I flow on my laptop generally so if i am not making eye contact, i do apologize. If you would like me to look at your evidence specifically, my email is daniel.armbrust1337@gmail.com or you can use speechdrop.net to make a room specifically for the round.

COWARDICE IS A VOTING ISSUE.

TL;DR- I don't care what you read, just give me a reason to vote for you.

DISCLAIMER- AN important note before you keep reading, discussion of mental health is important, but I have discovered that in the past few years I cannot really handle those discussions very well in debate. Please avoid those arguments as much as possible for my sake. IF the topic asks you to run arguments discussing mental health, that cannot be avoided and is fine. I appreciate a warning in advance if you plan on running arguments discussing mental health. Thank you!

Section 1: General Info

I debated for the University of Nevada from 2012-2017. My final year I was 8th speaker at the NPDA and 2nd seed out of prelims. As a debater I ran anything from spec to high theory criticisms. The only argument I refused to read because I think it is cheating unless you can use cards is Delay Counterplans. That being said I have voted for a disgusting number of Delay counterplans. Run what you want, I don't really care as long as you give me a reason to vote for you.

Section 2: Specific Questions

SPEED ADDENDUM: I understand speed very well and often used it personally as a very efficient tool. That being said, I am continuously swayed by arguments about equity from teams that have difficulty with accessing the round due to speed. While I am often influenced, I still evaluate those arguments through the lens that the debater gives me. 

1. Speaker points

As of right now I range from approximately 26-30. I think speaker points are arbitrary and often tend to be higher if you know the people in the room so I usually trend higher in order to off balance my inherent bias.

2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? can affs run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be "contradictory" with other neg positions?
Let me put it like this, in the last two years of debate, I ran a K every neg round I could. In the 2015-16 season I only had 3 rounds the entire year that did not involve a criticism. I think critically framed arguments are not only good but on occasion necessary. For affs, its a bit of a different story, Framework I think is a convincing argument in some situations but leaves a bad taste in others. FOR ALL CRITICISMS AFF OR NEG, all i really need is a thesis of some kind (I haven't read a bunch of different authors so I need something to like understand) and a reason to vote for you.

3. Performance arguments

Some of the best affs I have ever seen were performance based. Shout out to Quintin Brown (from Washburn if you don't know him) for reading some of the best and most persuasive performance arguments I have ever seen. Just be prepared to answer Framework.

4. Topicality- For the aff, to avoid T, all you have to do is be topical. I prefer nuanced and educational T debates, not just throw away debates that are really there as a time suck. I am almost never persuaded by an RVI. AND if you decide to go for an RVI, it better be the ENTIRE PMR. For T to be persuasive, it needs an interp, violation, standards, voters.

5. Counterplans- Pics good or bad? should opp identify the status of CP? perms-- text comp ok? functional comp?

uhh, PICs are good as long as they are able to be theoretically defended. Theory against CPs is something I did as an MG all the time, it just might not be a great strat if there is an easy DA against the CP. I think that most people should run CPs that functionally competitive unless you have a REALLY good reason why your text comp needs to happen in this instance (for example a word PIC that changes the word run with a reason why that specific word is bad). Just clarify the status when you read it.

6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round?

Dont care.

7. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighing claims are diametrically opposed how do you compare abstract impacts against concrete impacts?

If i have to do this, I will be angry with you. You do the weighing and it will not be a problem.

David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

Mariel Cruz - Updated 1/3/2024

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara University, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I've judged most debate events pretty frequently, except for Policy and Congress. However, I was a policy debater in college, so I'm still familiar with that event. I mostly judge PF and traditional LD, occasionally circuit LD. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF.

Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.

Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.

As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.

K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only, where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.

Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.

Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument.

Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in other debate rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.

Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.

General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.

History:

I debated 2yrs in NPDA/NPTE Parli and coached for 1yr at the regional and national level. I debated LD for the same amount of time, mostly on the regional and CC circuit. Regardless of the event, I was a pretty fast debater who liked to read Policy-oriented args as well as Kritiks (i.e. Wilderson, Biopower, Capitalism etc.).

General Paradigm:

I believe debate is a game and whoever plays it best should win. I am a flow judge, I will flow the arguments you give during your speech. If you do not give me a weighing mechanism, or some sort of "Role of the Ballot" I will default to a Net Benefits paradigm. I like arguments that carry offense but if you can strategically use your defense (i.e. pair it with some form of offense) you can win. I think the debate round should be a place of academic rigor and competition and there is little need for hostility. Please, try to be kind.

Speed:

Generally, I don't care about speed. However, for LD, I find arguments that spreading (and speed) is against the rules of LD persuasive. At the same time, that argument must still be defended and won. I will not grant that argument(or any) as being won simply because it exists on the flow. With speed, in all events, please be cautious of excluding debaters who are not as fast. I am not of fan of this strategy. Nonetheless, if two sides are comfortable with each other's speed, go at it. I will say "Clear" if I can't understand your words and "Slow" if you are speaking faster than I can flow.

Policy Strats:

Be prepared to show Plan Texts, and parts of your Adv, DA's, CP's and the like upon question. As stated above, I will default to weighing both the Aff and Neg through NB. I would like for carded events to read tags slower than the actual arguments in the card. I don't care if a CP is topical or not but it should solve the Aff. On permutations, I have no problem with perms, whether you read 1 or fill your speech with them. During your rebuttal speeches, frame the round, show me 1) why I can't'/shouldn't vote for the other side 2) why I should vote for you and 3) why all other arguments are irrelevant. Compare impacts, please.

Theory:

I'm chill with a myriad of Theory arguments. Your arguments should be structured clearly. If you do not have a copy of the interpretation to provide me or the other team, read it slowly (preferably twice). Competing interps is my default method to evaluate theory but I am open to reasons why that should not be preferred. On abuse, I have no problem voting on potential abuse or articulated abuse; make your case well.

K:

I like the Kritik as a strategy. If you can read it well, and when necessary argue why reading it is good (in a particular event), then go for it. Whether you are the Aff or Neg, make sure you have strong links. The link debate is often what it comes down to when judging debates with a K. I would prefer teams answering the K find substantive and non-problematic ways to answer it, but I also find Framework persuasive and believe all debaters who typically read a K should be able to adequately answer it.

CrossX:

I don't flow this part of the debate so feel free to ask whatever questions you like. I know sometimes it can be difficult to get answers to your specific questions but try to be cordial.

Condo:

I default to all advocacies are unconditional. If you want to be Condo, go for it, but you better be able to beat Condo Bad.

For LD:

I want to be on an email chain (adecamp578@gmail.com) or at least have a copy uploaded to speechdrop, dropbox, flash, etc. I'll call for cards at the end of the round if needed.

Speed

I’ve competed in LD for 3 years but it's been a few years since I've competed or judged a round. My ability to handle speed is gonna be a bit rusty at first so I'll clear or slow when I need to. Also, please don’t use speed as a weapon against your opponent, if they ask you to slow, please try to do so.

Speaker Points

I generally give out 27-30 depending on delivery, clarity, and sportsmanship. Don’t ridicule your opponent or bring racism, sexism, ableism, etc. into the round, I will give you low speaks for that. Keep the debate competitive but friendly, and you’re in the clear.

General Case Arguments

I’ll vote on the flow. I love debates with good clash. Give me reasons why your side is better than your opponents. If your opponent drops one of your arguments and then carry it through till the end, don’t just say “they dropped this” and never touch it again. Explain why that dropped argument is important and why you should win because of it. I want to see impact calculus. Show what your impacts looks like post plan. Will the world be a better place or are we going towards a hurt locker? Explain to me what “social destruction” looks like and explain to me why it’s worse than “eliminating the prison pipeline”. If the neg doesn’t run a disad, that’s fine. Just make sure there’s offense (turns, solvency take-out’s, kritiks, etc.) that outweigh the case. I’ll vote on propensity to solve if there’s no offense.

CROSS-X

I flow cross-x. If you can bind your opponent during cross-x and want to use it as offense against them then go for it. I'll weigh it if it’s credible.

Topicality/Procedural

I love both. Run T if you want just make sure you explain why your interpretation is the correct interpretation or better than your opponents’. The only issue on T is that I don’t like seeing T’s with multiple interpretations. If you can’t run a topical case that matches all of your interpretations, then I believe the Aff doesn’t have to either. The structure of a T/Procedural should be: an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters (or some type of reasons to prefer). If there is more than one procedural in the round, then tell me where to look first and how to evaluate the procedurals.

ADS/DISADS

Both Advantages and Disadvantages need to be in order (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact). I won’t weigh or flow ADS/DISADS that couldn’t get finished.

CP’S

Run em! Prove to me that your CP is competitive in the round. If the aff perms and you don’t put enough argument on the perm, you won’t win on CP.

Kritiks

I don’t like generic k’s, you make sure you have a clear link to the case advocacy and language. Also, make sure your alternative is strong and solves. I have no issues with teams running K Affs or topical affs with critical advantages. Argue why they're topical and you should be fine.

At the end of the day, Debate is supposed to be a competitive, learning experience. Run your cases and argue with confidence! Get in there, show respect to your opponents and your judge, and have some fun!

I judge many different formats, see the bottom of my paradigm for more details of my specific judging preferences in different formats. I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. I love good weighing/layering - tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I enjoy technical/progressive/circuit-style debates and I'm cool with speed - I don't evaluate your delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.

Please include me on the email chain if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.com

Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.

CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat.

TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy and kritikal debate to traditional fact and value debate and don't believe in the trichotomy (though I do vote on it lol), please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. Don't make arguments in POI's - only use them for clarification. If you are a spectator, be neutral - do not applaud, heckle, knock on desks, or glare at the other team. I will kick any disruptive spectators out and also protect the right of both teams to decline spectators.

TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways. Tricks/aprioris/paradoxes are cool but I prefer you put them in the doc to be inclusive to your opponents

TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event. I will vote on theory and K's in IPDA just as eagerly as in any other event. Also PLEASE strike the fact topics if there are any, I'm terrible at judging fact rounds. I will give high speaks to anyone who interprets a fact topic as policy. I try to avoid judging IPDA but sometimes tournaments force me into it, but when that happens, I will not roleplay as a lay judge. I will still judge based on the flow as I am incapable of judging any other way. It is like the inverse of having a speech judge in more technical formats. I'm also down to vote on "collapse of IPDA good" arguments bc I don't think the event should exist - I think college tournaments that want a less tech format should do PF instead

TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense unless the neg has some offense of their own to weigh against it. I think you should disclose but I try not to intervene in disclosure debates

CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff - I love a well-researched tix or bizcon scenario. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. I am uncomfortable policing the way people talk, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should have a genuine accessibility need for your opponents to slow down (such as having a disability that impacts auditory processing or being entered in novice at a tournament with collapsed divisions) and you should be able to prove that engagement is not possible. Otherwise I am very likely to vote on the we meet. I think that while there are instances where speed theory is necessary, there are also times when it is weaponized and commodified to win ballots by people who could engage with speed. However, I do think you should slow down when asked, I would really prefer if I don't have to evaluate speed theory

THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I'll even vote on trichot despite my own feelings about it. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation.

I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them. I am also happy to vote on OCI's, and I think a "you violate/you bite" argument is a voter on bidirectional interps such as "debaters must pass advocacy texts" even if you don't win RVI's are good

I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.

Rules are NOT a voter by themselves - If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. If you're going to be dispo, please define during your speech what dispo means. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.

PERFORMANCE: I have voted on these arguments before and I find them interesting and powerful, but if you are going to read them in front of me, it is important to be aware that the way that my brain works can only evaluate the debate on the flow. A dropped argument is still a true argument, and if you give me a way of framing the debate that is not based on the flow, I will try to evaluate that way if you win that I should, but I am not sure if I will be able to.

IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. I like direct and explicit comparison between impacts - when doing impact calc, it's good to assume that your no link isn't as good as you think and your opponent still gets access to their impact. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I'm down for K's of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.

REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.

PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K alt flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I am happy to vote for them if you win them.

SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

RECORDINGS/LIVESTREAMS/SPECTATORS: I think they are a great education tool if and only if every party gives free and enthusiastic consent - even if jurisdictions where it is not legally required. I had a terrible experience with being livestreamed once so for the sake of making debate more accessible, I will always defend all students' right to say no to recordings, spectators, or livestreams for any reason. I don't see debate as a spectator sport and the benefit and safety of the competitors always comes first. If you are uncomfortable with spectators/recordings/livestreams and prefer to express that privately you can email me before the round and I will advocate for you without saying which debater said no. Also, while I am not comfortable with audio recordings of my RFD's being published, I am always happy to answer questions about rounds I judged that were recorded if you contact me by email or Facebook messenger. Also, if you are spectating a round, please do not applaud, knock on tables, say "hear, hear", or show support for either side in any way, regardless of your event or circuit's norms. If you do I will kick you out.

PARLI ONLY:

If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument I will take away a speaker point. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.

I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.

PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:

I judge PF on the flow. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments. I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, theory, and kritiks. I am very open to claims that those arguments should not be in PF but you have to make them yourself - I won't intervene against them if the other team raises no objection, but I personally don't believe PF is the right place to read arguments like plans, theory, and K's

Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to go fast (especially in an online round) please send a speech doc to me and your opponents if you are reading evidence, for the sake of accessibility

POLICY ONLY:

I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli and LD and I rarely judge policy, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. Please be sure to remind me of norms that are specific to what is or isn't allowed in a particular speech

NFA-LD ONLY:

I am not fond of the rules or stock issues and it would make me happiest if you pretend they don’t know exist and act like you are in one-person policy or high school circuit LD. However, I will adjudicate arguments based on the rules and I won’t intervene against them if you win that following the rules is good. However, "it's a rule" is not an impact I can vote on unless you say why following the rules is an internal link to some other impact like fairness and education. Also, if you threaten to report me to tab for not enforcing the rules, I will automatically vote you down, whether or not I think the rules were broken.

I think the wording of the speed rule is very problematic and is not about accessibility but about forcing people to talk a certain way, so while I will vote on speed theory if you win it, I'd prefer you not use the rules as a justification for it. Do not threaten to report to tab for allowing speed, I'll vote you down instantly if you do. I also don't like the rule that is often interpreted as prohibiting K's, I think it's arbitrary and I think there are much better ways to argue that K's are bad.

I am very open to theory arguments that go beyond the rules, and while I do like spec arguments, I do not like the vague vagueness shell a lot of people read - any vagueness/spec shell should have a brightline for how much the aff should specify.

Also, while solvency presses are great in combination with offense, I will rarely vote on solvency alone because if the aff has a risk of solvency and there's no DA to the aff, then they are net beneficial. Even if you do win that I should operate in a stock issues paradigm, I am really not sure how much solvency the aff needs to meet that stock issue, so I default to "greater than zero risk of solvency".

IPDA ONLY:

I personally don't think IPDA should exist and if I have to judge it I will not vote on your delivery even if the rules say I should, and I will ignore all IPDA rules except for speech times. Please debate like it is LD without cards or one-person parli. I am happy to vote on theory and K's and I think most IPDA topics are so bad that we get more education from K's and theory anyway. I'll even let debaters debate a topic not on the IPDA topic list if they both agree.

Director of Forensics at Bentley School, Lafayette
High school and college experience

I flow the round, but I promise there is a high probability that I will get lost if you go too fast or jump around with your arguments. You’ll benefit from signposting and staying organized. I prefer fleshed out arguments and not blips. Don’t assume I know theory. If something is a voting issue, explain it to me. Always tell me "why".

I’ve spent many years coaching speech events and I appreciate quality public speaking skills, along with respect towards your teammate and opponents.

By the end of the round, you need to tell me why I should be voting for you over your opponent. What are the voting issues and how do your impacts outweigh your opponent's impacts?

***PLEASE NOTE THIS WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN FOR PARLI***

First, you don't need to use your time to thank me, and you really don't need to shake my hand. Both of these concepts feel gross, personally.

I debated parli in high school, but not since, and heavy use of theory will likely get lost on me, just because I was never that sophisticated. I am open to some artful experimental/off-topic stuff, but actual trolling is a pathetic waste of everyone's time.

I am not a "blank slate" judge and will struggle to accept what I know to be blatant falsehoods.

I can have trouble understanding very rapid speech, especially if quiet, partially due to an auditory processing disorder. If you start to spread and you've lost me, I will throw my pen down in anger and glare at you dead in the eye and/or yell CLEAR at the very top of my lungs. Further, the sound of constant gasping for breath makes me want to shove my pen through both eardrums just for a moment of respite. This is debate, not auctioneering. In other words, don't spread. Just don't do it.

Humor and wit and personal style are great ways to earn speaker points! Invective toward the other side, etc. is the fastest way to bleed them. Ditto *any* sort of hostility to marginalized/oppressed groups in your case (racial minorities, women, LGBTQ folks, so on and so forth). That is a quick path to me giving you the lowest score possible and reporting you.

Final pet peeves: if you're going to talk extensively about funding, know how appropriation works. If you're going to cite the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, get it right. I don't expect anyone to grasp the nuances of foreign policy or anything like that, but you should have a very good functional understanding of the US government structure, laws, and especially the legislative process.

Ultimately, please have fun and DO NOT TAKE YOURSELF TOO SERIOUSLY, because I'm having fun when y'all are. And if you have any questions or clarifications to bring up before the round, please feel free to do so.

I have judged debate since 1988. I started programs in San Jose, San Francisco, and Portland. I have judged every form at the state and national level. I am pretty tabula rasa. In fact, one reason we brought Parli into the state of Oregon in 1997 was that we were looking for something less protocol driven and less linguistically incestuous. Policy and LD seemed to be exclusive to those who could master lingo. With Parli, we had a common knowledge street fight. So, I am open to your interpretation of how the round should be judged. Incorporate anything from your tool box: weighing mechanism, topicality challenge, counterplan, kritik, et al.

But, I still have to understand what you are saying and why. . .and so does your opponent. (Hey, now this guy seems like a communication judge. Eye roll.) I will not judge on debate tactic alone; I am not a Game Player . . . though I did play PacMan once in 1981.

Next, I am a teacher. This is an educational activity. Students should be working on transferrable skills--what are we doing in this debate chamber that we will use outside of the room in a classroom or a college campus or life? So, no speed. I will call "clear" to help you adapt to the room. And, while I am open to creative opposition to premises and other kritiks for the round, I won't abide by arguments that degrade a people or an individual. I was stunned when a debater once tried to argue that Internment was not that bad. I do not think they believed this in their heart; how could we have come to a spot in this educational event where this young person felt that this was a viable argument?

Let us have fun and walk out of the room with something to think about... and our limbs in tact! Con carino, Gonzo

tldr; I'm open to pretty much whatever, and would much rather you debate how you want than have you try to adapt to my preferences! A lot of my paradigm is pretty technical/jargon-heavy, so please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Background

I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 7 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years before exclusively coaching for the last few years, leading the team to 6 national championships as a student-run program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but I’ve had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team; I've become a huge fan of theory in particular in the last few years. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. I’m generally open to just about any argument, as long as there’s good clash.

General issues

• In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR.

• The LOR’s a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I don’t need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I've grown pretty used to flowing the LOR on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer to go line-by-line I’d rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.

• I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if it’s read well.

• Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice.

• I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it’s always better to call the POO just to be safe.

• I’m open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way. To clarify, please give me a clear explanation of how I determine whether to vote aff/neg at the end of the round, and in what ways your alternative paradigm differs from or augments traditional flow-centric models.

• I evaluate shadow-extensions as new arguments. What this means for me is that any arguments that a team wants to win on/leverage in either the PMR or LOR must be extended in the MG/MO to be considered. I'll grant offense to and vote on positions that are blanket extended ("extend the impacts, the advantage is conceded", etc.), but if you want to cross-apply or otherwise leverage a specific argument against other arguments in the round, I do need an explicit extension of that argument.

Framework

• I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. I understand the framework debate as a question of the best pedagogical model for debate; ie: what type of debate generates the best education/portable skills/proximal benefits, and how can I use my ballot to incentivize this ideal model of debate?

• This means that I'm probably more favorable for frame-out strategies than most other judges, because I think of different frameworks as establishing competing rulesets for how I evaluate the round, each of which establishes a distinct layer in the debate that filters offense in its own unique way. For example, framework that tells me I should evaluate post-fiat implications of policy actions vs a framework that tells me I should evaluate the best epistemic model seem to establish two very different worlds/layers in the round; one in which I evaluate the aff and neg advocacies as policy actions and engage in policy simulation, and one in which I evaluate these advocacies as either explicit or implicit defenses of specific ways of producing knowledge. I don't think the aff plan being able to solve extinction as a post-fiat implication of the plan is something that can be leveraged under an epistemology framework that tells me post-fiat policy discussions are useless and uneducational, unless the aff rearticulates why the epistemic approach of the aff's plan (the type of knowledge production the plan implicitly endorses) is able to incentivize methods of problem-solving that would on their own resolve extinction.

• As much as I'm down to vote on frameouts and sequencing claims, please do the work implicating out how a specific sequencing/framing claim affects my evaluation of the round and which offense it does or does not filter out. I’m not very likely to vote on a dropped sequencing claim or independent voter argument if there isn’t interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round; ie, why does this sequencing claim take out the other specific layers that have been initiated in the round.

• I'm very open to voting on presumption, although very rarely will I grant terminal defense from just case arguments alone (no links, impact defense, etc.). I'm much more likely to evaluate presumption claims for arguments that definitionally deny the potential to garner offense (skep triggers, for example). I default to presumption flowing negative unless a counter-advocacy is gone for in the block, in which case I'll err aff. But please just make the arguments either way, I would much rather the debaters decide this for me.

Theory/Procedurals

• I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. I’m perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text.

• I don't think of theory as a check against abuse in the traditional sense. I'm open to arguments that I should only vote on proven/articulated abuse, or that theory should only be used to check actively unfair/uneducational practices. However, I default to evaluating theory as a question of the best model of debate for maximizing fairness and education, which I evaluate through an offense/defense model the same way I would compare a plan and counterplan/SQO. Absent arguments otherwise, I evaluate interpretations as a model of debate defended in all hypothetical rounds, rather than as a way to callout a rule violation within one specific debate.

• I will vote on paragraph theory (theory arguments read as an independent voting issue without an explicit interpretation), but need these arguments to be well developed with a clear impact, link story (why does the other team trigger this procedural impact), and justification for why dropping the team solves this impact. Absent a clear drop the debater implication on paragraph theory, I'll generally err towards it being drop the argument.

• I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I don’t think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation (unless in-round argumentation tells me they do), although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one.

• I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I don’t know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline I’ll usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless.

• I don't mind voting on RVIs, so long as they're warranted and have an actual impact that is weighed against/compared with the other theory impacts in the round. Similar to my position on IVIs: I'm fine with voting for them, but I don't think the tag "voting issue" actually accomplishes anything in terms of impact sequencing or comparison; tell me why this procedural impact uplayers other procedural arguments like the initial theory being read, and why dropping the team is key to resolve the impact of the RVI.

Advantage/DA

• Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the right direction. Basically: I'm unlikely to vote on linear advantages/disadvantages even if you're winning a link, unless it's literally the only offense left in the round or it's explicitly weighed against other offense in the round, so do the work to explain to me why your worldview (whether it's an advocacy or the SQO) is able to resolve or at least sidestep the impact you're going for in a way that creates a significant comparative differential between the aff and neg worldviews.

• I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume there’s at least some risk of offense, so don’t rely on just reading defensive arguments.

• Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and I’m generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, specific and substantial case debates are great as well.

• I default to fiat being durable.

CP

• Please give me specific texts.

• Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory.

• I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.

• I default to functional or net benefits frameworks for evaluating competition. I generally won’t evaluate competition via textuality absent arguments in the round telling me why I should.

K

• I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, especially postmodern theory (particularly Foucault/Deleuze&Guatarri/Derrida). Some debates that I have particularly familiarity with: queer theory, orientalism, anthro/deep eco/ooo, buddhism/daoism, kritikal approaches to spatiality and temporality, structural vs micropolitical analysis, semiotics. That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I'm open to voting on anything, and am very willing to do the work to understand your position if you provide explanation in-round.

• I’m perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework-t. On that note, I’m also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation. I find myself voting for skews eval implications of fairness a lot in particular, so long as you do good sequencing work.

• Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. I’m also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact.

• I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round.

• I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow.

• Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and they’ve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. I’ll usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible, to justify your specific performance/engagement on the line-by-line of the round, and to explain to me your position's specific relationship to the ballot.

Other random thoughts:

• I pretty strongly disagree with most paradigmatic approaches that frame the judge's role as one of preserving particular norms/outlining best practices for how debate ought to occur, and I don't think it's up to the judge to paternalistically interfere in how a round ought to be evaluated. This is in part because I don't trust judges to be the arbiters of which arguments are or are not pedagogically valuable, given the extensive structural biases in this activity; and the tendency of coaches and judges to abuse their positions of power in order to deny student agency. I also think that debaters ought to be able to decide the purpose of this activity for themselves-while I think debate is important as a place to develop revolutionary praxis/build critical thinking skills/research public policy, I also think it's important to leave space for debaters to approach debate as a game and an escape from structural harms they experience outside of the activity. Flow-centric models seem to allow for debaters to resolve this on their own, by outlining for me what the function of debate ought to be on the flow, and how that should shape how I assign my ballot (more thoughts on this at the top of the "Framework" section in my paradigm).

• What the above implicates out to is: I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the "worse argument" if it’s won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that there’s a certain degree of intervention that’s inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments (so long as the argument has at least an analytic justification and has been explained in terms of how it implicates my evaluation of the round), arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of.

June 4th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

I'm mostly new to NFA-LD LD so feel free to ask me questions. I competed for a year as a freshman (moon energy topic), mainly on the Northern California circuit, although I wasn't particularly competitive. I don't have a ton of familiarity with the current topic, besides the last week or so of research. Most of the paradigm below applies, but here's some specific thoughts that could apply to NFA-LD.

• I don't think I know the format well enough to know which paradigmatic questions to outline here explicitly. As a general rule of thumb, please just be explicit about how you want me to evaluate the round, and give me reasons to prefer that mechanism (ie whether I should read cards or only evaluate extensions as made in-round, what the implication of a stock issues framework should be, whether/how much to flow cross-ex, etc.). I have very few preferences myself, so long as the round burdens are made explicit for me.

• All of the above being said, I'll probably err towards reading speech docs (Zoom is difficult, and this keeps my flow a lot cleaner), I will evaluate CX analysis although I may not flow it, and I'll only hold the line on stock issues framing if explicitly requested. If you want to know how I default on any other issues, please just ask! Also, no particular issues with speed, although I may tank speaks if you spread out an opponent unnecessarily.
  
  
• I don't have as much experience flowing with cards; I have been practicing, and don't think this should be much of an issue, but maybe something to be aware of. Clearer signposting between cards might not be a bad call if you want to play it safe.
  
  
• I'm a very big fan of procedural and kritikal debate in NPDA, and don't see that changing for NFALD, so feel free to run whatever in front of me. Fine with evaluating non-topical affs, but also very comfortable voting on T, especially with a good fairness collapse.

Quick update for online: I will try to keep my camera on so you can see my reactions, but if my internet is slowing down and hurting the connection, I’ll switch to audio only. For debaters, just follow the tournament rules about camera usage, it doesn’t matter to me and I want you to be comfortable and successful. I will say clear or find another way to communicate that to you if need be. If at all possible, do an email chain or file share (and include your analytics!!) so we can see your speech doc/cards in case technology gets garbled during one of your speeches (and because email chains are good anyway). We’re all learning and adjusting to this new format together, so just communicate about any issues and we’ll figure it out. Your technology quality, clothes, or any other elements that are out of your control are equity issues, and they will never have a negative impact on my decision.

TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow.

If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com

Pronouns: she/her/hers. Feel free to share your pronouns before the round if you’re comfortable doing so.

General:

I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.

Arguments:

I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.

However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:

Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.

For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.

Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.

Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.

Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.

For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.

I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).

Style/Speed:

I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.

Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.

I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t go out of your way to be an absolutely ridiculous ass. If you make me chuckle, you'll get at least an extra half speaker point because I think it’s a real skill to be able to inject humor into serious situations and passionate disagreements.

I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.

If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.

Weird quirk: I usually flow card tags rather than author names the first time I hear them, so try to give me the tag instead of or in addition to the cite (especially the first few times the card comes up in CX/rebuttal speeches or when it's early in the resolution and I might not have heard that author much). It's just a quirk with the way I listen in rounds--I tend to only write the author's name after a few times hearing it but flow the card tag the first time since the argument often matters more in my flow as a judge than the name itself does. (So it's easiest for me to follow if, when you bring it up in later speeches or CX, you say "the Blahblah 16 card about yadda yadda yadda" rather than just "the Blahblah 16 card.") I'll still be able to follow you, but I find it on my flow quicker if I get the basic card tag/contents.

Final Approach to RFD:

I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!

Weigh impacts.

Weigh impacts.

Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:

- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.

- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.

Background

Lay & flow (circuit) parli debater for Notre Dame & Los Altos (2013-17). Coached at POI 2017, currently coaching for Sequoia High and private students & helping out with NPDL office hours.

General/tl;dr

I will vote for anything that is not downright morally repugnant as long as you explain it well; whoever has the clearest path to the ballot and explains that will likely win. Make my decision easy and explain where I should be voting. Run whatever you want, but do it well - know your own strengths and debate based on that! I will default to comparing all arguments on both sides against each other - ie K vs case, theory vs K, etc - unless you explain why one type of argument comes first.

Speed

I will call clear if I have to, but speed isn’t a problem. Keep taglines slow just for the sake of me keeping a clean flow. The more signposting you do, the faster I can flow. That being said, your speaker points will suffer if you are clearly excluding your opponents from the round by spreading!

If you're being spread out: make it very clear that you can't keep up by calling slow and clear as much as you need to; that being said, speed theory is very rarely run well, you're probably better off spending your time making responses if you have even a chance of doing so or else go all in on speed theory if you have literally nothing.

Kritiks

I’m down as long as they actually have a link, you understand them/can actually explain them, and you take steps to ensure the other team has a chance to engage. You better have a solid alt and alt solvency that explains how you resolve the links if you expect to be winning on the K. K affs can get rather sketch in parli - disclosing that you're not defending fiat is probably a good idea but I don't really have any way to verify it unless you show me a message or something refusing to disclose. Again, I'm not going to intervene against any of these choices - it just means you'll have to win any theory arguments concerning the legitimacy of what you've done. I'm fine with performance Ks, but if you're running an identity based K for an identity that you are not, I will certainly be very receptive to arguments against that. I'll take your arguments at your word, but be ready to explain how you give the neg ground.

Basically, you're welcome to run Ks, but actually do it well - confusing your opponent is a bad way to win the round! Also, I am very much against reading messed up or abusive arguments just to skew your opponents out of the round - while I won't intervene against you unless absolutely necessary, your speaker points and my opinion of you as people and as debaters will greatly suffer.

While I didn't run many Ks myself, I'm decently familiar with cap, fem, antiblackness, anthro, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, Orientalism, Heidegger, security, colonialism [and probably some other stuff I've forgotten] but this does not mean you should explain less.

I'm not a huge fan of framework arguments that entirely exclude the other side, but I will evaluate them if run. If they're read against you - please answer them and leverage offense under both frameworks so I don't have to vote on them!

DAs/CPs

Love them, make them strategic. Make sure to explain how the CP functions. Defend against the perm; I view perms as test of competition not an advocacy. Good case debate is better than bad K or theory debate, so don’t be cheaty just because you have a backfile. A specific, well-warranted DA will beat a generic any day, but if you have to go generic, at least explain it well and how it relates.

One conditional advocacy is chill, more is potentially kinda sketch but I'll listen to arguments attacking having any or justifying having tons, you just have to win it. Delay, conditions, consult etc CPs are probably cheating, PICs/agent ones are usually fine and uniqueness/advantage CPs are great. But again - all up for debate, if you can justify it go for it. Keep your texts stable.

Case

Good case debate is great! You should always have a clear plan text specifying what you're actually doing - small affs are solid within reason (as long as you have very clear net benefits you should be fine). Make it very clear in your advantages what your links are. Don't be extratopical.

Theory

I default to competing interps and no RVIs, but I don’t default to theory comes first unless you tell me to. You need to explain why theory comes before the K if there is one (and vice versa). I don’t need articulated abuse to vote on theory, but if it is there, point it out or articulate why potential abuse is enough in this instance. If you are going for theory, you better actually go for it. I probably won’t vote on it if it is only 30 seconds in the rebuttal. Receptive to arguments on PICs/condo on both sides; whoever wins the standards debate will probably win that.

Be very clear in labeling interp, standards, etc - I will vote on what you said, not what you meant. If you're going for theory - impact out the standards, internal link turn the other side's standards, etc.

If you're going for reasonability - give me a brightline (in addition to explaining why I should prefer it obviously).

Policy is objectively the best way to debate most rounds, but if you really want to run trichot I'll evaluate it. I dislike most spec shells so if you're reading it, it better either be very relevant or very good.

Weighing

If you're not using some sort of standard util/net benefits framework, explain how I should be evaluating the round. I default to probability over magnitude unless you give me a reason otherwise. Weighing is your job, not mine, so do it. If your opponents drop a point, don't just say they dropped it and thus we win moving on, you still need to impact it out.

Speaking of, terminalize your impacts (death, dehumanization etc). Economic growth is not an impact; nuclear war and extinction scenarios have their place but they better actually be relevant - think of all the marginalization or proxy war impacts you're missing out on by just reading the same extinction scenarios every time! Spend your time on the important areas of clash - ie if the debate comes down to who controls the uniqueness, focus on that, if it's more about whose impacts should be weighed higher, do that, if it's a question of who links harder to the same impacts, focus on the links!

Evidence

The actual warrant is more important to me than the citation, make sure to explain the argument but also provide evidence if necessary. A good analytic is probably better than a bad stat. Please don't spend all your time arguing over whose source is more credible, if you have clashing evidence use logic and analysis to explain why yours should be preferred!

Miscellaneous/Speaking

I don’t shake hands.

Shadow extensions are awful, I will happily accept a point of order on them. Once you've point of ordered a team 2-3 times, I've definitely gotten the picture and you can stop (aka I do not automatically protect against new arguments in the rebuttals unless they are blatantly 100% new, but I will after a couple point of orders). If I'm protecting against a super new argument, I'll stop flowing but if you're unsure feel free to call it.

Questions: please ask and answer them! Be respectful, don't interrupt the speaker unless they've let you stand there for 30+ seconds without any acknowledgement. Once they've said "at the end" or "I don't have any more time" a couple times, be a decent person and wait till the end unless absolutely vital, it's just annoying. As for taking questions: you should always take a question about framework/plan text, and another is nice if you have time. Don't take tons of questions though, this is your speech, be assertive and use your time for yourself!

Calling "status" and "text" (for plans/CPs, K alts, ROTBs, or interps) is 100% legit, please do it (no need to wait to be acknowledged). Always ask status!!

Don't steal prep between speeches or spend excessive time thanking everyone (once, briefly, is plenty).

Tagteaming is all good, but don’t be that kid who tag teams the whole time - no puppeting. Your speaks will suffer.

Speaks are based on strategy more than anything else, but good presentation is also a plus.

I will also use speaks to punish clearly offensive or incredibly abusive behavior/arguments in round - be a decent human being and this shouldn't be an issue!

**Feel free to FB message me with any questions

Most important items if you have limited reading time:

PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory/topicality, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you found on the wiki and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks

IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.

ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.

Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).

I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.

PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.

***

Background

I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (new this year!). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli in those years). I did definitively come up in the time when "This House would not go gently into that good night" was a totally normal, one-in-every-four-rounds kind of resolution. Do with that what you will.

Approach to judging

-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.

-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/insufficiently unique Ks.

-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.

-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.

Speaker point ranges

Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.

Argument preferences

Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.

Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.

Counterplans: Pretty down for whatever here. If you want to have a solid plan/CP debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.

Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain my sense of "real-world" fairness/education). I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).

Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice when not tightly linked to the resolution or a specific in-round act by the opposing team. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked and/or disclosed within the first 2-3 minutes of prep. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files. Write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Truly I will give you a ton of credit for a cautious and thorough line-by-line even if you don't know all that much about K structural elements. Ks that weaponize identities of students in the round and ask me to use the ballot to endorse some personal narrative or element of your identity, in my in-round and judging experience, have been 15% liberatory and 85% deeply upsetting for everyone in the round. Please don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."

"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round. I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus, comparative weighing, or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.

Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Especially in partner events, this is a good way to telegraph that you and your partner are strategically and narratively aligned. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.

Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech--you will need to fully repeat it. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.

Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order (and NPDL - Points of Clarification) in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.

Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off precipitously in my flowing functionality above the 275 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).

Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think sharing docs increases the likelihood of debaters trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/theory interp, you are expected to provide it as expeditiously as possible (e.g. in partner formats, your partner should write it down and pass it while you continue talking).

From the origin of my debate career, I have been a parent judge. Therefore, I really like it when you stand up straight, look me in the eye, and pay attention to the other speakers and your partner. If you think those things don't matter, you may be surprised in the future. I absolutely believe that debate, and especially Parliamentary Debate, is a fantastic endeavor. I will honor that and I will expect you to as well.

My experience spans about 13 years as I squired my two youths to as many tournaments as we all could attend and judged many rounds. Those two are coaches now and I have remained active because I believe in what the community is doing. So show me what you, and they, have gotten from this activity, such as:

· Critical thinking about the arguments you propose from great use of prep time

· The ability to cogently rebut your opponents case

· Eloquent communication of those arguments

· Tactical elements of argumentation

Speed: It’s fine if you can continue to enunciate appropriately so your opponents and I can hear your arguments. If a case is made but we don't hear it, then it doesn’t exist. If this judge doesn’t hear it it's a sure bet the case does not exist.

Pet peeve: Most plans cost money. It will be beneficial if you have a relatively good idea of how much is needed and where you intend to get it.

Tactics: K’s, Perms and Theory arguments are clever when done well and lose when done badly. Plan Inclusive Counterplans almost always work against you. If an opponent makes an argument that is unfair, you still have to call them out for it. Otherwise, like unchallenged contentions, it will flow through.

There has been quite a bit of change in the debate community and improvement in tournament activity. You should be proud of your participation. Everyone is in the room because they respect the activity of debate. We can demonstrate that and show our respect for each other. I will listen intently and try to deliver a lucid decision. Sometimes RFD’s delivered quickly can sound abrupt. Please don’t be offended. You are great competitors and often significant academic achievers. Getting better requires understanding why votes go against you, not how wonderful you are. I want to walk away better for hearing your arguments. Good luck and thanks for the opportunity.

Background

I debated parli for four years in high school for both Livermore High School and Mountain View/Los Altos. For two of these years I was active on the NorCal high school circuit. I am continuing debate with Santa Clara University. I am a Computer Science and Engineering student so please don't lie about tech.

Approach to judging

I am not a tabula rasa judge, but I am not going to do work for you or throw out arguments I do not like. Simply I am more likely to buy certain arguments and less likely to buy others.

I come to debate seeing some of the split in the community as a competitor. I believe that debate is both a game and an educational activity. Debate does not occur in a vacuum, and as public speakers or future policy makers, debaters have a responsibility to not use rhetoric upholding racist, sexist, etc ideologies. I will average speaker points based on the tournament average, but will save 30s for exceptional speeches.

Argument preferences

Counterplans: Counterplans are great, but the neg should explain how it competes coming out of the 1NC. Permutations are legitimate, but they are a test of the advocacy, if the aff advocates for the perm, I view that as severance. Kicking CPs is fine as are multiple CPs or advocacies, although I am open to the theory arguments against them as well.

Evaluation order/methods: Framework and arguments may change my evaluation order, but this is the default.. In a tie, I vote neg unless the neg has a CP or other advocacy flowed through at the end of the round, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, and default to net benefits for both..

Impacts: Have impacts and terminalize them. Don’t worry about getting to nuke war unless you have a good linkstory. Dehumanization is important, and discussion of systemic impacts is encouraged. I also like the environment and technology, so impacts based around that may earn you higher speaker points.

Kritiks: I am happy to listen to most kritiks, aff or neg. Kritiks requiring spreading your opponents out of the round are difficult for me to accept and I am more likely to vote on speed theory than many judges in the circuit. If your opponents call slow or clear, slow and/or clear, DO NOT just ignore it. If you are going run a K, make sure you clearly explain how it functions and the literature. I am not conversant at a high level in most literature, and even if I am, it will make the round clearer and more educational for everyone involved. Signpost your K and keep it clear and organized. Also be prepared to give your opponents a copy of the alt text if they ask. I tend to evaluate prefiat arguments first on framework, but I am willing to weigh discursive implications of the postfiat arguments/case against them. I do expect that those facing a K will put in good effort to engage with the K, even if they are looking for me to vote other places on the flow, so argue more than just framework or theory (unless you’re being spread out, in which case that is more acceptable). I am also more willing to weigh generic arguments against the K, but make sure to explain how they interact with this K in particular.

Also stealing something from Julie Herman in how I deal with K alts to encourage more variety and better Ks:

I am trying something new here. I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does.

Theory/Topicality: If you want me to vote for theory, you need to make sure to give it impacts/voters. If you want it to do something else in the round, explain how it should function in the round. I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but please don’t use theory just to beat a less technically skilled debater. Theory has a place both as a strategy and to maintain fairness, but don’t overuse it. I err towards voting to maintain fairness and education, and default to competing interpretations on theory. I will vote on RVIs but not commonly, so make sure you have good reasons for it (ie critical turns or clear times skew).

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I can follow any formatting, but I prefer advantage/disadvantage for policy rounds. I can follow best if you signpost and have a clear structure. Impact calculus and an overview in the final round make my job the easiest.

Tag-teaming: I am fine with tag-teaming, though I will only flow what the current speaker says. If it takes over, it may impact speaker points.

Questions: Points of information are good. Use them strategically to either get the opponents onto another topic or clarify the case or debate. Points of Order stop time, with the side calling the point of order gettting to make their case, then the side defending getting to respond. There shouldn’t be back and forth in this time. I will make a ruling and then time will start again.

Respectfulness: Be respectful! Rhetoric is important and I am very open to voting on issues about speech in round if one side is hostile/offensive towards an oppressed group. I will buy rhetoric turns and rhetoric can undermine your case. I will penalize speaker points for hostile or offensive speech acts regardless of your opponent's’ responses.

Speed: I can follow moderate speeds, but may penalize speaker points if your speed interferes with comprehension. Be respectful of your opponent. If they have a high level of difficulty following your speed and make an impacted argument about it in round, I am open to voting on it. You can decrease the chance of me doing this by slowing/clearing if they yell SLOW or CLEAR. If you repeatedly ignore these requests, I will punish your speaker points. I will call slow or clear if I cannot understand you, but will do this a maximum of 3 times, after that I will just put my pen down and stop flowing if you’re going too fast.

Other: I expect you to provide a written copy of a plan/CP/K thesis/K alt/Interpretation to the opponent if asked, you may want to write it out ahead of time. Any team should be able to call “text” during your speech and you should get them a copy by their speech, but preferably asap. Please read these parts or your speech twice and slow down a little if you are going at any sort of speed.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round.

Hello! My name is Alexander and I've been in the debate world for about 10 years. I view myself as a note-taker and I will do my best to evaluate the arguments on the flow. Here are some of my personal likes and dislikes as a judge. I like lots of warrants, clear explanations of arguments, and impact comparison. I dislike frivolous theory arguments, speed for the sake of speed, and claims without warrants. As a debater I competed nearly 100% of the time using kritikal arguments, so feel free to do your thing, as long as you explain why you deserve the ballot and how the other team can engage in your argument.

Last Updated

11/10/2021

Background

Former coach at Washington HS and New Roads School. Circuit Parli debater at Prospect (2013-17). Former BP debater at USC.

General Ballot

I will vote for mostly anything as long as you explain it well. Please give content warnings pre-roadmap so that strat changes can be made accordingly. Deliberately misgendering a competitor in the round will result in an auto-loss and a not so pleasant conversation with me and a member of tournament staff. As a judge, I’ll vote for the single team that has the clearest path to the ballot. While warranted extensions can be helpful in terms of voting, I very much dislike when teams rely on "extend ___ uniqueness/argument". Chances are, there aren't as many "conceded" arguments as you think there are - don't be lazy on the line-by-line. My default on dropped arguments is that they are true and I will evaluate them as such. If you have questions on presumption, message me. I want it to be easy to vote, so do that for me. Debate is a game (unfortunately?) and as such, everyone is reading arguments in order to either increase and/or secure their chances of a W. Therefore, I find it hard to be convinced that any particular argument ought be banned or norm ought be forgone (e.g., banning the use of back files, shaming speed, disallowing Ks). That DOES NOT mean that I believe that we should abandon common human decency and practices of kindness.

Speed

I will call clear if I have to, but speed generally isn’t a problem. That being said, if your opponents are not able to compete with your speed, I expect that you will adjust accordingly. Please do not read Speed Theory if you are not going to give your opponents the opportunity to slow down (by calling 'slow' or 'clear') in previous speeches. I find it difficult to identify a bright line between conversational, fast and very fast speaking and unless you tell me where the bright line is, therefore it is incredibly difficult for me to evaluate Speed Theory. Keep tag-lines slow just for the sake of me keeping a clean flow. The more signposting you do, the faster I can flow.

Kritiks

I’m down for them as long as they have a link and they aren't being read purely to deny your opponents equitable access to the debate space. Parli generally has larger K frameworks than policy, so I’m down with that default. Please avoid making generalizations about society. In the same vein, I'm inclined to vote against root cause claims without warrants. I think the aff has the ability to leverage the 1AC/plan as offense versus the alt. I find that the debates that are most engaging/convincing, are ones where kritikal teams engage with case and where case teams engage with the criticism.

K affs are all good in policy, but are sketch in parli unless they have a policy alt. If you feel so inclined to read a kritikal affirmative, I expect that you will disclose within 10 minutes of prep. I never read performance Ks, but am down to listen to them. I’ll flow as well as I can, but be ready to explain how you give the neg ground. Very low threshold on offense against truth testing framework. The lit-bases that I am reasonably well-read on include cap, whiteness, neolib, fem and setcol.

Framework debates are my jam.

I am a firm believer that good case/theory debates are more valuable than bad K debates so don't be cheaty just because you have a backfile.

DAs/CP

Make sure to explain how the CP functions in the 1NC. I am not a stickler on CPs being ME so have fun with that. If you choose to read a perm (in most cases, you should), I'd prefer you read a perm text and an explanation for how the permutation has solvency/functions. "Perm, do both" is not a perm text. I am very unlikely to vote on a Delay CP because I have yet to hear a good justification for why delay resolves the harms in squo better than the plan and doesn't bite the DA(s).

Theory

Default to competing interps and no RVIs, and theory coming first. I don’t need articulated abuse to vote on theory, but if it is there, point it out and your speaks will go up. If you are going for theory, you better actually go for it. I probably won’t vote on it if it is 30 seconds in the 2NR/AR. That being said, I really don't expect you to go for every theory arg you read. High threshold for PICs bad and Condo bad. I will not vote for Ks Bad if it is used as an out from actually engaging with critical positions. I also find that generalizing that all Ks are bad does very little to improve the quality of the debate space. If you choose to read a generalized Ks Bar argument, I will need warranting for why the argument you are attempting to mitigate is specifically exclusionary to your team in the round.

Tricks

I'm going to be completely honest and say that tricks go completely over my head. That's not to say they are bad arguments or ineffective but rather that they are often inadequately explained and I fail to find a way to evaluate how they interact with other args on the flow. Riley Shahar is a much better judge for such args.

Weighing

Generally default to probability over magnitude unless you give me a reason otherwise. Weighing is your job, not mine. I need clear impact scenarios to vote for an argument.

Speaker Points -- I will vote on 30 speaks theory

25 - Please take a moment to rethink what you are about to say (P.S stop being racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc)

...

28~28.4 - Some strategic errors but they weren't devastating

28.5~28.9 - Meh, average

29~29.3 - Definitely know what you're doing

29.4~29.9 - Your round vision and strategy was on point

30 - WOOO I SPY A WINNER

General School-Wide Conflicts

New Roads, Prospect, Washington

Miscellaneous

Off-time road maps PLEASE.

Tag-teaming is all good, but don’t be 'that kid' who tag teams the whole time. I'll be rather disgruntled and take it out on your speaks.

Speaks are more based on strategy than anything else. I think that speaker points are pretty bogus considering that style preferences are quite subjective.

Shadow extensions are awful.

I will more than likely be okay with my RFD being recorded for learning purposes. It's generally a more efficient alternative to repeating portions that you didn't manage to write down on your flow. Please ask before you record, I don't want being "on record" to deter other debaters from asking questions.

**Feel free to email with any questions - keskar@usc.edu

or FB message me

Prepping outside of prep time and being disorganized is not okay.

Basic Overview:

I believe it's your burden to tell me how and WHY (very important part) I should vote. If you give me a reason to vote on an RVI, and it goes dropped (I have a very low threshold for beating an RVI), and you go for that warranted RVI in your last speech... I will vote for it, regardless of how icky it feels. If neither team does the work to tell me how and why I vote, and I have to do a lot of work for you, don't be mad if that vote doesn't swing your way.

On LD rules:

For the sake of consistency, you have to tell me if something is in the rules if you want me to vote on it. So if you're going for "that type of counterplan isn't allowed in LD," then you obviously (and inherently) tell me that it's in the rules. The same thing goes for T... I don't NEED other voters, but you do have to tell me it's the rules. Also, I guess you can tell me the rules are bad, but you have to warrant it well.

Speed is also addressed in the rules, but I think that "conversational rate" is an arbitrary term. I'm fine with speed but I prefer that you annunciate. If your speed costs you your clarity, then slow down.

On Theory:

Absent you telling me, I defer to competing interps and potential abuse. That's just how I see debate, and is how I find myself evaluating rounds where no one tells me how to vote but the round clearly comes down to theory.

On Stock Issues:

It's technically in the rules that you have to have these stock issues, so if you're going for "no inherency" or "no propensity to solve" all you really have to do is cite the rules. Refer to my take on the rules.

On the K:

I'm comfortable with critical arguments. I often find that the Alt isn't explained well, and it's a pretty important part of the K because absent the Alt, your K is a nonunique DA. I still think you can claim K turns case absent the Alt, but of course that can be refuted back and forth so it's better to try to win your alt.

On 1AR/1NR/ Theory:

I never see it debated well because of time constraints in LD but sure, I'm open to it. If you're going for it in the 2AR, I imagine you'd really have to go for it.

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

1. The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, and long COVID destroys lives. I will be wearing a mask, and I beg you to do the same if you are in a room where I am judging—both to protect all of us from the continuing pandemic, and because I am particularly at risk due to my own health conditions. I will try to have high-quality masks available to share; if you don't have a mask, I will assume that you were unable to access one, and will not ask further questions beyond a quick request. However, I will have trouble believing critical debate arguments that come from people who are not masked, because it seems to represent a lack of interest in pursuing true community care and justice. I don't know how that fits into a meaningful line-by-line evaluation, but I know that I will be unable to stop myself from being distracted from the round. If that causes issues for you, of course, don't pref me highly!
2. You should be aware that I am still recovering from a series of concussions that mean my ability to follow rapid arguments may be limited. I will tell you if I need you to slow or speak more clearly. Fine with all types of argumentation still, it's just a speed issue. That means I may also need extra time moving between arguments/papers.
3. For a dictionary of terms used in my paradigm (or otherwise common in parli), click here. I recently edited this paradigm to better reflect my current thoughts on debate (mainly the essay on pedagogy, but some other minor alterations throughout), so you may want to look through if you haven't in a while.
4. Take care, all. Tough times.

TL;DR: Call the Point of Order, use weighing and framing throughout, make logical, warranted arguments and don't exclude people from the round. It's your round, so do with it what you will. I won't shake your hands, but sending you lots of good luck and vibes for good rounds through the ether!

Background and Trivia

I did high school parli, then NPDA, APDA, BP, and NFA-LD in college; I've coached parli at Mountain View-Los Altos since 2016. My opinions on debate have perhaps been most shaped by partners—James Gooler-Rogers, Steven Herman, various Stanford folks—as well as my former students and/or fellow coaches at MVLA—particularly William Zeng, Shirley Cheng, Riley Shahar, Alden O'Rafferty, and Luke DiMartino. More recent people who *may* evaluate similarly to me include Henry Shi, Keira Chatwin, Rhea Jain,Renée Diop, and Maya Yung.

I've squirreled (was the 1 of a 2-1 decision) twice—once was in 2016 with two parent judges who either voted on style or didn't explain their decisions (it's been a while! I can't quite remember); the other was at NorCal Champs 2021, I believe because I tend to be fairly strict about granting credence to claims only if they are sufficiently warranted logically, and my brightline for evaluation differed from the brightlines of the other judges for determining that. There was one more time at a recent tournament, but I have forgotten it, sorry!

Most Important

• An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication; blips without meaning won't win you the round. Please, if you do nothing else, justify your arguments: every claim should have a warrant, and every claim should have an impact. The questions I've ended up asking myself (and the debaters) in nearly every round I've judged over the past ~7 years are: Why do I care about that? What is the implication of that? How do these arguments interact? Save us all some heartache and answer those questions yourself during prep time and before your rebuttal speeches.

• In other words—If there is no justification for a claim, the claim does not exist, or at best is downgraded to barely there. I think the most clear distinction between my way of evaluating arguments/avoiding intervention and some other judges' style of doing so is that I default to assuming nothing is true, and require justification to believe anything, whereas some judges default to assuming that every claim is true unless it is disproven.

• Debate should be respectful, educational, and kind. This means I am not the judge you want for spreading a kritik or theory against someone unfamiliar with that. Be good to each other.

• Fine with kritiks, theory, and any counterplans, and fine to arguments against them as well. I don't think arguments automatically must be prioritized over other arguments (via layers), i.e. you need to explain and warrant why theory should be evaluated prior to a kritik for it to do so. If I have to make these decisions myself, in the absence of arguments, you may not like what I come up with! Generally, I think that I probably have to understand something like an epistemological claim (pre-fiat arguments) before I can evaluate a policy debate, but that might not always be the case depending on specific arguments made in round.

• I don't care if you say the specific jargon words mentioned here: just make logical arguments and I'll translate them. If you say theory should be evaluated before case because we need to determine the rules first, but forget/don't know the words "a priori", congrats, the flow will say "a priori".

• Speaking during your partner's speech is fine, so long as the current speaker repeats anything said—I will only flow the current speaker. If you frequently interrupt your partner without being asked (puppeting), I will dock your speaks enough to make a difference for seeding.

• Content warnings are good (link).

• Call the Point of Order.

Pedagogy, or, why are we here? (UPDATED: 3/20/2024)

Debate can be a game, and a fun one at that, but it is not just a game to me—debate is a locus of interrogation, and a place where dominant ideologies can be held up and challenged. At its best, debate is a place where we can learn to speak, advocate, and grow as critical thinkers, participants in political processes, or members of movements organizing towards justice. Some debaters become policymakers, but every debater becomes a member of a society full of structural violence with the capacity to contribute to, or work against, the structures that enable harm.

With that in mind, a few notes (or, sorry, an essay) to consider the pedagogical nature of this space. Within the round, I will not tolerate —phobias, —isms, or misgendering/deadnaming in any debate space that I am a part of. If these things happen, I will dramatically reduce your speaks, and we will talk about it after round, or I will reach out to a coach. I will never vote on arguments that are implicitly harmful (e.g. eugenicist, racist, transphobic) and there is no amount of warranting that can convince me to do so. I am aware that some judges on this circuit intervene against technical arguments like criticism (kritiks) or theory because they believe that technical teams exclude non-technical teams from competition. I believe that technical arguments are a form of inclusion that allow people who have historically been marginalized in debate settings and beyond to engage in rounds in ways that non-technical debate prevents. This means that while I am happy to hear a "lay" round of policy discussion or a values- or principles-based debate, I will always deeply value technical debate education and critical arguments.

However, I know that technical debate can be intimidating: one of the only remaining videos of my debating is NPDI finals, 2014 (ten years ago, can you believe it?)—in which I argued shakily against a kritik at the fastest speed I could and almost fainted after. I learned what kritiks were just two days before that round. For the rest of my high school debate career, I learned about kritiks to beat them, because technical arguments intimidated me. Then, I went to a community college to compete in NPDA, and learned that kritiks are not something to be feared, but just another argument to engage with—one which can provide us with even greater education about the world that we live in and the ways that it harms people, than repeating the same tired arguments about minor reforms that can attempt to solve some minute portion of structural problems.

As someone who works in policy now, I think that the skills we learn from policy rounds are invaluable, but flawed. Uniqueness-link-impact structures are the way that policy analysis works in real life, too, as they correlate to harms, solvency, and implications. Analysis more common in APDA and BP, like incentives or actor analysis, is also pedagogically useful for policy. However, these structures are outdated: working in policy now, I know that one of the most important things we can learn to do is incorporate analysis of racial and other forms of equity into every step of our policy analysis, because the absence of this affirmative effort results in the same inequity and injustice that is embedded in every stage of our political and social systems.

I do not care if that analysis takes the form of structured criticism (kritik), framing arguments, or more unstructured principled argumentation, but I hope that anyone who happens to read this considers ways to incorporate analysis of racial, class, gender, ability, and other inequities into their rounds.

Finally—as a coach who views this activity as a pedagogical one, the most important thing to me is that debaters enter rounds willing to engage with arguments, and exit them having learned something about another perspective on an issue. I am still here to judge and coach, after all these years, because I enjoy being a part of the process of helping people learn how to effectively use their voices in meaningful ways by understanding what is persuasive and what is not.

So, please—be open-minded. If you fear kritiks because they confuse you, let that turn you to curiosity instead of hate. Recognize that kritiks are often a tool by which those of us who are marginalized by this community can, for a few moments, reclaim space, find belonging, and learn about ourselves and others. Ask yourself deeply why it is that you are unwilling to question the structures that govern debate and the world. Do you benefit from them? Do we all? Can't we all learn to think about them too?

Simultaneously, debate's educational value relies on inclusivity—if you run kritiks alongside theory and tricks at top speed on teams that are not comfortable with these things, what are you running the kritik for? How is that an effective form of education? Why do that, when you could simply run a kritik at an understandable speed? In other words—if you read kritiks exclusively to win, and intend to do so by confusing your opponents, I will be a very sad judge at the end of the round (and sad judges are more likely to see more paths to voting against you, of course).

As a whole, then, I am a strange hybrid product of my peculiar debate education. I believe that the best form of parli is somewhere between APDA Motions and national circuit NPDA. This means the rounds I value most are conversational-fast, full of logic without blipped/unsupported claims, use theory arguments when needed to check abuse, do clear weighing and comparative analysis through the traditional policymaker's tools of probability, timeframe, and magnitude, and use relevant critical/kritikal analysis with or without the structure of traditional criticism.

Case

• Rebuttals should primarily consist of weighing between arguments. This does not mean methodically evaluating each argument through probability, timeframe, AND magnitude, but telling a comprehensive story as to how your arguments win the round.

• Adaptation to the round, the judge, and the specific arguments at hand is key to good debate. Don't run cases when they don't apply.

• (UPDATED 11/4/21) I tend to be cautious about the probability of scenarios. This means that I prefer to not intervene or insert my own assumptions about how your link chains connect—if they are not clear, or if they do not connect clearly, I may end up disregarding your arguments. I tend to have a higher threshold on this than most judges on this circuit, courtesy of my APDA/BP roots, so please do not leave gaps!

• Default weighing is silly on principle: I'm not likely to vote for a high-magnitude scenario that has zero chance of happening unless you have specific framing arguments on why I should do so, but if you make the arguments, I'll vote on them. Risk calculus is probability x magnitude mediated by timeframe, so just do good analysis.

• Presumption flows the direction of least change. This means that I presume neg if there is no CP, and aff if there is. I am certainly open to arguments about how presumption should go — it's your round — but I will only presume if I really, truly have to (and if the presumption claims are actually warranted). If you don't have warrants or don't sufficiently compare impacts, I'll spend 5 minutes looking for the winner and, failing that, vote on presumption.

• Fine with perms that add new things (intrinsic) or remove parts of your case (severance) if you can defend them. If you can't, you'll lose– that's how debate works.

• I love deep case debates. In NPDA I enjoyed reading single position cases, whether a kritik read alone or a disadvantage or advantage. These debates are some of the most educational, and will often result in high speaks. I am also a bif fan of critical framing on ads/disads.

• Your cases should tell a story— isolated uniqueness points do not a disadvantage make. Understand the thesis and narrative of any argument you read.

Theory (UPDATED 11/4/21)

• I default to competing interpretations—In theory rounds, I prefer to evaluate the argument by determining which side has the best interpretation of what debate should be, based on the offense and defense within the standards debate.

• I am open to the argument that I should be reasonable instead, but I believe that reasonability requires a clear brightline (e.g. must win every standard); otherwise, I will interpret reasonability to mean "what Sierra thinks is reasonable" and intervene wholeheartedly.

• I view we meets as something like terminal defense against an interpretation—I think that if I am evaluating based on proven abuse, and the interpretation is met by the opposing team, there is no harm done/no fairness and education lost and thus theory goes away. However, if I am evaluating based on potential abuse, I think that the we meet might not matter? (As you can see, I'm currently conflicted on how to evaluate this—if you want to make arguments that even if the interp is met theory is still a question of which team has the better interpretation for debate as a whole (e.g. based solely on potential abuse), I'm open to that too!

• Weighing and internal link analysis are the most important part of theory debates—I do not want to intervene to decide which standards I believe are more important than which counterstandards, etc. Please don't make me!

• Your interpretation should be concise and well-phrased—and well-adapted to the round at hand. In other words, as someone who wrote a university thesis on literary analysis, interp flaws are a big deal to me.

• No need for articulated abuse—if your opponents skew you out of your prep time, do what you can to make up new arguments in round, and go hard for theory. Being able to throw out an entire case and figure out a new strategy in the 1NC? Brilliant. High speaks.

• (UPDATED 5/6/22) Frivolous theory is technically fine, because it's your round, but I won't be thrilled, you know? It gets boring. However—I am very open to theory arguments based on pointing out flaws in a plan text. Plan flaws, like interp flaws, are a big deal to me.

• The trend of constant uplayering seems tedious to me. I would much rather watch a standards debate between two interesting interpretations than a more meta shell without engagement. Your round, but just saying.

Kritiks + Tech

General:

• Kritiks are great when well-run. To keep them that way, please run arguments you personally understand or are seriously trying to understand, rather than shells that you borrowed frantically from elder teammates because you saw your judge is down for them.

• Originality: I most highly value/will give the highest speaks for original criticism—in other words, kritiks that combine theories in a reasonable way or produce new types of knowledge, particularly in ways that are not often represented in parli.

• Rejecting the res (UPDATED 10/9/2021): I tend to think the resolution is the "epicenter of predictability" or whatever the argument is these days. Generally safer to affirm the resolution in a kritikal manner than to reject the resolution outright, unless the resolution itself is flawed, or you have solid indicts of framework prepared. However, if you're ready for it, go for it. Good K vs K debates are my favorite type of debate entirely.

• Exclusion: Don't exclude. Take the damn POIs. Don't be offensive.

• On identity (UPDATED 10/15/2020): All criticism is tied in some way to identity, whether because we make arguments based on the understanding of the world that our subject position allows us, or because our arguments explicitly reference our experiences. I used to ask debaters to not make arguments based on their identities: this is a position that I now believe is impossible. What we should not do, though, is make assumptions about other people's identities—do not assume that someone responding to a K does not have their own ties to that criticism, and do not assume that someone running a K roots it, nor does not root it, in their identity. We are each of us the product of both visible and invisible experiences—please don't impose your assumptions on others. I will not police your choices; just be mindful of the fraught nature of the debate space.

Literature familiarity: In the interest of providing more info for people who don't know me:

• Relatively high familiarity (have studied relatively intensively; familiar with a range of authors, articles, and books): queer theory, disability theory, Marxism and a variety of its derivatives, critical legal theory (e.g. "human rights"), decolonization and "post" colonial studies

• Medium familiarity (have read at least a few foundational books/articles): Afrofuturism, securitization, settler-colonialism, Deleuze & Guattari, orientalism, biopower, security, anti-neoliberalism, transfeminism, basics of psychoanalysis from Freud

• I will be sad and/or disappointed if you read this: most postmodern things that are hard to understand, Lacan, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, any theory rooted in racism, anything that is trans exclusionary.

• I'm still not sure what I think of including a list of authors I'm familiar with, but I think on balance that it is preferable to make this explicit rather than having it in my head and having some teams on the circuit be aware of my interests when other teams are unaware. Don't ever assume someone knows your specific theory or author. Familiarity does not mean I'll vote for it.

Tricksy things

• Conditionality: debates that have collapsed out of arguments you aren't going to win are good debates. If it hurts your ability to participate in the round, run theory.

• Speed: Don’t spread your opponents out of the round. Period. If your opponents ask you to clear or slow, please do so or risk substantial speaker point losses. I've actually found I have difficulty following fast rounds online; I think I'm reasonably comfortable at top high school speeds but maybe not top college speeds. Often the problem is coherency/clarity and people not slowing between arguments—if you aren't coherent and organized, that's your problem.

• On philosophical tricks: I'll be honest: I don't understand many of the philosophical arguments/tricks that are likely to be at this tournament (dammit Jim, I was an English major not a philosophy major!) I will reiterate with this in mind, then, that I will not vote for your blips without warrants, and will not vote for arguments I don't understand. Convince me at the level of your novices.

Points of Order

• I will protect against new information to the best of my ability, but you should call the Point of Order if it's on the edge. If I'm on the edge as to whether something is new, I'll wait for the Point of Order to avoid intervening. After ~2 POOs, I'll just be extremely cautious for the rest of the speech.

Speaker Points (Updated 11/3/18)

25-26: Offensive, disrespecting partner/other debaters, etc.
26-27: Just not quite a sufficient speech— missing a lot of the necessary components.
27-28: Some missing fundamentals (eg poorly chosen/structured arguments, unclear logic chains).
28-28.5: Average— not very strategic, but has the basics down. Around top half of the field.
28.5-29: Decent warranting, sufficient impact calculus, perhaps lacking strategy. Deserve to break.
29-29.5: Clearly warranted arguments, weighable impacts, good strategy, deserve to break to late elims.
29.5-29.8: Very good strategic choices + logical analysis, wrote my ballot for me, deserve a speaker award.
29.9-30: Basically flawless. You deserve to win the tournament, top speaker, TOC, etc (have never given; have known every TOC top speaker for years; can't think of a round where I would ever give this to any of them)

I don't care if you talk pretty, stutter, or have long terrified pauses in your speech: I vote on the arguments.

This paradigm is long. I prefer to err on the side of over-explaining, because short paradigms privilege those who have previous exposure to a given judge, or a given format. I encourage other judges, NPDA and APDA and BP alike, to do the same.

I did 4 years of LD and Parli in high school and then competed for the University of Oregon in Parli and Policy for 4 years.

I've been coaching high school debate for 3 years in Oregon and have had a high amount of rounds lately.

Comparative analysis is important to me. Weighing your arguments (probability, magnitude, timeframe, etc) against your opponents will get you far in rebuttals. Please help me write my ballot for me.

Critical debate is great but one of the reasons communication and lay judges seem to hate it is when teams refuse to explain the thesis of their position. A brief explanation of your position goes a long way and should make critical debate better for everyone involved. And ideally it will make critical debate easier to embrace among the rest of the community. So give an short overview or underview, it's easy. I promise

Going for theory is cool. Badly going for theory is not. So if that's the position you want, go for it. For the whole rebuttal. Seriously. Unless it is completely unanswered, It's very hard for me to justify voting on a theory position if you spend 30 seconds talking about it in the rebuttal and then try to go for everything else too.

Other than that, have fun. Don't be mean. Debate is pretty neat

Updated January 2024

Debate is the best game ever invented and we are all lucky to play it.

My name is Mat Marr and I am the Director of Forensics for Able2Shine and manager of the BASIS Fremont team.

Background: I debated policy in high school for three years including nationals. I qualified for nationals all four years in Foreign Extemp. I switched to LD my senior year and qualified for Tournament of Champions after a strong season on the national circuit. In college my partner and I broke at Parli nationals as freshmen. (Summary, I was decent at debate 20 years ago, but not the best, and I have some experience with all the styles but from judging and coaching in recent years and I am enjoying how debate is evolving.)

I try to be a pure flow judge. I don't flow CX.

Make sure you tell me where to record your arguments and use numbering, so I can track them. Be clear and direct in your refutations to your opponents arguments.

I have no strong biases for or against certain arguments (as a judge). That also means I do not assume impacts, such as topicality being a voter, unless argued in round. Tell me why your arguments are superior in reasoning and/or evidence.

I am fine with speed within reason but think its tactical value is limited.

Most importantly remember what a privilege it is to be able to spend our time debating and treat each other with respect. Thus, please be polite, inclusive and friendly and make the most of the opportunity to debate the important issues in a safe and supportive environment.

Good skill and have fun.

Specific event notes:

Parli- Please take a few questions in each constructive speech.

ToC Parli- I will not protect against new arguments in rebuttal if you choose not to use your point of order. I will vote for any well-argued position but generally enjoy topic specific policy debates.

Public Forum- Feel free to answer rebuttal as the second speech.

I am happy to discuss flows after rounds, find me and we can talk.

For email chains feel free to use my email : AshlandDebateTeam@gmail.com

Summary

I'm a coach that prefers case debate. I'm generally suspicious of all of your claims, so focus on a few arguments where the logic and empirical support all line up.

My Experience

A few years of high school LD and pofo. Five years coaching pofo and parli in the bay area. I’ve judged most styles of debate off and on for over ten years, occasionally at bigger tournaments. I have never been a college debater.

Judging Philosophy

I'm not a blank slate. I speak English and understand many of the shared concepts you need to navigate being an engaged citizen. I read the news and have a decent grip on history. Treat me as an educated adult. Also treat me as someone who has seen enough debate rounds to know that many debaters lie or twist the facts constantly. I will be skeptical of your links and your impacts every step of the way. Make the case for their likelihood. No blippy, jargony taglines where you expect me to fill in what it means. Usually a round comes down to two or three points with me, so quality over quantity should be your mantra. I'm also not an interventionist. I'm here to reward the best debater and won't make arguments on your opponents' behalf. But I have no problem saying that I don't buy an argument, so even when your opponent drops the argument you have to make the case for its likelihood and importance. I am perfectly fine (in fact I encourage) you to dismiss baseless assertions as just that and not spend too much time on them.

Parli-specific Preferences

Please respect the style. Try to make the exchange of ideas work. Parli is not set up for a good spread round; it’s too messy when it’s done. Running arguments in a way that makes it difficult to understand so you can win because your opponents are unable to respond is elitist and antithetical to an activity that should improve communication skills. And prep time is limited, which means a more narrow view of topicality than policy debate (the style) to keep it fair. In practically all cases I'd prefer you just debate the darn topic. No squirrelly definitions that leave no room for the other side.

POIs are meant to be taken in the middle of your speech (I think about 1-2 POIs per constructive is a good norm) and not “saved for the end if you have time.” Also, POO when necessary, but I also see it as my job as judge to keep track of which arguments are new and not vote on them.

Partner Assist

I don’t mind when partners add a quick point either verbally or with paper, but keep it to a minimum. Do not have your partner just repeat what you say for more than a sentence or two.

Counterplans/Perms

I like them both. Tell me if your perm is an advocacy or test. I'm probably more open-minded than most about what counts as a mutually exclusive CP.

Decorum

I like passion, humor, and a no-nonsense style. Thank me once at the end; not every speech. We don’t need to touch hands. Also, read the room: don’t aggressively crush your opponent into oblivion unless they’re willing to do so too. This should be a space for people not trying to verbally body slam each other (and a place where two willing parties can too). Overall, just be polite. This is supposed to be fun.

Kritiks

Philosophy is my lifeblood. I’ve studied it plenty and would rather you not ruin it with your Ks. I can imagine good Ks being run for the right topics, but I’ve definitely never seen them at the high school level. I find them exclusionary and unacademic. However, it’s your debate and if both sides are down to pretend they understand Nietzsche or Foucault or Marx, then fine. But you need to actually explain the theory in your own words and not just with a quick card. However, if talking philosophy actually connects to the topic (instead of avoiding it) then I’m all for it! Again, you need to be able to explain the concept in your own words. I'm also going to be very skeptical of any claim that voting one way or the other will have real world impacts.

Theory

I usually don't vote on theory when the case debate has a clear winner. Sometimes I'll let theory win the round if the case debate is very close. The exception to this is when there's an egregious ground skew, when how they're debating has made things really one-sided. But you need to explain to me the actual arguments or facts that your side should be able to make but can't now because of how they're debating. I think theory arguments can be a reverse voting issue if I hear explanation as to how they are their own kind of abuse.

Overused Words

I'm not sure I know what "dehumanization" or "educationality" really mean anymore. You had better explain it to me.

2020 Update: I am no longer actively involved in the activity, other than judging a few tournaments a year, so my threshold for speed is going to be lower than it has in the past as a result of being rusty at flowing. If you are particularly fast, I would recommend starting at about 75% speed.

Experience: 4 years policy debate at Tualatin High School, 4 years NPDA/NPTE experience at the University of Oregon. 3 years high school coaching experience at Thurston High School.

Quick in prep version: In general I am down with just about anything, however I would much rather hear a good disad than some only tag lines and a bad alternative kritik. Theory was my jam when I was debating, so if you want to read it go ahead, however, I’m not going to vote for you just because you read it, while my threshold is probably lower than most judges I like to pretend I’m not a hack .

Longer (probably unnecessary) version

General Overveiw:

My ideal debate is a strategic topical aff v some CPs and a DA or a topic K. That being said, I tend to be down with anything you want to read in front of me, I believe that it is my job to adapt to you and the arguments you want to read not your job to adapt to me. I am not going to tell you what to or not to read in front of me or reject your arguments on face. I tend to prefer more technical debates where you explain to me how all of the relevant arguments interact at the end of the round over just extending them and making me try to figure it out myself at the end. I want to be able to write my RFD at the end of the round by sticking as much as possible to the flow without having to insert my own analysis, this means I want you to write my RFD for me, tell me why I should vote a particular way at the end of the round.

Impact framing is a lost art, it’s not helpful to just inform me that both teams do, in fact, have impacts. I want to hear how I should evaluate those impacts against each other, ie. Do I care more about fairness or education on the theory flow, is timeframe or magnitude more important, can I even evaluate arguments rooted in some kind of epistemology?

More specific stuff:

Theory/ T : I read a lot of theory when I was debating so I am pretty much able to follow what is going on in complex theory debates, although I would prefer that you slow down a bit when spreading theory since it is more condensed and harder to flow. I evaluate theory just like any other argument, which means I am probably more likley to vote on it than most judges if you go for it correctly. In order to win theory in front of me you are going to need to impact it out and explain what it means for the round. (IE just because they dropped your Consult CP's are illegit argument doesn't mean you insta-win if you don't give me some reason why that theory argument results in a ballot, not just me dropping the CP). I find myself voting a lot this year on teams forgetting to read a counter interp. If I am judging in a competing interps paradigm, which is usually how these things shake out, and there is not either an interp or a counter-interp that you meet I will vote against you regardless of the rest of the flow, as there is not an interp for me to stick your offense to. I think that this is a pretty common way of evaluating theory but I feel it is worth flagging explicitly in my philosophy given that I find myself voting on this a lot.

Framework : Framework was my go-to when debating the K aff. That doesn’t mean that you necessarily shouldn’t or can’t read a K aff in front of me, just be aware than I’m not going to be one of those judges that just ignores the argument for some vague political reason.

K affs : I would prefer that if you are going to read an aff that isn’t topical that you have some good justification for doing so, I am not really interested in your “I read a cool book and here is my book report” project.

Ks : I am down with the K, however there are some recent trends in the kritik that I feel need some addressing here. First, Marx was my bread and butter and I am fairly deep in that literature, but outside of that and maybe Heidegger you should not assume that I am incredibly well read in your lit base. That doesn’t mean that you can’t read your K in front of me, it just means that you are going to need to do some more explaining. Second, there has been a tendency of K’s becoming just a list of tag lines, that then get extended as arguments later in the debate. If your K sounds like this I am probably going to give the other team a lot more leeway in reading new arguments when your K finally becomes something in the block.

CP/ DA : Ayyyyyyyyy

I approach a debate round very similarly to a normal conversation. I expect respect out of competitors; it's an easy way to lose if you act rudely. I'm a big opponent of spreading-- if the point is to convince me, saying more doesn't mean you say it better. Organization goes miles. I'll flow your points much easier if you give me tags and show me where you're at on the flow. I've been judging for three years, though I never competed myself. My son has debated for four years and he's given me *some* understanding of framework, but don't expect me to be fluent with theory and technical aspects. Overall, if you come in and give a fair, reasoned, considerate argument, you'll do great.

I love World Schools Debate and have been coaching the South Oregon teams since NSDA started hosting it at the National Tournament. I believe you should adapt to the style you are given, so please consider what the expectations of this activity are before you enter into the round. Beyond the generic expectations of WSD, here are the things I'm specifically looking for:

A collegial atmosphere: Debate is about more then the win-loss record. Respect your opponents and the activity.

A broader world view: WSD asks us to join the community of nations and debate in a less US-centric model. That said, this year's topics are very US based at times. I will consider that when weighing your ability to adapt to me expectations.

Logical, well-supported arguments: You do not need to overwhelm me with evidence, but I do expect to hear some. The Tag,Card/Tag,Card approach is not going to win my ballot. Be sure you explain your ideas and listen to each other's evidence.

Good luck, and let's have a great round.

Hey, my name is Kevin Ozomaro; I am a communication graduate student and graduate assistant coach at the University of the Pacific. Before my time at UOP, I competed for Delta college and CSU Sacramento, where I competed in parli and LD debate. That being said, most of my debate knowledge is geared towards LD debate. That doesn't mean I don't understand parli; it just means that I'm more comfortable with arguments commonly found in LD. I've coached debate at all levels, from k-12 to college. I have learned a lot over my time in forensics, but that doesn't mean I know everything! If you are reading something that a communication grad student wouldn't understand at 500 words a minute, maybe you shouldn't read it or slow down and explain it to me. Below are some basics to how I view and judge debate.

NPTE People:

Low pref if:

1. you like K affs that are confusing( Sunbutthole K, pretty much any racist shittt)

2. You think condo or not condo is the most important thing in the world. Yes I'm from UOP but I don't care mannnn

3. you think reject is a great alt

High pref if:

1. Afro anything K / identity K

2. neolib K

3. Heg debate/ or militarism or militarization

4. not a fan of spreading

The Basics: because I know you don't want to read...

• In NFA-LD Post AFFs you have run on the case list or I get grumpy (https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/)

• Use speechdrop.net to share files in NFA-LD and Policy Debate rounds

• NOTE: If you are paper only you should have a copy for me and your opponent. Otherwise you will need to debate at a slower conversational pace so I can flow all your edv. arguments. (I'm fine with faster evidence reading if I have a copy or you share it digitally)

• I'm fine with the a little bit of speed in NFA-LD and Parli but keep it reasonable or I might miss something.

• Procedurals / theory are fine but articulate the abuse

• I prefer policy-making to K debate. You should probably not run most Ks in front of me.

• I default to net-benefits criteria unless you tell me otherwise

• Tell me why you win.

• If you are rude I will drop you. Its kinda simple don't be a butthole. Examples are not slowing and spreading someone out of the round.

General Approach to Judging:

I really enjoy good clash in the round. I want you to directly tear into each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments I'm going to be disappointed.

Organization: is very important to me. Please road map and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around—if necessary—but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Clever tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps.

I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it.

If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won't. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I'm always happy to discuss the round at some other time during the tournament.

Kritiques: I'm probably not the judge you want to run most K's in front of. In most formats of debate, I don't think you can unpack the lit and discussion to do it well. If you wish to run Kritical arguments I'll attempt to evaluate them as fairly as I would any other argument in the round.I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has. Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument. Educate us as you debate. You should probably go slower with these types of positions as they may be new to me, and i'm very unlikely to comprehend a fast kritik. If I can't understand the K I will not vote on it, doesn't matter if it goes dropped if I have zero idea what is going on I will not vote on it. That goes for both K affs and neg K's.

I will also mention that I'm not a fan of this memorizing evidence/cards thing in parli. If you don't understand a critical/philosophical standpoint enough to explain it in your own words, then you might not want to run it in front of me.

Weighing: Please tell me why you are winning. Point to the impact level of the debate. Tell me where to look on my flow. I like overviews and clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I'm in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Do some impact calculus and show me why you won.

Speed: Keep it reasonable. In parli speed tends to be a mistake, but you can go a bit faster than conversational with me if you want. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you can't do that and go fast, slow down. If someone calls clear…please do so. If someone asks you to slow down please do so. Badly done speed can lead to me missing something on the flow. I'm pretty good if I'm on my laptop, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were effectively able to.

Speed in NFA-LD: I get that there is the speed is "antithetical" to nfa-ld debate line in the bylaws. I also know that almost everyone ignores it. If you are speaking at a rate a trained debater and judge can comprehend I think you meet the spirit of the rule. If speed becomes a problem in the round just call "clear" or "slow." That said if you use "clear" or "slow" to be abusive and then go fast and unclear I might punish you in speaks. I'll also listen and vote on theory in regards to speed, but I will NEVER stop a round for speed reasons in any form of debate. If you think the other team should lose for going fast you will have to make that argument.

Evidence: If you do not flash me the evidence or give me a printed copy, then you need to speak at a slow conversational rate, so I can confirm you are reading what is in the cards. If you want to read evidence a bit faster...send me you stuff. I'm happy to return it OR delete it at the end of the round, but I need it while you are debating.

Safety: I believe that debate is an important educational activity. I think it teaches folks to speak truth to power and trains folks to be good citizens and advocates for change. As a judge I never want to be a limiting factor on your speech. That said the classroom and state / federal laws put some requirements on us in terms of making sure that the educational space is safe. If I ever feel the physical well-being of the people in the round are being threatened, I am inclined to stop the round and bring it to the tournament director.

Thanks, Ryan guy of Mjc

I'm game for mostly anything. If you are going to use a K, try to stick with canonical K's. If you want to run a crazy K, feel free to. Just keep in mind that I'm probably going to be less receptive to it. I also will willingly vote for T and FW as long as you all use impact calc. I feel like I'm a pretty relaxed judge, just be respectful to me and the other debaters.

This is my eighth year in the speech and debate community. I competed for four years in high school, three years in college, and this is my second year coaching at Wilson High School. I'm familiar with all forms of high school debate, but CX debate is where I feel most at home. I believe each type of debate is unique and should be treated as such - if you want to do policy debate, do policy debate!

I expect policy Affs to uphold the resolution and critical Affs to link to the resolution. I admittedly have a bias for real world policy cases, but I'm willing to vote on the K if it's ran well. I have seen critiques ran well on the college circuit, but yet to see one convincing enough to vote on while judging high school debate. Flashing does count as prep time; when the flash drive is out of your computer I will stop the timer. Prep time will not be taken for your opponents to open up the file. Tag-team CX is not allowed and if competitors repeatedly do it then speaks will be docked. I have two thoughts on topicality. There's 'legit' topicality and then there's 'its's another argument' topicality. If it's obvious the Aff isn't topical I will have a bias for the Neg's topicality arguments. If it's obvious the Neg is running topicality just to throw it out there, I'll treat it like any other argument. Speed is fine. Just slow down on the tag/cite.

Tell me how to vote in the final speeches. (What I should value / what matters and why.) If no framework is given, I generally default to utilitarianism.

As a judge, I do my best to maintain an open mind and to be receptive to a diversity of arguments and speaking styles. With that said, I value strong communication, and to my mind, that means presenting organized and thoroughly developed cases.

I competed in parli and LD in high school and have judged regularly since then. I am now a high school English teacher at South Medford, and perhaps predictably for a teacher, I expect competitors to treat each other with respect and to avoid flippant comments. If you have any additional questions, please let me know before the round.

EMAIL (for email chains/mid-round memes): mikayiparsons@gmail.com

I use they/them pronouns! Please respect that! For example: "Mikay is drinking coffee right now. Caffeine is the only thing that gives them the will to keep flowing."

NPDA:

I debated for Lewis & Clark in parli for 4 years and coached at SDSU for 2. I liked policy and critical debate - no preferences there, read what you want to read. Some caveats: especially in K v K debates, I am prone to buy your argument more if you spend time explaining your method/advocacy, how it solves, and why it's better than the other one (hopefully with offense!). If I can't explain what your solvency mechanism is as I am writing my RFD, there is a low likelihood that I will vote on it. For theory debates, if you do not collapse and choose to go for theory and other offense, there is a low likelihood that I will vote on the theory. If you clearly win the sheet in a way that requires absolutely no intervention on my part fine, but that is highly unlikely if you are not collapsing. Be nice, have fun, and maybe read some overviews or something idk.

I've been out of the college parli world for a few years, so I do not know the current popular blocks/arguments being read. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read them; just take the extra 10 seconds to explain why you are reading what you are reading, add some warrants that others might fill in for you in their heads, etc. I am also not as fast of a flower as I was a few years ago, so I may ask you to slow down (I want to get as clean and accurate of a flow as possible!). I've outlined some more specific preferences in the high school section below, but I am happy to answer any questions you may have!

ALL HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE:

Background: I competed in high school Policy for two years on a not very good Idaho circuit, with a few LD/Pf tournaments thrown in the mix. Additionally, I competed for Lewis & Clark College in Parliamentary Debate for four years. The majority of the literature I have read involves critical feminism and queer theory and phenomenology, which makes me pretty decent at understanding the majority of critical debates. In debate, however, I probably read policy/straight up arguments at least 70% of the time, and thus can understand those debates just as well.

The way to get my ballot: I appreciate well warranted debates that involve warrant and impact comparison. Please make the debate smaller in the rebuttals and give a clear story for why you have won the debate. This limits the amount of intervention that is required of me/all judges and will make all of our lives much easier. I will auto-drop teams that yell over their competitors' speeches or belittle/make fun of the other team/me. I value debate as an accessible, educational space, and so if you prevent it from being either of those two things, I will let you know.

Speed: I was a somewhat fast debater and can typically keep up in the majority of rounds. If you are reading cards, slow down for tag lines, author affiliations, advocacies, and interpretations, because those are pretty important to get down word for word, but feel free to go fast through the rest of the card. If you are cleared/slowed by the other team and do not slow down/become more clear, I will give you low speaks (again, debate is good only insofar as it is educational and accessible - spreading people out of the debate is boring and a silly way to win).

Theory: I love theory and believe it is currently underutilized in high school debate. I appreciate well thought out interpretations and counter-interpretations that are competitive and line-up well with their standards/counter-standards, as well as impacted standards that tie in with your voters. Theory is a lot of moving parts that require you fit them together into a coherent story.

Condo: I think conditionality is very good for debate, but also love hearing a good theory debate about condo. I have a pretty level threshold for voting either way, so have the debate and I will decide from there.

Critical affs/negs: I love hearing K's that are run well, both on the aff and neg! I have voted for and run critical affirmatives, and have also run/voted on framework answers to those very affirmatives. I am about as middle of the road as you can get, so again have the debate and I will decide from there based upon the arguments presented in round.

Finally, if you've made it this far, please please please do what you can to make debate educational, accessible, and worth all of our time. Coming in and being mean/spreading out some novices will not make you better debaters, so there is no point in doing so! This activity means so much to so many people; the least we can all do is be respectful of those around us.

While clear argument structures and strong factual evidence are important in debate, and will certainly be looked for. I will also look for a heavy use of clever wit in arguments in oder to create a compelling position.

If you are reading this, that means I'm judging you. The important thing to know is that you can do whatever you want as long as its cool and you are having fun. Also, I'll probably get lost in your kritik if you don't make it simple enough. That doesn't mean I won't vote for it, just that I want to be able to understand it before I vote on it. Also this is the first tournament I've judged in a year and a half


With topicality, I prefer proven abuse over potential, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on T if its far enough out there, but don't try and run "T:The" cause you aren't going to win that, and I am going to be frustrated. My threshold for T normally lies with the education voter.

With kritiks, I'm probably not the most well read judge, but I've read enough to understand the basic kritiks if you feel like that is the ground you have been given in the round (cap, imperialism, etc. Just please don't run deluze) I do my best to understand what you are telling me in round, but please break it down for me. I'm not going to be the most well read judge, so don't expect me to understand what you mean when you say the trees are fascist

Disads, go for it. Give me the weirdest most plausible story you can think of. I'm willing to vote on either probability or magnitude with probably a minor bias towards probability, however if you are both going for the same thing, time frame and reversibility are good tie breakers.

Counter plans: Condo isn't to bad, but don't run 3 counterplans with no expansion in the first neg speech and expect to win the condo debate

Memes? I fucking love memes and I fully appreciate the strategy of using memes in round

Quals: Debated for 3 years, coaching/judging for 2 years. And a year and a half of working in sales

Erik Pielstick – Los Osos High School

(Former LD debater, long-time debate judge, Long-time high school debate coach)

Parliamentary Debate Paradigm

Parli is intended to be a limited preparation debate on topics of current events and/or common knowledge. Therefore I would view it as unfair for a team to present a case on either the Government or Opposition side which cannot be refuted by arguments drawn from common knowledge or arguments that one would have been expected to have done at least a minimal amount of research on during prep time if the topic is very specific.

The Government team has the responsibility of presenting a debatable case.

The opposition team needs to respond to the Government case. In most cases I would not accept kritik of the resolution as a response. DEBATE THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH!

Parli should not involve spreading because it is not a prepared event. You can speak quickly (180 - 220 wpm) but you should be clear. Speed should never be used as a strategy in the round. I will not tell you if you are going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments.

Parli is not policy debate and it is not LD. Don't try to make it about reading evidence. I will vote based on the arguments presented in the round, and how effectively those arguments were upheld or refuted. Good refutation can be based on logic and reasoning. Out-think, out-argue, out-debate your opponent. So, yeah, I'm old-school.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm

I value cleverness, wit, and humor.

That said, your case can be unique and clever, but there is a fine line between clever and ridiculous, and between unique and abusive. I can’t say where that line is, but I know it when I see it.

Affirmative debater should establish a framework that makes sense. Most debaters go with the “value”/“value criterion” format, but it could probably be a cost-benefit debate, or some other standard for me to judge the debate. I want to see clash. The negative debater could establish the debate as a clash of competing values, a clash of criteria for the same value, or a clash over whether affirming or negating best upholds aff value with the neg offering no value of their own.

The affirmative wins by upholding the resolution. The negative wins by proving the resolution to be untrue in a general sense, or by attacking the affirmative's arguments point by point. I generally look to the value or framework first, then to contentions. Arguments must be warranted, but in LD good philosophy can provide a warrant. Respond to everything. I will accept sound logic and reasoning as a response.

I listen well and can keep up aurally with a fast delivery (200wpm), but I have trouble flowing when someone is spreading. If you want me to keep track of your arguments don’t spread. I won’t penalize excessive speed with my ballot unless it is used as a strategy in the round against someone who is not able to keep up. Debate is a communicative activity - both debaters need to be able to understand each other, and I need to be able to understand the debate. No, I will not tell you if you're going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments. Ultimately, I’m old-school. I debated LD in the 80s and I prefer debaters who can win without spreading.

A good cross examination really impresses me. I tend to award high speaks to great cross examinations, cross examination responses may be part of my flow.

I generally don’t like theory arguments, but in rare cases I would vote for a well-reasoned theory or abuse argument. Fairness is a voting issue.

I generally dislike kritiks in LD. A committee of very smart people spent a lot of time and energy writing the resolution. You should debate the resolution.

Also, I HATE policy arguments in LD. LD was created as a value-based alternative to policy debate. The NSDA and CHSSA, still to this day, describe LD as a debate of values and/or questions of justice and morality. CHSSA actually went so far as to make it a violation of the rules to run a plan or counterplan in a CHSSA event. If someone wants to run a plan they should learn to get along better with others, find a partner, and do Policy Debate.

Finish with clear, concise voting issues. Talk me through the flow. Tell me why you win.

Finally, debate is intellectual/verbal combat. Go for the kill. Leave your opponent’s case a smoldering pile of rubble, but be NICE about it. I don’t want any rude, disrespectful behavior, or bad language. Keep me interested, I want to be entertained.

Hey I'm Ming. I'm a freshman debater for UC Santa Barbara and former debater for Campolindo High. If you care about my high school cred look me up here. On the college NPDA/NPTE circuit I've broken fairly far at all the tournaments I've attended and am fresh back from nationals to judge TOC, so clearly I'm sort of a debate junkie. Paradigm wise, TL;DR: I view debate as a game where debaters can read anything and I will evaluate arguments purely on the flow and try my best to minimize intervention. That means feel free to read your Kritikal Affs, multiple conditional advocacies, truth-testing positions, straight case, etc. as long as you win the justification. I understand prep is limited and you may not always have time to sift through a paradigm, so if you have any questions before the round, feel free to ask.

Speaker Points:

Unfortunately I am not a points fairy so if you're after that shiny, faux-gold speaker award I'm not the judge for you (Good Anakin, good. Strike him. Strike him now.). I generally give points between 26-29, where 27 is average and 29 is exceptional. I assign speaker points purely based off the technical debating ability demonstrated in round. Pathos is something that I value very little except in the context of performative arguments.

Theory:

Absent comparison this is broadly speaking the first level I look towards in evaluation. If the team defending against theory is lacking a counter interpretation and has lost the competing interpretations vs reasonability debate, then it is a near auto-lose for them. If a theory position lacks "drop the team" in the original shell I am inclined to buy "drop the debater" arguments as sufficient reason to not evaluate theory. On the question of potential vs articulated abuse, I am happy to vote on reasons why interpretations setting a potentially bad norm for debate is sufficient to pull the trigger. The implication for this is that "trivial" T does not necessarily have a higher threshold for evaluation and is an argument I am comfortable voting on if it's won. MG theory is also a perfectly fine strategy in front of me, although I'm very slightly more favorable to infinite regression arguments on metatheory debates. RVIs are fine as well, but I default to not evaluating a shell if it is won, not voting the team reading it down for losing it. I am also very open to uniqueness take out on debate collapse voters.

The Framework debate is my favorite and the kind of argumentation I am most comfortable evaluating. In my experience the most convincing framework standards are TVA, Switch-Side, and Truisms, but that doesn't mean simply uttering the words will win you the round. The most interesting points of clash in such debates are on the relevance of procedural fairness in the round and the role of the negative in debate. Another question to consider is whether only this round is relevant or whether each round is a deliberation of what the model of debate should be. One thing for 2ACs is that there is often a massive block of prepped defense and mitigation ya'll love to dump, which is perfectly fine, but I find cross-apps of case more convincing.

Kritik:

I'm fine with any kind of kritikal debate. Some of the most exciting rounds to watch are K on K debates with lots of thesis level clash e.g. Literally Anything vs Cap 🤔. I have a broad understanding of most post-modern and post-structuralist literature, including DnG, Lacan, Foucault/Agamben, Heidegger, Derrida, Baudrillard. However I am only human so please don't spread through densely cut cards from the Anti-Oedipus at warp speed and slow down a bit on thesis level claims. As a competitor I also read a lot of Asian-American sociological literature, and am familiar with such arguments as Model Minority, Conscientization, Asian Rage, etc. I also have a fairly comprehensive (although in no way definite) understanding of Wilderson. However my favorite philosophy of all has to be Buddhism, be it Mahayana, Theravada, Huayan, Sogen, Zen, Chan, etc. Daoism is also fascinating to me and is an area I am well-versed in.

If you're reading a K in front of me just make sure it has FW, Thesis, Links, Impacts, Alt, Alt Solvency. There's no flex time at TOC so I'll grant some leniency in terms of passing sheets for FW interps and Alt texts. Obviously Aff/Topic-Specific links are preferred but not necessary. FW should generally have a role of the critic/judge/ballot/debate argument with reasons to prefer. PIK alts are acceptable strategies, and I'm fine with the hidden reveal in the MO that the "Alt was a PIK all along!"

Case:

Nothing wrong with a good Politics DA. I wasn't the most prolific debater on case, usually reading DAs as a throwaway to something else, but I still expect ADs/DAs to have terminalized impacts and clear link stories. One thing debaters in HS tend to do is A. Not read impact framing B. Only compare the magnitude of the impacts. Weighing strength of link is something that will make my decision a lot easier. I believe terminal defense exists. If both teams are winning terminal defense then presumption flows negative. If the negative reads a non-PIC advocacy and both teams have terminal defense then presumption flows affirmative. Additionally, the uniqueness debate is one frustratingly undercovered with few teams comparing the quality of their evidence. As for types of arguments, I am fine with any kind of counterplan or case position.

Truth-Testing:

I understand truth-testing isn't the norm in Parli (and it hasn't been the norm for circuit LD/CX for a long time) but that shouldn't discourage you from reading the argument. I am perfectly fine abandoning an offense-defense paradigm in favor of truth-testing. Moral Skep, Trivialism, Rule-Following Paradox, Münchhausen trilemma, etc. are all acceptable positions for both teams.

Miscellaneous:

Sometimes I may frown while I flow. I promise I'm not mad at you, it's just my natural thinking face and sort of a tic. I'd rather not shake hands, although I've found that if you happen to extend your hand towards me I react out of instinct. Just know that I'm crying slightly inside because I don't have the best immune system in the world and medicine is expensive dawg.

Jean Ward Update, 17 January 2019:

Nothing new - just note that everything below applies equally (to the extent that it applies at all) to policy as well.

Parli TOC Update, 19 March 2018:

Hi! I do College Parli (NPDA) at Lewis & Clark College (class of 2020) in Portland, Oregon.

The rather long paradigm below is specific to LD, but many elements of it generalize to parli as well. I will abbreviate the important ones here. Any questions, please ask!

I recall being intimidated by paradigms due to the language they tend to employ and the power relation between judges and competitors. I promise I want debate to be as fun and enjoyable as possible!

X. Please be respectful, ask for pronouns, and do not misgender others.

Relatedly and in general, I think is much better to refer to the other team in third person plural than singling out any debater.

1. Do whatever style best suites you and I will do my best to evaluate it according to how you tell me I should.

2. I don't want you to have to change what you came into the tournament planning to do just because I'm your judge. I will strive to be understanding of you and other debaters.

3. Please respect each other in round. I am quite averse to intervening on substance, but I am not at all averse to intervening if a debater is being exclusionary. I do not wish to be carceral or punitive, but I cannot condone such behavior.

4. I strictly prefer to let debaters figure things out for themselves. For example: I don’t think that I need to have a bias against “frivolous theory” because, if a shell is truly frivolous, then it should be easily beaten.

5. I really appreciate when debaters tell me how they intend/believe their arguments function, because it reduces the likelihood of them being strawpersonned in round, and reduces the likelihood of intervention quite a bit.

6. The presence of nearly any argument on a paradigmatic issue, like competing interps vs. reasonability, means I will assume that paradigm. I consider 'defaults' to be interventionist. If I must default in some way, I'll pick the default that alters the outcome of the round the least.

7. If some aspect of my behavior is distracting, or makes you feel uncomfortable, please let me know in any way that you feel comfortable doing so. However, the burden is on me as a judge, not you, and I recognize that.

8. In general, I will vote on anything. Tech over truth. However, having truth on your side makes the ‘tech’ easier, and I believe that that is a powerful check against arguments that should not win rounds. Of course, I will not sign my ballot in favor of arguments such as "racism good," and the like.

9. For me, debate in high school would’ve been much more fun and enjoyable if my judges were more open minded and less dogmatic, so I want to give that to you.

10. Please repeat theory interpretations, role of the ballot/judge texts, advocacy/plan/counterplan/alt texts, and anything else of that nature after you read them, or read them quite slowly once. I don't need you to read them slowly twice, though. Just slowly once or quickly twice is adequate. I ask this of you in the interest of minimizing intervention.

11. Please number and organize your arguments. I'll say “clear” or “slow” as many times as I need to. I won't give up on flowing you. As long as you’re making an effort to be clear and slow enough for myself and others, that is good enough for me, and you may go as fast as you like.

12. Call the point of order. I'll likely know if something is new, but I'm averse to making that judgement alone.

Critical/Preclusive Notes

If I am judging you and the building is far away/you, for whatever reason, don't have enough time to read this, then just ask me before the round and I'll summarize it for you.

If asking me specific questions before the round would be more time efficient, comfortable, or helpful for you, then I’ll gladly do that as well/instead. If there’s something you need to know about my judging that is critical to how you wish to engage in the debate, in whatever way, then I will be as honest and forthcoming with that information as possible, and I hope that you will be comfortable with asking me any necessary questions.

The below paradigm only discusses LD, because that’s the event that I did most in high school and prefer to judge. However, anything within it that isn’t LD-specific applies to other events as well.

About Me – Geographical and Competitive History

I debated for four years at Sprague High School (class of 2016) in Salem, Oregon. I began with Parli and Public Forum, but then switched to LD and debated both traditionally and on the national circuit for roughly 3 years from then on. I qualified to NSDA Nationals 3 times in LD, and earned 2nd Place in Extemporaneous Debate there my sophomore year, and 15th place in LD there my junior year. My senior year, I qualified to the TOC in LD and went 4-3.

I now do College Parli (NPDA) at Lewis & Clark College (class of 2020) in Portland, Oregon.

About Me – Argumentative History

As I said, I debated both progressively and traditionally, so I’m familiar and comfortable with either style, or something entirely outside the traditional definitions of either.

I would hope that the types of arguments I have read/now read don’t have any influence on the way you wish to debate, or the ways that I am predisposed to adjudicate rounds, but for transparency’s sake, I’ll list them here.

I preferred to debate fast and technically. In LD I preferred thick philosophical frameworks, strict interpretations of those frameworks throughout the round, as well as my fair share of tricks. I didn’t really have a “pocket K” in high school, but I enjoyed reading Jungian Psychoanalysis, the Hierarchal Complexity Kritik that many have read in LD recently (perhaps best called “Oppression Weighing Bad”), Spivak, Neoliberalism, and some others. If you would like to see what I read at TOC my senior year to get a better idea of what I was like, feel free to look at my 2016 Circuitdebater page.

In College Parli I’ve branched out. I almost never cared much for LARPing (roleplaying as the government and loosely using a utilitarian/consequentialist calculus) in high school, but now I do. I’ve grown to really enjoy reading T/Theory, and I enjoyed debating the Elections DA until the Uniqueness came to a sad and surprising end recently. As for Ks, I’ve read Rancière, Welsh, Agamben, Nietzsche, and Virilio.

My Broad Paradigm

Because I think that Phil/FW debate is dying in LD, I’ll boost both sides’ speaks to reward engaging in an in-depth framework debate. An example would be Emotivism vs. Deontology.

I want to leave as much to you and the other debater as possible. I do not want to be selfish and try to impose my conceptions of debate on you. I'm judging because I like watching debate, not because I like only a certain kind of debate. Do whatever style best suites you and I will do my best to evaluate it according to how you tell me I should. Whether that's LARP, tricks, theory, performance, Ks, something brand new, something everyone else does, whatever it is, that's cool.

I really want to be a low anxiety judge—I don't want you to have to change what you came into the tournament planning to do just because I'm your judge. I will strive to be understanding of you and other debaters.

Please respect each other in round. I am quite averse to intervening on substance, but I am not at all averse to intervening if a debater is being exclusionary and violent. I do not wish to be carceral or punitive, but I cannot condone such behavior.

I strictly prefer to let debaters figure things out for themselves. For example: I don’t think that I need to have a bias against “frivolous theory” because, if a shell is truly frivolous, then it should be easily beaten.

I really appreciate when debaters tell me how they intend/believe their arguments function, because it reduces the likelihood of them being strawpersonned in round, and reduces the likelihood of intervention quite a bit.

Defaults

The presence of nearly any argument in the round that has bearing on a paradigmatic issue means that I will abandon my search for an appropriate default and use that argument to frame my evaluation of offense. (I say “nearly any” because it’s a question of whether such an argument has bearing on that paradigm. “Util Good” may be a reason to prefer comparative worlds, but the fact that the sky is blue likely doesn’t imply truth testing, for example. My tolerance for my own intervention is so low, however, that I would like a response to such supposedly-frivolous arguments nonetheless.)

I don’t really have a set of things that I could call defaults. What I would be inclined to default to is context sensitive and depends on what exactly happens in the round. If both debaters assume/agree to Util, but don’t justify a comparative worlds paradigm, (over truth testing, offense-defense, best justification, etc.) of course I’ll default to comparative worlds. I prefer that things like that are justified though, particularly if there is a conflict and it matters, such as the common case of one debater truth testing and one comparing worlds.

Please justify the paradigm for evaluating theory, such as competing interpretations or reasonability. Reasonability scares me a bit because I don’t like the idea of me “gut checking” things, so if you win that reasonability is the best theory paradigm, then please clarify it further. Establishing a ‘brightline’ for reasonability would help everyone understand, engage, and evaluate your arguments on theory that depend on it.

If I had to default between competing interps and reasonability, I would choose the way that has the least direct causal impact on my evaluation of the round. This method of defaulting is one that I will attempt to use on other paradigmatic issues as well. Essentially, if someone seems to be winning theory for the most part, and competing interpretations and reasonability aren’t debated at all, then I’ll default to whichever prevents me from having to undermine and circumvent that debater’s winning of theory. If that’s too difficult for me to do, then I’ll default to competing interps and weigh offense and defense between either explicit or implicit interps on the theory debate.

Conduct

If I am on a panel, I will not talk to other judges unless I feel that it is absolutely necessary and critical to the round/tournament/somebody’s wellbeing. If not, I feel that judges talking to each other during a debate round, especially a high-stakes outround, is distracting and disrespectful to some debaters, and I want people to be able to focus.

If some aspect of my behavior is distracting, or makes you feel uncomfortable, please let me know in any way that you feel comfortable doing so. However, the burden is on me as a judge, not you, and I recognize that.

Arguments in General

In general, I will vote on anything. Tech over truth. However, having truth on your side makes the ‘tech’ easier, and I believe that that is a powerful check against arguments that should not win rounds.

Of course, I will not sign my ballot in favor of arguments such as “racism good,” and the like.

Other than that, I don’t have a preference for some arguments over others. I don’t want to be dogmatic, and attempting to appeal to my intuitions/background as a debater isn’t persuasive to me.

I think that what counts as ‘offense’ or an ‘argument’ varies greatly, and that arguments come in many forms through a variety of different avenues and mediums.

For me, debate in high school would’ve been much more fun and enjoyable if my judges were more open minded and less dogmatic, so I want to give that to you.

Speaking

As someone who always has a very dry mouth/has a hard time swallowing/is frequently sick, I’m not a stickler for clarity. I don’t listen to card texts very carefully in constructives because, if my job is to listen to and clearly understand the card text, then tags are redundant. I’ll call for cards if asked, but I’ll go by tags/analytics/extensions if not regardless, because these are the actual arguments made by debaters.

If there is something that will impact your ability to present your arguments, let me know if you feel comfortable doing so. I would hate to put you at a competitive disadvantage. If you feel it is necessary, I can flow your speech off of a flash/email of your speech doc. Otherwise, I only ask that you try your absolute best to be slow and clear on tags and analytics.

Please repeat theory interpretations, role of the ballot/judge texts, advocacy/plan/counterplan/alt texts, and anything else of that nature after you read them, or read them quite slowly once. I don't need you to read them slowly twice, though. Just slowly once or quickly twice is adequate. I ask this of you in the interest of minimizing intervention.

If you need to pause your time to take a drink of water or something like that, that’s totally cool. It’ll help your clarity and comfort so I think that it’s conducive to everything. Just please don’t use this as a way to steal prep; I trust that you won’t. I don’t consider this to be allowing prep during a speech, because every time I take a drink of something I’m thinking “don’t spill don’t spill don’t spill” in my head anyway.

Please differentiate noticeably between the end of a card/argument and the beginning of the next. "And," "next," "second," and the like are very helpful.

I'll say “clear” or “slow” as many times as I need to. I won't give up on flowing you. As long as you’re making an effort to be clear and slow enough for myself and others, that is good enough for me. If you slow down on tags, texts, and analytics, and differentiate between the beginnings and ends of arguments, that makes up for higher speed and less clarity elsewhere.

I won’t penalize speaks for speaking issues.I decide them based on a variety of factors. They’re inevitably arbitrary, but this eliminates at least one fairly arbitrary factor from the mix, and any penalization (whether deserved or not, unfortunately) for speaking comes in the form of me missing arguments anyway. I see no reason to add to that by penalizing speaks as well.

I think that I am, and I do strive to be, more generous on speaks than other judges. That is my method of approaching how arbitrary they are. I haven't judged a lot, so I'm not sure what my average will be.

Card Calling

I will call cards for the purpose of evaluating the round only if and when I’m asked to. I think it’d be intervention to do so otherwise. Just saying, “Broth, their evidence is terrible on this question,” isn’t sufficient to warrant me calling for it or ignoring it. I know that you’re pressed for time, so just a simple “their evidence is tagged as this but doesn’t make a causal claim/have a warrant about it,” is sufficient.

I may call for something if I’m curious, but that won’t affect the round. Even if the evidence that I call for in these instances isn’t very good, (by my conception of what that means) I won’t let that effect the way in which I evaluate it because of that. I’ll still treat the tag, or the explicated implications of that card, as being true. An argument about it would have needed to have been made for me to treat the evidence otherwise.

Extensions

I would say that I have a low threshold for extensions compared to other judges. If something is conceded, I don’t need you to very thoroughly rehash the warrant, and would rather hear “big picture”/more line by line/implication work instead. This is because that (a) tells me why that thing being true and extended matters, and (b) helps me evaluate the round a lot better.

Prep

Flashing/emailing is not prep, but making a speech doc is.

If you have computer problems, let me know and show me, and you can pause your prep.

Flex prep is fine if both debaters agree that it is.

Policy Update, 7 March 2018:

Hi! The rather long paradigm above is specific to LD, but many elements of it generalize to policy as well. I will abbreviate the important ones here. Any questions, please ask! I recall being intimidated by paradigms due to the language they tend to employ and the power relation between judges and competitors. I promise I want debate to be as fun and enjoyable as possible!

X. My pronouns are he/him. Please be respectful of others, ask for pronouns, and do not misgender others.

Relatedly and in general, I think is much better to refer to the other team in third person plural than singling out any debater.

1. Do whatever style best suites you and I will do my best to evaluate it according to how you tell me I should.

2. I don't want you to have to change what you came into the tournament planning to do just because I'm your judge. I will strive to be understanding of you and other debaters.

3. Please respect each other in round. I am quite averse to intervening on substance, but I am not at all averse to intervening if a debater is being exclusionary and violent. I do not wish to be carceral or punitive, but I cannot condone such behavior.

4. I strictly prefer to let debaters figure things out for themselves. For example: I don’t think that I need to have a bias against “frivolous theory” because, if a shell is truly frivolous, then it should be easily beaten.

5. I really appreciate when debaters tell me how they intend/believe their arguments function, because it reduces the likelihood of them being strawpersonned in round, and reduces the likelihood of intervention quite a bit.

6. The presence of nearly any argument on a paradigmatic issue, like competing interps vs. reasonability, means I will assume that paradigm. I consider 'defaults' to be interventionist. If I must default in some way, I'll pick the default that alters the outcome of the round the least.

7. If some aspect of my behavior is distracting, or makes you feel uncomfortable, please let me know in any way that you feel comfortable doing so. However, the burden is on me as a judge, not you, and I recognize that.

8. In general, I will vote on anything. Tech over truth. However, having truth on your side makes the ‘tech’ easier, and I believe that that is a powerful check against arguments that should not win rounds. Of course, I will not sign my ballot in favor of arguments such as "racism good," and the like.

9. For me, debate in high school would’ve been much more fun and enjoyable if my judges were more open minded and less dogmatic, so I want to give that to you.

10. Please repeat theory interpretations, role of the ballot/judge texts, advocacy/plan/counterplan/alt texts, and anything else of that nature after you read them, or read them quite slowly once. I don't need you to read them slowly twice, though. Just slowly once or quickly twice is adequate. I ask this of you in the interest of minimizing intervention.

11. Please differentiate noticeably between the end of a card/argument and the beginning of the next. "And," "next," "second," and the like are very helpful.

I'll say “clear” or “slow” as many times as I need to. I won't give up on flowing you. As long as you’re making an effort to be clear and slow enough for myself and others, that is good enough for me. If you slow down on tags, texts, and analytics, and differentiate between the beginnings and ends of arguments, that makes up for higher speed and less clarity elsewhere.

12. Flashing/emailing is not prep, but making a speech doc is.

13. I will only call for cards to evaluate the round if asked and given a reason to do so. I may ask out of curiosity or to give better feedback, but, in such cases, what I find will not affect the round.

I’ve been judging debates for around 6 or 7 years, so I’m pretty well versed with procedure and most traditional arguments. Avoid K’s or theory if possible, but I am okay with judging theory if you think the abuse is legitimate. Just be sure to flesh out voters. Avoid speed, and be respectful to opponents. I award speaker points based on the tournament’s guidelines, and I judge debates based on the framework given in the round and the arguments provided in voters speeches.

UPDATED 6/1/2022 NSDA Nationals Congress Update

I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 16 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.

Congress

Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.

POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning.

Public Forum

• I know how to flow and will flow.
  • This means I require a road map.
  • I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
• I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
• I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions.
• Be strategic and make good life choices.
• Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
• I will vote on case turns.
• I will call for cards if it comes down to it.

Policy Debate

I tend to vote more for truth over tech. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.


LD Debate

Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD. Ask me questions if I'm judging you.

Framework
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.

Speed:

Just speak clearly and don't mumble. if you can't do that while spreading then don't spread.

Speaker Points:

It's simple, whoever speaks the clearest will get the most speaker points.

Case Arguments:

I go off of what I have on the flow, and I judge based on net benifits. I would like to see a good, clean debate. I don't want debaters to talk past each other, I want y'all to bring up points the opponent made and tear it apart. If the opponent dropped an argument, explain why that matters. DO NOT assume I will do the work for you.

Procedurals:

If you run this make sure to explain in detail, line by line. if you are responding to this, reply line by line. This is a one shot kill so it needs to be near perfect.

Cross-X:

Make it entertaining.

Advantages / Disadvantages:

Sign post for me or you run the risk of me not flowing something important.

Kritiks:

I won't vote for them unless you give me a very clear story of what the world of the alternative looks like with clear examples. I would rather hear a debate about the topic at hand.

TL;DR: Experience is Parli & CX, 1 yr camp, 1 yr judging ; Tell us how arguments synergize ; Theory should inform the resolution ; Be explicit w/ K's ; Voters.

---

My HS-debate background includes two years of CX, one summer at WNDI, and two years of Parli. Recent graduate of the UO. I have about one year of judging experience, including some at the national circuit. Although I strive to be a flow judge, intervention can't be completely eliminated. I like science, so it might be harder to remain impartial to scientific [in]accuracy in particular.

Ultimately, I look for coherence in a case -- that is, a strong logical scaffolding, cognizance of the assumptions behind each of the arguments, and congruence between them. The whole of the arguments ought to be greater than the sum of their parts. This means in practice explaining how case, the CP and theory all work together. This also means acknowledging the premises behind the opponent's case.

*The Voters speech is the one I pay the closest attention too, as it helps me from getting bogged down in the round's minutia.

--T's are fine only if you contextualize your interpretation in light of the round.

--Speed is fine, but please articulate.

--CP's are fine.

--No new arguments in rebuttals.

--The more terminal and apocalyptic your link scenario, the better grounded your brink analysis should be.

As for theory, I am conversant, but not fluent, in CX-style kritiks and other theory. More than happy to judge an abstract round, just be explicit with the debate technicalities. ( In the words of middle-school math class: "Show your work." ) Strive to use philosophic/theoretical reasoning as a lens through which to view the resolution/debate, rather than as a stock contention.

Feel free to ask any clarifying questions.

TL;DR: Tab/flow judge. Organization = high speaks. Speed is fine. Ks/K affs are fine, but so's FW. T/Theory are great. CPs/DAs are also great.

Note: The below was written with Policy and TOC Parli debate in mind. If you're a PF/lay Parli debater, probably just focus on the General Preferences and DAs sections. If you're circuit LD, it all applies to you, plus see the LD Specific section. If you're trad LD, check out the General Preferences and LD Specific sections.

Me: He/him or they/them, third year college student, debated NPDA parli for the UO for 2 years, previously 4-year high school debater at Oak Hill, mostly policy, some parli.

General Preferences:

I consider myself entirely tabula rasa. I do not care what arguments you run, only that they are chosen strategically and well executed. Thus my argumentative preferences will mainly explain what I consider to be effective and not-so-effective execution.

Organization is really cool; when your line-by-line is in order and I can flow it straight down, I appreciate that. When you clearly indicate when you shift from one argument to another and one sheet to another, I appreciate that. When your second rebuttal highlights a clear and coherent path to the ballot while showing why your opponents' path doesn't function, I appreciate that.

You should probably know that I'm actually not the fastest flower in the world. I can certainly keep up with speed, but if you're a fast debater, please please please slow down on especially important or convoluted arguments if you actually want me to catch them all. Also, slow down on plantexts/interps/roles of the ballot and read them twice if you want me to get the whole thing. I will say "clear" if you're unclear, and "slow" if you're too fast, and if I have to do that to you more than once or twice, your speaks will suffer

DAs: Yes please. Generics are cool, specifics are better (not because I think they're more "true," but just because they're more strategic). When answering them, please read some sort of offense, cause I'm one of those weirdos who doesn't believe in "zero risk." You can of course win on defense, but it has to be because your aff outweighs the risk of the DA being true.

CPs: Love 'em. Probably the most overpowered neg argument, when used correctly (that is, with a proper net benefit that outweighs any solvency deficit they might have). If nobody makes an argument about it either way, I default to functional competition over textual. I assume all CPs are conditional unless neg says otherwise. I don't have a strong position on conditionality theory, I'll vote for the team that wins it. All CPs are legit until the aff proves they're not. That being said, I am quite receptive to arguments that certain types of CP are abusive. See the theory section for more.

T: Unpopular opinion, but I love Topicality. I think T debates tend to actually be more educational than the same generic politics DA or cap K everyone has blocked out, and I really like to see how well debaters can think on their feet, which T forces you to do. That being said, I certainly wouldn't say I "err neg" on T; T is a very powerful argument, and a collapse to T gives neg a very positive time tradeoff. With that in mind, I'll give aff a fair bit of leeway when it comes to answering T, and so if you're the neg and you're considering going for T, you better be ready to win decisively.

Theory: Even more unpopular opinion, but I also love theory debate for the reasons I explained on T. For the reasons discussed on T, I lean in favor of the "defending" team on theory (i.e, the team having theory run on them). But, you should still definitely run theory in front of me, because if it's well-executed I will gladly vote on it. I like to think I'm more willing than most judges to hear non-conventional, outdated, or "stupid" theory shells. In my opinion, just because the community has decided a given argument is silly, doesn't mean teams shouldn't be prepared to answer it. So please, run A-Spec, Plan Flaw, Whole Rez, Disclosure, No Neg Fiat, No New Args in the 2NC, or whatever else you feel like. As long as you can do it well.

Ks: Sure. Run Ks if that's what you want to run, I will evaluate it like any other argument. Personally, I find a lot of K debate, especially when it's a K vs a policy affirmative, to be rather stale. But, I won't fault you for that, you do you. Just make sure to tie it into the affirmative, and explain in layperson's terms what the alt is, who does it, what it solves, and why it solves. Aff, when answering Ks, please don't neglect the framework and thesis, and consider impact turns - maybe capitalism/securitization/biopower/static identity/whatever is actually a good thing?

I'm not incredibly well-read on the lit, but I can probably keep up if you're explaining things properly. I'm pretty familiar with Marx, Ahmed, and Agamben, somewhat familar with Buddhism, Foucault, DnG, Baudrillard, Churchill, Tuck and Yang, and Wilderson, and I have a decent understanding of the overall arch of Western philosophy and political theory. Make of that what you will.

K affs: If that's what you wanna do. If you're not gonna engage with the topic, at least have a little blurb explaining why. Performance is cool, but you may not touch the ballot, and I will only flow arguments from the person who is officially giving the speech. Refer to the above for further info. If you're the neg vs a K aff, try to get some decent case answers on the flow, that tends to make all the difference

Framework: I won't vote for you because you ran it, but I have a soft spot in my heart for FW. I think a non-topical aff needs a clear and persuasive explanation of why the benefits of the aff outweigh the benefits of conventional plan-focused debate. There are a few arguments that the neg should always make on FW that I find especially strategic. Topical version of the aff, "read it on the neg," and "clash is key to see if your aff is actually a good idea."

Case: on-case arguments are both the most strategic to deploy and the most fun to watch; please read them. Case turns are an immensely powerful tool. In general, the more offense you read on case, the more likely you are to win, so lay it on thick. Defense is cool too, and should be leveraged extensively when you do your impact calc. 8 minutes of case turns is the best possible 1NC strategy, and I'll give both neg speakers very high speaks if they pull it off.

LD Specific: I'm not super experienced with LD; I never competed in it, and I've judged it only a bit. But, just debate how you normally would and I'll try to give you a good judging experience. If you're circuit LD, you'll like me, because I am most comfortable with Policy and Policy-like debate. If you're trad LD, don't try to become circuit style to appease me. Do what you like/are good at. That being said, I will remain a flow-oriented judge in LD, and so if you're trying to win on flowery rhetoric alone, I'm a poor judge for you.

My only argumentative preference is that both debaters put a little bit of thought into the Val/Crit debate. I see many debaters treat the V/C as if they are some mini-debate entirely separate from the rest. They aren't. The value and criterion are tools you should use to evaluate impacts in the rest of the debate, and if you're not using them as tools, why read them? Also, if a debater values something incredibly vague like "morality," I will roll my eyes. If a criterion doesn't provide a clear method I can use to weigh impacts and decide the round, it's not a criterion, and I won't know what to do with it.

Specific for Parli TOC:

Points of Order: Go ahead and call them, if the argument is actually new. I frown on frivolous POOs, but pointing out genuinely new arguments helps me as a judge and shows me that you're keeping track of the round. Use your better judgement

Prep: There is none. If you're whispering with your partner while the other team gets their flows ready to speak or whatever, you're cheating, and I'll probably tell you to stop. Avoid the embarrassing situation by not stealing prep.

Facts: Generally in debate, I think facts don't matter. However, if a debate comes down to two competing factual claims (which they rarely do), since there's no evidence, I have no choice but to intervene. In such a case, I will intervene on behalf of the team I believe to be closer to factually correct. This should only be a problem for you if you have a habit of saying things in round that are not true, so just don't do that and you'll be fine

I have been debating and doing IE's as a competitor and judge since the 1970's with a long break in the 90's and 2000's while working in the private sector. I have been coaching a team that does primarily Oregon-style parli and Public Forum debate, but I did NDT and CEDA as a college competitor and understand all formats.

I judge as a policy maker looking for justification to adopt the resolution, and will accept well-justified arguments on both substance (the issues of the resolution) and procedure (framework, theory). In policy rounds I have a bias against affirmative K's, because I believe the Aff prima facie burden requires that I be given a reason to adopt the resolution by the end of the first Aff constructive in order to give the Aff the ballot. Arguments founded in social justice approaches are fine as long as they lead to a justification for adopting the resolution and changing the status quo.

I can handle speed but remember I'm not seeing your documentation--a warrant read 600 words a minute at the pitch of a piece of lawn equipment might as well not be read from the judge's seat. You flash each other, but not me, so make sure I understand why your evidence supports your argument. I won't debate for you, and I don't flow cross-ex/crossfire. If you want me to consider an argument, introduce it during one of your speeches. In formats other than policy, particularly in Public Forum, I expect a slower rate and more emphasis on persuasion with your argumentation as befits the purpose of those other formats. In LD, I expect arguments to be grounded in values, not "imitation policy."

I will automatically drop any debater who engages in ad hominem attacks--arguments may be claimed to have, for example, racist impacts, but if you call your opponents "racists," you lose--we have too much of that in the contemporary world now, and we are trying to teach you better approaches to argument and critical thinking.

Above all else, I like good argumentation, clash, and respectful conduct. No personal attacks, no snark. Humor welcome. Let's have some fun.

My priorities for judging any debate are

1) the use of factual evidence that shows understanding of the topic.

2) clear and organized arguments.

3) each team's ability to support their value, weighing mechanism, or other framework throughout the entire debate.

4) professionalism and appropriateness.

I'm open to most stuff.
FOR BOTH ONLINE AND OFFLINE DEBATE:clarity is important. I will now more aggressively clear. If I do it 3 times, I will not vocalise the fourth and probably stop flowing. I understand and have suffered some of the issues that prevents speed, which provides a tangible competitive benefit, but I believe access prioritising the access of your opponents is more important.Theory/Framework/Topicality:

I default to competing interpretations. Spec is good. What are RVI's? "We meet" your counter-interps.

Policy:
I am most familiar with this type of debate. I almost exclusively went for extinction. I will always use judging criterion and impact framing explicated in the debate, but as a last resort, I will evaluate impacts independently - this isn't to say that I will always vote for high mag/low prob, but that I am more open to these than other judges.
Don't delay. Don't Object. Don't cheato veto. I have a low threshold.

K's:

I appreciate and think Kritikal arguments have done more good than harm for both the real world and debate; but I do believe that it can and has led to identities and peoples being weaponised, whether they wanted to or not. Beyond that, I believe that K's need to clearly explicate how the alt works, the world post alt, and good links. I'm willing to buy a K that doesn't do any of these, but if these get indicted by procedurals or arguments will be damning. I hate simple reject alt's.

I will try my best to understand your arguments, but please do not assume I know your literature base. I am probably more comfortable with pomo lit than any other lit, but you should still explain the basis of your arguments.

In the same vein, I think interps that are some version of "We can do it in this round" hold zero persuasiveness for my ballot. Not only do they not work as a good precedent for future rounds, but also they just also don't provide meaningful (to me) access to the standards debate.

General

Debate:
Condo is good. Multi-condo not so much. Don't try to understand my non-verbals, because I don't understand them. Sometimes I'm very expressive, sometimes I'm not.

I’m willing to buy terminal defence. The threshold for terminal defence In LD and policy, and other evidence-based debate is significantly lower.

It is significantly harder to win terminal defence in parli for me without independent concessions by both teams on clear brightlines.

Tech = truth

Flex time answers are binding.

I competed as a Parli debater at the University of Oregon. Speed is fine, though I will clear if necessary.

I will judge the round by the arguments I see on the flow. I will not intervene (to the best of my ability) and find myself typically voting for the team with the best link story and termanilized impacts. I will presume we are role-playing as policymakers in the world set by the motion and further modeled by the government unless I'm convinced to do otherwise. Sincere kritiks are fair game, but you have to give me good reasons to disregard this presumption. By the end of the round it is incredibly important to make clear how you think things should be weighed and why I should agree with you.

Update for Loyola 2020

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

.

.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja

I have been judging various lay parli tournaments for 4 years. I prefer arguments with clear links and terminalized impacts. Do impact calculus on magnitude, time frame, probability, scope, reversibility, etc. Have clear voter issues that show clearly why your side is winning. Speak at a reasonable pace, I will not be able to follow extreme speed. Perms are a test of competition, not an advocacy.

I will award speaker points as follows: below 27 is reserved for rudeness, 30 means I believe you have what it takes to win the tournament. I will start with a default 28.5 and make my way up or down.

Hello All,

My name is Anna Werthaiser and I competed in LD and PF all throughout high school. I am a freshman in college and absolutely love judging. I have competed in parli before, written cases as in-class projects and know how it's structured. My mom was the Ashland coach for six years so just because I only competed in LD and PF doesn't make me a "lay" judge.

Speed:

I'm perfectly fine with speed as long as you are also perfectly fine with speed. If you have not done any spreading exercises and think you can just "talk fast," most likely, I won't understand you. Just like any person, if I can't understand you, your flow WILL be blank.

The flow:

Please signpost. 'Nuff said. Roadmaps are quite a gift. Use them. If both opponents are okay with off-time roadmaps, I don't care either way.

K's:

I love a K just as much as any other judge but don't read me the whole book on philosophy. No, I don't read everything on all philosophers but a brief synopses is nice.

Framework:

Please don't make it a framework debate because who likes those? Those who uphold their framework and/or their opponents will win in my eyes.

Be nice to each other and don't be rude. Debate rounds are suppose to be professional and debaters should be polite. No need to be nasty. Show off a little. I want to know what you know and please don't assume I know anything because like any good judge, my prior knowledge and opinions will be left at the door. Can't wait to experience such talent, and congratulations on TOC. Good luck.

After debating at the national level in high school, I broke at major tournaments debating for UC Berkeley. After law school I became a public defender specializing in death penalty trials, and then was appointed to the Superior Court, where I hear advocates every day. My professional orientation informs my debate judging with a real-world orientation. In 2014, I founded the New Roads School debate team and coached parli for six years. Two of my teams reached the NPDL top ten. Now, volunteer debate judging is my way to pay forward the gifts I received from debating, to which I attribute my successful legal career.

I prefer the most reasonable argument to the most extreme. As a ‘policy maker’ I weigh impacts and I am ‘Tabula Rasa’ in that I am an open-minded skeptic.

Tabula Rasa assumes a conventional understanding of the status quo which does not require warrants because these neutral assumptions appropriately narrow the scope of discussion. Any claims supporting or refuting a case must be supported by warrants whether on not the judge has knowledge. Each side has the burden of persuasion on claims they assert.

Use of debate theory in argumentation and employment of kritiks is theoretically sound and can be interesting but these devices may circumvent the resolution and tend to turn debates into sophistry. They also tend to be poorly warranted. I could vote for a kritik or meta-argument, but only if very well warranted. Theory addresses norms, not rules, so I am open-minded, but I also would consider abuse a reverse voting issue. I prefer reasonable case debate with impact calculus.

I don't mind speed but don’t forget to be persuasive, not to mention 'loud and clear.' When your words become inaudible they won’t make it to my flowsheet and the beauty of your argument will be sacrificed to the ugliness of its delivery.

Tag teaming doesn't bother me, but I only flow the speaker and try to ingore the teammate.

On my ballot, dropping is a concession, but not equivalent to proof if the original warrant was insufficient. Also, the weight remains arguable. Regardless of points of order I protect the flow.

Persuasion is an important aspect of debate. Sometimes this seems lost when debaters focus on technical aspects. Merely asserting a valid refutation does not necessarily win an argument on my flowsheet. You must clinch your argument in the rebuttal explaining the significance of your argument and its result in evaluating the resolution. Debate is not just about being right, but about persuading people you are right. Though I vote exclusively on the flow, there is a subjective aspect to what is persuasive, which is true for any judge, even if they say “tech over truth.” For me, what is persuasive would tend to be a reasonable weighing of human impacts.

I’m looking for a debate that is educational, preparing advocates for the real world. Rapid delivery of complex argumentation and the logical gymnastics of theory do have some educational benefits, but so does development of the persuasive character of speech. The best debaters join these skills, using theory only to support their position and not for its own sake. Debate is not a ‘speech event’, because it is judged on the flow of argumentation, but without persuasive speaking, debate becomes an esoteric and inaccessible academic activity. Its greatest value to you is learning to advocate in the real world to make the world a better place. I look forward to hearing your debate and helping guide you toward your own goals as an advocate.