https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Boyd%2C+Megan

For email chains and/or any questions: mvboyd@sbcglobal.net

Public Forum

I am open to both traditional and progressive styles. My only preference is that you debate the style that is most comfortable for you.

Framing: Please give me lens through which to view the round. If you don't give me any framing, I'm either going to vote based off your opponent's framing, or worst case scenario something completely arbitrary. It's incredibly difficult to judge a debate with two entirely different impacts and zero weighing mechanism. Please, please, please don't waste your time reading me definitions for literally every single word in the resolution.

Theory: This is public forum, I truly believe you have no time to read incredibly progressive and complex arguments here. If you want to, I will listen. However, keep in mind I am now four years out and have not kept up with the literature. With that being said, basic arguments relating to topicality, reasonability, and competing interps are always welcome.

CP/K/Aff Advocacy: Sure. I personally think the time constraints of PF make it hard to do any of these things, but that doesn't mean you can't pull it off in an abbreviated sense.

Flow: Now for what you all really came here for, I do not expect the second speaking team to extend offense in the first rebuttal. If you have time to extend offense, more power to you. I understand that four minutes is an incredibly short amount of time to attack your opponent's case then literally defend against all their attacks. This was literally never an issue when I debated and don't know who decided the second speaking team has to work twice as hard to win the round. If you actually want to waste your breath calling out your opponent in your two minute speech for not extending offense I will literally sit there and stare at you until you actually say something worthwhile. Your summary is your second, and final rebuttal. I expect you to take 1 or 2 (3 if you're fast) of the round's biggest arguments at this point. The final focus is not meant for line by line debate. At this point, hand me clear voters and call it a day.

Speed: Chances are if you are spreading in PF you're literally just doing it for clout points you won't get. Mind you, I'm not saying you cannot speak fast. I understand how short four minutes is to get through a lot of information. Speak as fast as you'd like, but I will tell you to stop if I nobody can discern a word you're saying.

Speaker Points: I don't hand out 29s or 30s. If you're looking for presentation points, I suggest you go ahead and strike me right now. If you have a pretty voice, but terrible argumentation skills I'm not your girl. A 29 from me is rare, but very possible. My range is generally 27.25-29.25. I don't tolerate racism, sexism, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, the list goes on. I will dock your speaks for those issues. If your opponent calls you out, you might even lose the round. If it's utterly abhorrent I will stop the round.

Lastly, I will not do any work for you. I'm not here to babysit you, or connect any dots that you may have missed. It is your job, and your job alone, to tell me why I should vote for you.

I consider myself a tabula rasa judge, and will vote on anything if given a proper rationale and justification. I consider debate a game. That said, I am more familiar with policy arguments then critical ones. I place a high value on analytics and people who actually apply cards and arguments instead of reading large banks of cards with little application or reasoning. Please weigh the round or present me with a framework under which you believe the round should be judged. Do not take tag lines at face value. Challenge evidence and internal links (CX/crossfires are a great opportunity to do this). Nothing is more frustrating then having to weigh cards/links/impacts that aren't really there but are never challenged by an opponent.

Speed is fine, but don't do speed for speed's sake. I believe speed can give people the ability to present many more positions and arguments and ultimately make the round more educational and enjoyable to judge. However, I have seen people spread who could have covered more ground by not spreading and people who become completely unintelligible when they pick up speed. If you aren't clear then I can't understand your arguments. Vary speed, tone, volume, or something else to differentiate between tags and cards, emphasize transitions, present important analysis, signpost, etc. If you are lynch-pinning your entire case on one card or a challenge to one card, it would probably benefit you (and certainly me) to make sure I understand the card completely.

Ks: I have voted on K arguments but make sure you explain the links well and place the argument in the context of the round for me. It is safe to say that these arguments may have a higher bar for me just because of less familiarity than what I have with traditional policy arguments.

Conditionality is fine as long as you can explain what it is accomplishing in a round (a test of competitiveness, etc.). That said, I won't let you kick a DA with a clear turn on it unless your opponent also argued non-uniqueness, no link, or some other reason justifying kicking it.

Be careful with flips and inconsistent arguments. I have seen countless number of teams this year argue link flips and impacts flips against the same DA/Advantage, or go for and win a huge link flip but then separately argue that there will be no impact. Make sure you are telling a consistent story and don't shoot yourself in the foot. Sometimes you can go for too much.

T- I seem to be voting for T frequently as of late, but you need to make a strong argument and devote attention to it throughout the round. If you don't treat it seriously, don't expect me to. You must explain how it is impacting (or not impacting) the current round, as theoretical T arguments have less impact on me.

Be civil and professional. Passion is great, but avoid being mean-spirited.

I was a High School debater, with experience in 1 year of policy debate and 2 years of PF.

For PF

- Speed is for policy, but if you can make a clear case while talking fast I don't mind.

- There is no need to be overly aggressive in round.

- I prefer each team have a framework, and argue framework as well in round.

For Policy

- I do have some experience in policy, but treat me like a judge who doesn't know anything about policy.

- Speed is good as long as you are understandable. If I'm not writing down what you say I can't understand you. Slow down.

- I am not a fan of K's but if you think that its a strong argument and you want to argue k go for it.

- There's no point in running 9 off if you can barely get through them. I prefer having a smaller number of strong off case arguments that you can build on.

Debated for 4 years for Colleyville heritage. 2 years Cx, 2 years Ld.

I used to more of a K debater but weaker on phil debate, but I will listen to it, just make sure to explain it thoroughly

Please do not shake my hand after the round.

Email chains: arsh.ladhani@gmail.com

I was a high school debater in the mid 1990s (in Arkansas)

I've been a debate mom/driver/occasional judge since 2015

Email: amanda.b.lawrence@gmail.com

My background is in policy debate and that's where I lean as a judge. I like to hear a debate about the resolution, and I like to hear a plan from the affirmative. That being said, I'm willing to listen to any well-articulated argument you'd care to make.

I don't mind some speed - I'll let you know if you're going too fast for me. I'm fine with being on an email chain, but I need to hear/understand you to actually evaluate the argument.

On specific arguments:

Topicality - There's a resolution for a reason, but having plenty of aff ground makes for more interesting debate and I think improves education on the topic.

Theory - I definitely think one conditional counterplan is fine. More than two feels a little abusive, but I'm open to arguments that it's not. Talking to the experienced debater I know, she says I generally lean aff on other theory questions.

Ks - Probably not the best strategy for most novices, but if you're going to go for it, be sure you explain your arguments clearly. I've listened to a fair number of K debates, but don't assume I'm familiar with authors. You can't just say "Baudrillard" and expect me to fill in the arguments. I'd rather a K on the neg have links to the aff than just to the status quo.

Generally, be nice to each other. Attacking arguments is one thing, attacking people is another. Respect people, respect their pronouns, don't use slurs.

Beomhak Lee

Updated March 2021

Affiliation - Dallas Jesuit.

If you have any concerns/questions/asking for email chain: lbh7746@gmail.com

CJR topic - Very interesting topic. I have pretty good exposure to the topic. Yet, this still does not justify teams in speaking jargons. Personally, I find DA and CP literature on this topic quite disappointing (unless the link narrative can be specific to the aff). So I believe this perhaps is a good opportunity for some teams to engage in critical literature deeper than before.

Stylistic Issues:

- Speed is fine. But clarity >>> speed. Especially given the virtual-ness of debating, I would suggest going a bit slower.

- Please line by line. If you don't even at least attempt to line by line, your speaks will suffer.

- Depth outweighs breadth. One well-warranted argument beats numerous poorly explained/constructed arguments. This applies to the cards too. Poorly and disjointedly highlighted cards are bad. Call them out on it.

- No I don't take prep for emailing/flashing unless it's excessive.

- Usually, it is tech > truth but not all the time.

- Stop being a jerk. There is a fine line between being passionate/competitive vs. being a total jerk.

- I am totally fine with any style of argument. You do you. I am here to listen. Obviously, this excludes arguments like racism or sexism good :)

- This is probably obvious but I think it's important. For me to vote on an argument, it has to make sense in my head. While I will probably understand the general thesis for most of your arguments myself, every argument (K, DA, CP, T, K aff, etc.) requires a nuanced explanation that is different, depending on the circumstances of the round. So, spend some time doing that in the round.

Topicality

Love them if done well. Personally think they are very underutilized in this topic. Will default to competing interpretations if not convinced otherwise. T is all about weighing your interpretation versus theirs. Specificity (i.e. examples of how the aff would explode limits or gut grounds) is good. Just saying meaningless phrases like 'they explode limits' won't be convincing at all.

Counterplans/Disadvantages

Most of my 2NRs were CP+DA or DA alone. More specific your evidence (solvency advocate or link) is to the aff, the better. I think solvency advocate for the CP should be a thing most of the time. If you don't, it's not really a theoretical reason to lose but rather a solvency question. Impact calculus on DAs usually is really really really important. Use the impact debate to frame the ballot and be comparative (especially if you are going for the DA without the CP with only the case defense, which by the way is heavily under-utilized). Good link narratives on DAs will be awarded. Smart analytics will be awarded as well.

Kritiks

Love them. But, if you start to talk in disjointed vocabularies without contextualizing the K to the aff, then the K is not so loving. I think that aff should generally get to weigh the action of the plan, though I can be convinced otherwise in many ways - so put in the work.

Winning a general explanation of the world is not enough. Use the specific link and internal link narratives to prove why the aff would make X worse. To do that, I think real-world manifestations or examples help a ton. Way too many teams just assume "if I win a link, then the impact happens" - welp, a good internal link work will be awarded. Long overviews are mostly useless. Line by line is good.

K/Non-traditional affirmative

Personally, I find these affs way more interesting than listening to generic process CP debates per say. Clarity on what the aff does (i.e. the mechanism of the aff) is the single most important thing to explain to me. Personal narrative, music, poetry - anything is fine with me. Just have a particular reason why you included those parts in 1AC. You need to have at least some relations to the topic, and some reason why you don't use governmental institutions. You still need a reason why your ROB is good, and for the neg teams going for FW, that must be challenged. As always, impact debates on FW must be comparative.

Theory

Chill for a second and SLOW DOWN

Don't run New Affs bad in front of me - I'm not gonna vote on it.

Conditionality is usually good - unless multiple conditional contradictory world is a thing (but is it a theoretical reason to reject the team? Eh - though I think it would benefit you substantive-wise if used well)

Other theory arguments (generally) probably are a reason to reject the argument, not the team UNLESS I'm convinced otherwise. If they drop theory, then the story is quite different (assuming that you invest some time into it).

ETC.

I really love this activity. There probably is a reason why I keep in touch with debate and the community even though I decided not to debate in college. If I happen to judge you, know that I will judge debates as fairly as I can Please respect each other and have fun.

Also, for more nitty-gritty judging philosophies on the style of arguments, look into these judges’ philosophies: Tracy McFarland, Ryan Gorman, and Dan Lingel. They introduced/influenced me a lot (like debate + life) that we almost have a similar "view of debate" if that makes sense. If three judges contradict in their judging philosophy, it would be on my therapy list.

Hello, I'm Jack Madden and I am currently a senior at the University of Oklahoma. I am currently getting my masters in cybersecurity, but I did my undergrad in economics with a focus on trade. I am no longer currently debating, but I debated for 4 years at Jesuit Dallas. My speaker position in high school 2n/1a, but I also spent time as a 2a/1n (if that helps shed some light on some of my argument preferences). In general, apart from arguments like racism/sexism/etc good, I will evaluate everything if it is argued well, but below are some of my predispositions and biases. (and if you are pressed on time, read just the general information and the short version at the bottom).

General Information

- Read what you are most comfortable with-excluding things like -isms good, I will listen to basically anything and while some arguments frustrate me more than others, I still think that people should read what they are most comfortable with running in debate.

- I will keep time for both sides and I don't count flashing/emailing as prep

--CX is open, but try and let the person whose CX it is speak

-- Prompting is allowed, but try and keep it at a minimum

--Please please please flow and base your arguments off of the flow...It makes the debate much more organized and easier to follow. In fact, if you show me your flows after the debate and I can observe that you did a good job with utilizing them to give your speeches and basing your speeches off of the clash in the debate (not the speech docs), I will add an additional .5 speaker points to your total.

--I generally default to tech over truth, but that doesn't excuse running "throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks" strategies (i.e. the generic 9-off strategies, affs with 20 impacts and shoddy internal links). I will say, however, that I am probably more truth level than most people and will prioritize 5 smart arguments over 25 nonsensical argument.

--Clarity > speed

--Evidence quality is very important--so important that it can be a deciding factor between two relatively evenly matched teams. This means that one well-warranted card can easily defeat several under qualified/out of date/poorly highlighted cards. However, in most cases, you need to initiate the comparisons yourself -- that way it'll be clearer precisely which pieces of evidence I need to take a closer look at after the debate, as I don't enjoy intervening too much.

--Don't resort to offensive language or hostility towards your opponents or others. There is a line between being persuasive and being malignant. I understand that people get passionate, but I also think that debate is a game (that has a few educational benefits) and you should maintain a certain level of decorum. I will drop you a lot of speaks if you are abusive, since I think that's far more important than whatever you are arguing about. The caveat to this is that I am a big believer in matching energy. This means that if someone is being rude or abusive to you first, I think that it is more than fair to be a bit rude back (they probably have it coming)

--Call me whatever you want to, but I would prefer you don't call me judge because it makes me feel like I am an authority figure, which I definitely am not.

--I prefer email chains (flash drives and pocketbox take too long to execute/set up); my email is jmadden1242@gmail.com

-- Be yourself and we will all be great

-- I feel kind of weird about abuse language. Terms like gaslighting, abusive relationship, etc have very specific meanings and I feel like some teams (mainly K ones) throw them around a lot and I will admit, I am not the biggest fan of that/would prefer if you avoid using those terms while I am in the room. I think that given that you will not know where everyone in the room is coming from, it is better to be safe than sorry and avoid mentioning those terms (this also extends to graphic terms describing things like sexual assault, etc).

-- Also, if you are funny (like actually funny), make some jokes (if you can make me laugh, I will give you +.5 speaks)

-- Finally, for online debates, it is probably a good idea to have your camera on while you are giving a speech, but it is honestly your call (unless the tournament has specific rules)

Theory

I'd probably be hard pressed to reject the team unless the argument goes completely conceded or if the other team reads something that is extremely abusive, but I will evaluate it on a case by case basis. Slowing down and doing comparison rather than perpetually reading your blocks is key.

Debates I'm willing to hear: multiple conditional (contradictory) worlds, PICs bad, process CPs bad, Consult CPs bad, Conditions CPs bad, 50 states, solvency advocate theory (for both affs and CPs)

Please don't run in front of me: new affs bad, whole rez, disclosure/wiki theory, uncondo bad, no aff/neg fiat. I'll really only vote on these arguments if they're never answered, but even so you will not make me happy, which will definitely impact your speaker points. All the other team in my mind needs to do is say "that's silly."

IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT STEALING EVIDENCE: If a team copies and pastes evidence cut by another school that was acquired in a previous debate round into their own speech docs in a later debate, your speaks will be heavily cut, and it constitutes a theory argument that the other team can win on if you stole their cards (unless the other team says it's ok). To be clear, I'm not saying you can't re-cut articles that other teams read because you think the articles could be useful, or read cards that were cut and open-sourced during summer camps by other people, but there's a difference between that and straight up copying and pasting other teams' evidence into your speech docs.

DAs

I love DAs and try and reward good policy debates, since that is what I enjoy the most. However, I find politics DAs that are a mismatch of out of context paragraphs from random articles that never actually mention the aff outside of the tags to be extremely frustrating and if you chose to read one, know that I will probably give the other side leeway with their answers. So, to basically make my thoughts clear, I love DAs, feel like I am typically well versed with what they are talking about and they are what I typically go for used to go for before politics became nonsense, but I also think that you should read a specific link (or at the very least make good link contextualization) and do good impact calculus. (and if you are good at DAs, go for them because you will be rewarded).

Ks

I will listen to them, will vote for them, find them fun to watch for the most part and even probably agree with a lot of them on a thesis level. However, I feel like most K teams have a couple of issues. First, I feel like they rely on big words that don't actually mean anything just to sound smart. I totally understand that complex issues require a complex vocabulary, but please, for the love of god, DO NOT JUST THROW OUT A BUNCH OF BIG WORDS THAT YOU NEVER EXPLAIN. I am a big believer in the idea that the best and smartest arguments are those that can be explained to anyone, so while I don't think that you need to provide a list of definitions, I do think that you shouldn't just use a bunch of obfuscating language to spook the other team. I think that their second issue is that they are increasing looking for academic niches that only one person writes about so that they have something that no one else has heard of. This issue is more of just an observation and won't really affect my vote, but I just thought I should note that. Third, I think that too many K teams rely on generic links basically amount to aff is bad. I think that if you are going for a K in front of me, you should try and read a specific link and if you don't have one, you should try your best to contextualize the link to the aff. Fourth, I think that a lot of K teams have issues with the alt level as well. I need you to explain the alt to me besides just the tag line because I am not an aff links= aff loses guy and I need a competing option to vote for. Finally, I don't think that it is a link just because someone gave you an answer to an extremely vague CX question (think "What is death?" or "What is structural violence?").

I also think that I should note a couple of things. First, very few things in debate get me more frustrated and less likely to vote for you than if you read "death good", read suicide as your alt or endorse school shootings or anything of the like. I find these arguments to be extremely toxic for the debate community, to be mocking the suffering of others for the ballot and that people who read them think that they are a lot smarter and more edgy than they actually are. If you do decide to read one of these in front of me, I will evaluate it, but I will probably not be giving super high speaker points. Next, while I do think that debate is a valid form of expression and narratives about personal experience are good and cool, I do not think that teams reading things like D & G or Baudrillard should be saying that it is violent for your K to be excluded. Third, I'm not the biggest fan of ontology focused debates. I think that a smart way to beat this is just have some counter-examples, so if you do that, you will be rewarded. Fourth, I really hate the giant overviews. To me, they just show that you have a fancy overview you prepped out, not that you are actually engaging with the debate. This has two implications. First, I will try my best to flow these, but I know I will probably drop one of the 17 links you hide up there and if I do, I guess that's a bummer. I am going to give the other team some leeway when answering stuff here though, since they are honestly just a lot. Second, if you read this and still decide to read your 4 minute overview, more power to you, but know that I will probably give you a 28.5 at max (and will honestly probably give you less). I just want to be the change I want to see in the community by discouraging these things, because they are honestly miserable for everyone in the room to listen too (and if you ask me to get a separate sheet to flow your overview, I will, but I am giving you a 28). Finally, if you skipped the rest of this and just want to know what Ks that I really like, here is a mostly complete list: Berlant, discourse-based Ks, Cap, fun post-modernism, not Bifo, really wild stuff like Posadism or the dolphin K, etc.

CPs

Also something that I really like, to the point where they are probably my second favorite part of being negative. I really like the specific counterplans that have unified solvency advocates. I am not as big of a fan of the multi-plank disjointed CPs, but I still think that if they are well explained, then they are fine. I think one thing that the aff does not utilize as much as they should is solvency specific deficits to the CPs. I do think that there are some dumb CPs that should not be read (think consult Jesus, Ashtar) and while I will laugh when you read these, I will also probably not evaluate them.

T

Topicality is about competing interpretations for me, unless you tell me otherwise. There should be a specific explanation in the 1NC of what word or phrase the affirmative violates. Negatives should explain what allowing the affirmative in the topic would allow— ie what other affirmatives would be allowed and what specific ground or arguments you have lost out on. Affirmatives should, in addition to making counter-interpretations, explain why those counter-interpretations are good for the topic and/or better than the Negatives. Case lists are underutilized in these debates – both about what they exclude and realistically justify on both sides of the topic. Topical version of the aff is an important but not a must have – especially if you are partially trying to say that they are SOOOO bad I shouldn’t want them to be a part of the topic. I believe that limits and fairness are really the only impacts, but I will vote on education. Finally, please, for the love of God, EXPLAIN WHY YOUR IMPACTS MATTER. Do not just say, they dropped it, explain why it matters.

Other stuff:

More seriously, I get that debate causes anxiety for some people and if it gets to be too much, I'm chill with you stopping your speech and taking a breather. Your personal mental health is far more important than this game and I will not dock you speaker points for this/run the clock while you are doing this.

I am skeptical of the idea of debate being a place of revolutionary change where people's subjectivities and stuff are morphed. Rather, like I said above, I think that debate is a game which is good at teaching some very high level concepts, but can actually be rather bad at teaching you details about topics (ie: I think that 95% of things said about economics are not only wrong, but like aggressively wrong to the point where they might count as misinformation [looking at you cap K and big econ advantages]). I WILL still listen to this arguments and will evaluate them, this is just how I view the real world.

Speaker Point Scale

I start at 28.5 and will adjust accordingly depending on how I feel you did ; more than decent gets more points. You can gain more points by having proper line by line, clash, good evidence with warrants, good impact comparison. You can lose points by not doing those aforementioned things AND if you are snarky, condescending, etc.

Short Version:

I love clash, line by line and good evidence that has warrants. I honestly prefer DAs and CPs to Ks, but will listen to almost everything. Rule #1 is to have a good time because at the end of the day, debate is a game where you learn useful information, but are not changing the world. Just enjoy your rounds, be yourself, read what you are best at, try your best and don't be a jerk and everyone will be great.

I'm a junior, 3rd year debater, at Grapevine High School.  I did CX for 2 years and I'm now in PF.  I am okay with any speed.  Make sure you extend your impacts, don't drop arguments, and make sure you show me exactly why you win the round in your last speech.  I am fine with basically any argument, just don't do anything offensive.

St. Mark’s '19

Put me on the email chain: mwang6361@gmail.com

I'd rather not read evidence to reconstruct a ballot that doesn't reflect the debating on the flow

If I can't explain what I'm voting for, I won't vote for it

Clarity>everything else.

An argument consists of a claim and warrant - arguments that become complete later (or blippy 1nc shells/aff advantages that become developed later) are new arguments that merit new answers

Below are some debate things I generally think are true. My biases and preferences become less relevant the more you out execute your opponents.

Debating Planless Affs

I go for topicality in 99% of these debates. You can go for other stuff too. I will very, very heavily lean neg on perm/competition questions.

I start with the presumption that the ballot doesn't do anything besides determine a winner and loser

Fairness is obviously an impact.

Debate is a game and breaking it would be quite bad. Reading a planless aff makes debate really easy for one side. The aff would be better served going for impact turns than trying to take a "reasonability" approach. To be clear, that means saying debating the resolution is bad for XYZ reason, not that unfairness is good.

Topicality v affs that read a plan

I like these debates when they are grounded in evidence with intent to define. A more limited topic isn't always the best thing ever. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.

Disads

Great. Turns case is helpful. Zero risk is definitely a thing. Analytic presses can defeat most politics disads.

Counterplans

Counterplans that have a specific solvency advocate (or one that's as good as/better than the aff's) can bypass theory questions pretty easily.

PICs out of the plan are good, states is usually fine, and most other stuff (consult, delay, word pics, and miscellaneous process stuff) is probably bad.

I will not kick the counterplan for you unless I'm told to do so explicitly

Ks

Specificity is great. I'm pretty familiar with most of the popular literature (cap, security, afropessimism). The more you talk about the 1ac (and preferably the plan), the better. Links should prove the plan is bad, not that the plan is imperfect.

The threshold for winning a sweeping ontological or pessimist theory is high on the side that advances the argument (both as a reason to reject the aff/law and as a reason to reject the topic)

Email is wwatson.debate@gmail.com

I hate paraphrasing and believe it is the cause of bad debate.

World schools peeps- speak with passion and give a clear delivery. Order/signposting is your friend.

No matter what event you are in I expect disclosure once you break a case... if you read disclosure theory I want your case on the wiki even if this is first time breaking

I vote on an offense defense paradigm for the most part- I am a past PF/CX debater from Colleyville Heritage. My first two years I did CX so I will most likely default to stock issues unless someone reads a framework. I enjoy weighing. The easiest way to get my ballot in any event is to pick one argument then weigh it against your opponent's arguments. If you pick one or two arguments to go for in final focus or the rebuttals in policy, I am likely to vote for you, especially if your opponent decides to go for everything.

Recent update- weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh.weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. Literally, start your rebuttal with "regardless of responses, our case outweighs their case because ______"

Also- please please please please please tell me the why. Explain why things happen.

Theory/topicality

I hate theory/topicality being read as a time-suck. I will default to reasonability so if you read T be sure to give me a reason not to. Unfair observations and burdens will most likely get you low speaks, especially if I feel that you are trying to win in a cheap way. Run these at your own risk...

Speaker Points

I will go on a scale between 27-30, with a 28 being average. High Speaks are given to people who keep track of time, speak well, show up early, and are relatively nice. I am cool with sarcasm when appropriate, just don't be rude. Being early to round will get you higher speaks. If I am on a panel with a parent and you have to adapt to them I will understand.

Event Specific

Policy Specific/LD: Flashing doesn't count as prep, I'm down for reasonable theory, and open CX is fine. If you give me a speech doc and then spread through it tell me where to mark the card and which ones to skip. Slow down on taglines and anything else you want me to flow...

PF Specific: I want the second speaking team to try to answer the first rebuttal. New in the 2 gets lower speaks instantly for both partners AND I won't vote on it. If you want high speaks be clear, weigh, and have the FF mirror the summary.

Remember this is a game and y'all want to do this. Act accordingly. BTW I will yell clear!!!

Pete Weigman

Jesuit Dallas '19

2A

19357@jcpstudents.org

Note

--Partly because I’m lazy and partly because I have a very similar view of debate, most of this is copy+pasted from Jack Griffiths Paradigm, however, because we are all our own unique snowflakes, I have made a few changes based on my differing views

Background

Debated for four years at Jesuit Dallas at several local, regional, and national tournaments. I've always been a 1N/2A. I've mostly read affs with plans that have ranged from big-stick cybersecurity affs on the China topic to "policy" affs with a more critical lean during this past year. Read all types of neg strats throughout my career but my partner and I mostly went for Ks during my senior year.

General Thoughts

Everything I'm about to say pertains to my default biases that activate whenever neither side is definitively winning a specific issue in the debate. However, I of course believe there is value in all types of argumentation, and it's important for me to make a decision based off the actual arguments in the debate over anything else.

Evidence quality and flowing are two crucial components of good debate, but unfortunately, there can sometimes be debates where neither exists. I will easily find one well-warranted and qualified card better then five poorly-highlighted or unqualified cards, but these comparisons need to be initiated by the debaters themselves.

Open CX is technically OK (but not as good for ethos). Go as fast as you want while maintaining clarity.

If you say “this evidence is fire” or something of that sort more than once I will assume your evidence is not fire.

I'm incredibly thankful for debate, and as such I will try my best to help y'all after the round. Feel free to email me questions after the debate if you have them.

Theory

I'd be hard-pressed to reject the team unless the arguments go completely conceded or there's some nuance the other team is not answering. But I think theory arguments can be used for other strategic purposes, like justifying an intrinsic perm. I think conditionality is good but multiple contradictory worlds is less good, and I'm generally OK with most CPs on this topic except for devolution or offsets. Solvency advocates probably make a CP legitimate in any case. I don't find "new affs bad" or 5-second ASPEC shells persuasive.

A CP with a solvency advocate is always theoretically legit, however that solvency advocate must literally say the CP (in the context of solving the aff) should happen.

IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT STEALING EVIDENCE: I have a particular view on this but I think TMac can explain it way more clearly than I can, so here's a quote from her philosophy:

"I believe that reading evidence you got from someone's speech document (by copying and pasting it into your own blocks) is unethical and is a reason to stop the debate and vote against the team. I DO NOT mean that you can't take cites and recut the evidence - in fact getting cites from someone and recutting the evidence is good. BUT, if for example School A debate School B in round 4, then School A uses ev read by B against another B team, that's unethical. TEAM'S SPEECH DOCUMENTS ARE NOT OPEN EVIDENCE FILES. Know the difference."

K affs and FW/T-USfg

Generally, I think the discussions that K affs can provide can be valuable, but they should have some connection to the rez and a clear advocacy statement at the least. I'm more persuaded by K affs that can challenge/criticize assumptions surrounding immigration rather than ones that say "immigration bad for x reason" (that's probably neg ground). For negatives, TVAs are probably necessary and fairness is probably the best impact to go for. I also don't like people on both sides being overly hyperbolic in these debates (e.g. "T is equivalent to police brutality" or "you make everyone quit debate.")

Topicality (against policy affs)

Impact comparison is key. Affs probably need a counter interp unless the words the neg defines are in the plan text. Case-lists are awesome, and TVAs can be strategic (but not 100% necessary if you want to say the aff is so bad there's no way they can be topical). The best standard is probably limits, but I could find myself persuaded by education/research impacts from the aff (e.g. "we shouldn't ignore asylum on an immigration topic"). Reasonability to me pertains to the predictability of the aff counter interp and nothing else.

If you read multiple T violations you better be able to give an Aff that meets all violations. If you can’t, the aff doesn’t have to answer T

Ks

I like these debates. I've run Ks like Borders, Cap, Security, Agamben, Settler Colonialism, Berlant, etc. and I've been in lots of debates with other Ks like Afropess. I'm less familiar with high theory so you should be able explain your buzzwords very well if you don't have anything else you want to read. Overly-exclusionary FW arguments (for both sides) are overrated. Neg links should link to more than the status quo. Aff answers to Ks should move beyond generic state good cards. Death, extinction, and suicide are always bad.

CPs

If your net benefit is an advantage to the CP and not a DA to the aff, I'll be more OK with normally-sketchy perms from the aff (like intrinsic "do the aff and consult on another issue" perms versus consult CPs). CPs probably need a solvency advocate. Simply saying the words "sufficiency framing" at the top of the 2NR is generally not enough to compensate for a silly net benefit. I think a lot of CPs that are basically the aff (parole, non enforcement, etc) get away with murder when they probably link to the net benefit, but not enough aff teams call these things out. Affs should have some shields/avoids the net benefit argument for each perm that's made.

DAs

I like them but unfortunately they have been declining in quality for a bit over the last few years, but this means that I will reward well-researched disad strats. Risk can be zero, especially with unanswered defensive arguments. Turns the case should be contextualized to the aff's specific internal links and impacts. I feel uniqueness or link could control the other, some team just to explain which one it is and why. Disad non-intrinsic arguments are generally silly.

Case Debate

Affs should extend terminal impacts to advantages throughout the debate. Just like DAs, risk can be zero. Case mitigation in the 1NC is most likely better than an 8th off, and it's even better when it's more than just old impact defense cards. I've grown increasingly annoyed with affs that have three card advantages followed by 7 minutes of pre-empts. This isn't to say you can't reading framing contentions in front of me; just make sure you still have an actual advantage.

I am Dyspolity@gmail.com on email chains.

NSDA update:

I love judging here. Principally this is because the schools who compete the most robust circuits have to slow down and I get to be a meaningful participant in the debates. I am not fast enough to judge the TOC circuit and even my home circuit, TFA can have me out over my skis trying to follow. But here, my experience has been that the very best schools adapt to the format by slowing their roll and this allows me to viscerally enjoy the beauty and rigor of their advocacy. Do not confuse my pace limitations with cognitive limits.

Who I am:

Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Athens in East Texas. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.

I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.

Likes:

Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.

Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is almost never one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.

Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.

Dislikes:

Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.

Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?

Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.

Circuit level speed.

I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.

Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you are functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.

One More Concern:

There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.

Policy Debate:

I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.

LD Debate:

Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.

I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.

PF Debate:

I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.

Congress:

1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. 3)I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. 4)If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. 5) Your language choices should reflect scholarship. 6) All debate is about the resolution of substantive issues central to some controversy, as such clash is critical.