-Analytics are great, I don't always need evidence. If you walk me through the absurdities of their internal link chain without evidence, do it.

-Smart and relevant explanations > pre-written overviews. Stale block debates with no clash are the worst.

-Creative arguments and jokes are encouraged, we're all here to have fun after after all.

Email chain please - logan@sowdercom.com

PRONOUNS: they/them/theirs

mstekl@stanford.edu -- please put me on the email chain

PhD student @ Stanford, in Modern Thought and Literature

Emory '19 (did not debate; judged on the GA circuit for 4 years)

Bishop Guertin '15 (debated on the national circuit, went to the TOC, etc. etc.)

***UPDATE for Berkeley 2020: This will be my first tournament on the topic. Please do not assume any familiarity with the topic or especially with any topic-specific acronyms. You can spread, but clarity is paramount as always — clarity over speed any day, but today more than ever!***

My favorite judges in high school were jon sharp, Calum Matheson, and Jarrod Atchinson.

In general, you should not change what you do because you have me in the back of the room. As a debater, I tended to be pretty flexible, alternating frequently between "critical" and "policy" positions. This is your space to argue, not mine, so I will vote for the arguments on the flow that yield the path of least intervention. Pure objectivity being impossible, I nonetheless do my best to keep my subjective argumentative preferences out of the picture. That said, I'm not quite a blank slate; for instance, I won't be persuaded by racism/sexism/etc. good, or by any unapologetically discriminatory positions or practices.

I’m pretty well versed in K lit – I study theory at a graduate level, so I should have some degree of familiarity with whatever you choose to read. I'm an especially good judge for any brand of poststructuralism, including those concerned with questions of identity. Obviously, this doesn't mean that you can rely on buzzwords to get out of explaining your argument; it does mean, too, that I'll know if you have no idea what you're talking about. You should have at least a working knowledge of the position you are asking me to vote for, which requires you to do at least some cursory background reading and thinking. Then, bring your knowledge of critical theory to bear on the particulars of the aff, balancing overarching framing questions with specific link and impact analysis.

I'm not convinced that the aff must defend governmental action. Which is only to say that I will not enter the room with any dogmatic biases against plan-less affirmatives. That said, I probably enjoy a good framework debate more than most, and find myself voting for framework as often as I vote against it. Still, I don't think it should be your only strategy against all K affs; I will be more persuaded if you at least make an effort to substantively engage the aff. Of course, particularly obscure affs or those lacking a consistent advocacy will tend to be harder to defend against framework than core, topic-specific K affs.

***UPDATE September 2018: As I've judged more debates, I've become increasingly wary of framework as a default negative strategy against K affs. In my experience, framework very often becomes a lazy cop-out, even an excuse to avoid debating the substance of the aff. I can still be convinced that this is not always the case, and I will continue to evaluate framework debates technically, but it is on framework debaters to prove the value of their strategy.***

I think I tend to prioritize evidence quality less than most judges. Not that good cards aren't important – they're the pillars of your argument – but they can't replace good analysis. Depending on your argumentative genre of choice, it may be better to establish your position through evidence-reading or through your own explanation in the constructives; but in most cases, I'd rather you invest more time in nuanced and specific applications of your argument than read another card. In the final rebuttals, you absolutely shouldn't rely on your cards to do the work for you – extensions should be much more substantive than simple author name-drops. If you can't explain your author's argument, as well as its implications for the debate, I won't explain it for you.

Clear! I'll take clarity over speed any day. You should be comprehensible enough that I can understand the text of your cards. I will not call for cards after the debate if I was unable to understand them when you read them; I only read evidence for the sake of refreshing my memory.

Chill out. While antagonism is inevitable in this competitive forum and may even enhance debates in limited doses, I maintain that debaters too often take aggression to unhealthy extremes. Outside of a small number of "critical" strategies that benefit performatively from hostility, there is no reason to deliberately be an asshole to the other team, or – especially – to your partner (!!seriously!! if I can hear you yelling at your partner during prep time, you're doing something wrong). Jokes can also help ease the tension.

Speaks – Points vary by tournament (i.e. I'll give higher points at Samford than at the NDCA). Generally speaking, I'm a bit of a point fairy. Methods for improving your speaks include innovative, specific strategies and clear logical organization. Humor is the icing on the cake.

30 – Among the best speakers I’ve ever heard: you should be top speaker and win the tournament. A+
29.5-29.9 – Outstanding: expect to be one of the top 5 speakers – you should be able to make it to late elims. A
29-29.4 – Very impressive: a noteworthy performance with quite little room for improvement; you deserve to be among the top 20 speakers. A-
28.6-28.9 – High average: you are in or near the top of your division; with any luck – and, more surely, with just a little more practice – you should be able to break. B/B+
28-28.5 – Average: you're doing well, but still need to iron out some remaining issues with your clarity of speech or of argument. B-
27.5-27.9 – Low average: you have potential, but displayed: a) notable problems with both speaking and argument development, or b) more serious problems in one of the two areas. C/C+
27-27.4 – Below average: your performance was passable, but suffered from critical issues of both style and content. C-
26.5-26.9 – Needs improvement: you spoke poorly, made major strategic mistakes, and likely dropped some important arguments. D
26-26.4 – Needs major improvement: you failed to answer a majority of your opponent’s arguments and made some manner of unforgivable mistake. D-
0-25 – You did something offensive. F

Clipping will result in an immediate loss and the lowest speaks allowed by the tournament. I will follow along with the speech doc and record the debate; if I catch you clipping, I will stop the round you even if your opponent doesn’t call you on it.

This is not, in fact, your CX.

*** Update March 2019: YES TKO PLEASE TKO! Far too many debates drag on painfully long after they (should) have technically ended. For this reason, I am following B. Manuel's paradigm and urging you to invoke "total knock-out" mode if the other team makes an utterly irredeemable mistake – e.g., double turn, dropped T or a K, etc. Of course, you must stake the round on this; if you can pull it off (i.e., if you can satisfactorily extend the dropped/devastating argument while covering all your bases, e.g., answering condo if going for a dropped K...), then you will win the round after your speech and receive 30s. If you are unsuccessful, you lose and get a hard cap of 27.5. ***

Email chain - solomonsonofwat@gmail.com

Whats good.

To treat people as people is my governing maxim, for debate it is to treat arguments as arguments. This activity lacks any coherence without a judge who adheres to such a universal. The energy generated in this activity relies on the thesis that everyone's argument will be heard, recognized, and reason will be in the decision.

Reason is the product of a unity between the particular argument and the universal debate, reason as the substantive new achieved only at the moment of synthesis of the particular and the universal. Biases are not only inevitable but to some degree necessary, to the degree any objectivity can be achieved it is through recognition of the self’s position in the universe.

I competed at grady (now midtown) high school as an ambassdor from the atlanta udl, later coaching for the atlanta ambassdors (grady, decatur, roswell, etc) from 2018-2020. In 2022, I graduated with a political science degree from utd, after competing there for 4 ½ years. And continued briefly coaching at utd before enrolling in the philosophy, politics, and economics masters program at the university of groningen.

While there is likely a good number in this judging pool with more experience/success in both debate and education, my experience can still make my ear somewhat demanding in certain conversations. As a competitor I approached debate as a game of exploiting strategic vulnerabilities, with the round itself a puzzle to be solved. This approach led to my participation (as both competitor and judge) in high level policy, K v K, and clash debates. My background has made me both familiar with a wide number of literature bases and argument genres, consequently I'm agnostic to both style and content. All I’m looking for are arguments.

When it comes to an argument, I’m looking for a claim with a warrant that’s has an implication for the round/debate at large. A conceded claim with a warrant is not a conceded argument, because it may lack an explicit explanation about the claim’s implication for the round. My commitment to treat arguments as arguments leads me to focus on reading arguments as they are presented and not if they are true. This commitment also leaves me in total deference to the arguments made by students about what the round is about, what the role of the judge or students are, and changes to the traditional calculation or weight of certain arguments.

Debates about the metaethics of the activity or the community are welcomed, in so far as you can articulate a reason why these ethical considerations are of more significance than the procedural concerns that come with alterations to the status quo of the activity. Deference to procedure for the sake of procedure is not always a sufficient defense of the procedure in question. Debates about the metaethics of debates are often most aided by comparing the benefits or harms of proposed models of debate rather than technical conversations that may proliferate the flow.

As the judge I do not allow, merely adjudicate. If you want to do something, make the argument for why you should do it. 2nc cps? Word PICs? Floating PICs? Make the argument and argue it, as the judge I will adjudicate who won. The door to creativity will be left open. Creation of arguments is the self-expression of debaters; self-expression is the life blood of self-aware creatures. Creativity can only exist with limitations, precisely as something for creativity to overcome. The precise boundaries of the limits of the round are for the competitors to argue.

Adjudication is a process of reading arguments through a combination of their technical presentation, offense defense framing, evidentiary/warranted support, and implication for the round. I flow on my computer and will passively read evidence throughout the round. Therefore, I tend not to need card docks after rounds, even in policy debates. That being said, if specific attention is made to a piece of evidence or the debate otherwise hinges on a piece(s) of evidence I will return to it.

My commitment to non-interventionism spills over to my conduct, I tend to say and interact as little as possible during the round. The debate is for the debaters to define, I’m merely an observer. My ballots tend to be littered with misspellings and grammatical incorrections. Generally, I use the ballot as a space for me to cohere my thoughts into a comprehensible rfd, from which I essentially use as a script for my oral feedback. If post facto questions exist about a ballot I encourage reaching out by email for clarity.

To treat people as people is very important to me, any actions on the part of competitors during the round that would negate this maxim will be rewarded with speaker point deductions or a loss depending on the severity. Moves that deny the personhood of participants based on otherization, class, race, gender, ability, religion, migrant status, etc are clear violations, be they epistemic, discursive, or interpersonal. Essentially, don't be an ass.

Debate

I'm pretty open minded to all argumets as long as they make sense and relate to the topic. I prefer policy affs just because I have more experience with them. Tag teaming in CX is acceptable so long as it is limited. Go as fast as you want as long as I can understand your tags and authors. If you don't signpost and you make it difficult for me to follow where you're going, I will give you no more than 28 speaker points. I do this for the betterment of your debating skills and for my own sanity. No judge likes having to scramble for another flow when they realize that you've changed. Anything that goes unanswered and is extended, I will probably consider to be true. I don't take prep for flashing.

Ks- I am fine with them if you explain it well. Keep in mind I don't spend much time reading K literature, so reading an obscure K is probably not a good idea.

Theory- I have a relatively high threshold for theory. I will only vote a team down on theory if the other team is decisively winning on it. Conditionality arguments (and all other theory arguments) are more persuasive with in round abuse. Despite my policy on dropped arguments, I will have a hard time voting down a team on theory outside of Condo, PICs, and PIKs.

As A Person

Don't be rude, especially not to your partner. This means don't cut them off too frequently in CX and don't shake your head in dismay when they do something wrong. In most rounds, it's pretty obvious who has the most experience, so if I notice that person being too hard on his/her partner, I've been known to dock speaker points. Also, have fun and by all means crack a few jokes (preferably Star Wars ones). We're all here for fun after after all.