Some tidbits to consider, no particular order:

I try to make decisions based on criteria established by debaters. If none are offered, I will rely on my knowledge of convention, style, and execution to guide me. What that means - I am equally likely to vote for a good thought experiment or critical intervention, as I am a traditional policy proposal. That being said, I have a higher threshold for what counts. Asserted risk calculus is as unappealing as unapplied critical jargon.

Mediocre debaters copy others. Good debaters advance arguments. Great debaters persuade.

Don’t assume I know what you are talking about

I prefer organization and development of arguments as the debate proceeds. That means: 
Details matter. Warrants matter. Cross-ex matters. History matters. 

Evidence matters when a claim is contested. "We have a card" is not a warrant for an argument. How one chooses to highlight evidence should be of relevance to you, but it is especially relevant to me.



Argument "type" is not extremely relevant to me - select the arguments that you are prepared for rather than those that you think I agree with. I obviously have preferences but am interested in seeing how you make sense of the activity, not with advancing my agenda.



I think the activity is at its best when rounds are serious and complex investigations of policy, philosophy, and politics based in literatures and discussions made relevant by and to the resolution. 

That means I am less likely to care about miniscule theory debates or certain kinds of performances until/unless their relevance is clearly explained and impacted. Then, it's awesome.

I like:

case debates

disadvantage impacts that focus on early internal link claims and less on terminal impacts

affirmatives that affirm things

consistent but tricky negative strategies

counter plans with solvency advocates and real net benefits

alternatives

some relation to reality, even if contested

ethos

serious theoretical objections, including topicality

Everyone is always learning - including me and you.

*Updated 11/30/21*

My email is daw8332@sdsu.edu

I'm hired. Used to do Policy.

Good stuff to do:

- Avoid Cheerios and other sugary cereals

- Hydrate before + after every speech

- Get 8-9 hours of sleep a night

- Don't be mean to each other

The Round:

As big or small and as outlandishly or by-the-book as you want - just make it matter.

I prefer you debate like I was dragged off the street and made a judge. You're probably smarter than me anyways.

Judging:

Offense/Defense & Games. I'm TR until you say otherwise.

My RFD's are going to be as constructive and in-depth as I'm able to deliver on. If you think I'm going nowhere with whatever I'm saying during this time, please interject.

How I evaluate rounds:

I find clarity important, make it clear what your argument is and how your impacts are the most important in the round. I like full and completed arguments. Do you have Warrants, Links, Internal Links, and Impacts? Please, please, please do the impact calculus for me and tell me where you are winning and how I should vote. If you are running a K, please state the Alternative Twice, it helps me get it down precisely as well as the opposing team. If your K is highly technical, please explain and articulate your argument.

Some other comments:

Debate is an animal that can bring out a lot of different emotions, please remember that you are competing against humans and treat each other as such. There is no need to reduce our humanity to “win a ballot.” If you don’t care how you win and are willing to treat your opponents poorly. Please strike me, I will not be a critic you want in the back of the room.

I am an experienced Public Forum and Policy debater. I competed for 2 years at CSUF before graduating. I've been coaching the Public Forum and Novice Policy team for CSUF from 2015-2019. I'm also the head coach for Assurance Learning Academy - Harbor City.

AFFs: I like traditional and nontraditional affirmatives. I think it keeps everyone on their toes.

Framework: Have an interpretation that allows you to be competitive for both the AFF and NEG. Tell me how you want me to vote.

Counter Plans: I love a good counter plan. But coming up with a good CP comes with great responsibility. Coming up with a CP puts the burden of proof on you to prove why your plan is better. AFF, tell me why I should reject the CP.

Impacts: Make sure all your claims have impacts. This tells me why your argument is important. If there is no impact, then why does your argument matter? Tell me why your impact is more significant than your opponents impact.

If you want my ballot make sure your arguments are consistent across the flow. Tell me why I should vote for you clearly in the 2NR/2AR.

evan.sp.jensen@gmail.com

*Flow everything, especially feedback.

*Always signpost and provide road maps. Slow down when reading tags and authors. I want to understand what you are saying and organize it; help me out.

*DO NOT steal prep time. I will subtract stolen prep from your time remaining and it will count against your speaker points. When you or your opponent are not running prep time pencils must be down and do not play with your laptop. I give a reasonable amount of time to send files which I do not count as prep. If you are having trouble uploading or sending let both myself and your opponent know. Be fair and courteous to your opponent.

*If you spread and I cannot understand you, I will not be able to fully comprehend your argument. Start slower and work into your spreading so I can adapt to how your sprea.

*Voters - from the beginning of the debate you should be telling me how to frame my vote. What does my vote do and why is your definition of it to be preferred.

Evidence - Use and extend your evidence, but don't just blanket extend all your cards.

Impacts and solvency are key for me. I enjoy real world impact arguments, as rare as they may be. You need to really make me believe you are changing something for the better and tell me exactly how much and why I should vote for you over your opponent.

Topicality arguments must be well explained or run when there are clear violations; explanation must be concise and valid.

CX

I love a respectful CX. If your case is good you will want to educate your opponent and myself about what your case does well. Disrespectful or rude CX will be given less weight.

If the questioner moves on to another question reasonably DO NOT just speak louder to take up cx time. You would probably find it uncool as well if done to you.

Don't make claims if you're the one asking, form a question and ask it. CX is not a time to be making arguments; save that for your speeches. CX gives me a good idea of how knowledgeable you are of your case.

Ask questions with a final end goal in mind.

Overall: Don't panic, just breathe and you will be fine. I look forward to see everyone debate.

Harut Kejejyan ( kejejyanharut@gmail.com) - add me to the email chain.

Highschool Debate - Bravo Medical Magnet High School for 2 years: LAMDL Alumni

College Debate - Fullerton College - 2 Years

Currently Debating for CAL State Fullerton

HealthCare Topic - Bernie Sanders Counterfactual

Executive Power - D&G

Space - Techno-Ableism Aff

I am currently majoring in Communication Studies and Sociology.

Speaker Scale

29.5 - 30 - One of the best speakers at the Tournament. Most likely going to be in Elims.

29 - 29.4 - Very good speaker, clear, and easy to flow. Unique arguments.

28- 29 - Good Speaker, Needs Improvement on Tech Debate, I will highlight what I believe you need to do Improve on during RFD

< 28 - I usually refrain from giving anything below a 28 unless you have done/said something problematic (ie. Card Clipping,

Paradigm Last Updated 9/19/2020 - Jack Howe

Prefer Spreading to be clear and understandable, I will tell you to slow down if you become unclear (Clarity First)

If you have any problems during the debate PLEASE! Notify Me so we can resolve the issue. If at any point in the debate you feel uncomfortable once again bring it to my attention, Debate rounds should be a safe space where ideas can be discussed openly without judgment. Respect! Comes first, if you are rude or inconsiderate on more than one occasion I will deduct speaker points, you don't have to be rude to get your point across.

Evidence Matters!!! God please use and extend your evidence, arguments that are just read and never talked about are really confusing, and frankly, you wasted your time if you're reading evidence you're not using.

CX

I love a good CX, even if it gets a little heated but DONT attack your opponent during CX

Overall: I love a good debate! The round should be a place where you give everything you got because if you don't your arguments will suffer. I want to see you express everything you been prepping for. Don't panic just breathe and you'll be fine the worst that can happen is you lose, even you win in some sense. Can't wait to see everyone debate.

P.S: Have some emotion when you're reading the evidence, makes a big difference.

Director of Forensics, Cal State Northridge

Email speech documents to lemuelj@gmail.com

Any other inquires should go to joel.lemuel@csun.edu

He/him pronouns

***********

A. Judging/Coaching History

- Over 19 years of experience judging/coaching competitive debate events; less experience with speech and individual events (5 years)

- Worked with students of all ages: elementary (MSPDP), middle school (MSPDP), high school (policy, LD, public forum), and college (NDT/CEDA, NFA-LD, NPDA, IPDA, CPFL)

B. General Philosophy

1. Do you thing! This activity should center the stylistic proclivities of students, not judges. Full stop. My academic background has taught me reasonable arguments come in a variety of forms, styles, and mediums. I've coached and judged a wide range of styles from very traditional (e.g. topicality, disads, cps, and case), critical (e.g. post-structural/modern/colonial theory), to very non-traditional (e.g. performative/identity/method debate). There are things I like and dislike about every style I've encountered. Do what you do and I'll do my best to keep up.

2. "Inside Baseball" Sucks. These days I mostly judge college policy and high school LD. That means I am unlikely to know most of the acronyms, anecdotes, inside references about other levels of debate and you should probably explain them in MUCH more detail than you would for the average judge.

C. Pedagogical/Competitive Points of Emphasis

1. Importance of Formal Evidence (i.e. "cards"). I once heard a judge tell another competitor, “a card no matter how bad will always beat an analytic no matter how good.” For the sake of civility I will refrain from using this person’s name, but I could not disagree more with this statement. Arguments are claims backed by reasons with support. The nature of appropriate support will depend on the nature of the reason and on the nature of the claim. To the extent that cards are valuable as forms of support in debate it’s because they lend the authority and credibility of an expert to an argument. But there are some arguments where technical expertise is irrelevant. One example might be the field of morality and ethics. If a debater makes a claim about the morality of assisted suicide backed by sound reasoning there is no a priori reason to prefer a card from an ethicist who argues the contrary. People reason in many different ways and arguments that might seem formally or technically valid might be perfectly reasonable in other settings. I generally prefer debates with a good amount of cards because they tend to correlate with research and that is something I think is valuable in and of itself. But all too often teams uses cards as a crutch to supplement the lack of sound reasoning. The takeaway is … If you need to choose between fully explaining yourself and reading a card always choose the former.

2. Burden of Persuasion vs. Burden of Rejoinder One of things that makes policy and LD debate (and perhaps public forum) a fairly unique activity from a policy/legal perspective is our emphasis on the burden of rejoinder. If one competitor says something then the opponent needs to answer it, otherwise the judge treats the argument as gospel. Debaters might think their judges aren't as attentive to the flow as they would like, but ask any litigator if trial judges care in the least whether the other attorney answered their arguments effectively. Emphasizing the burden of rejoinder is a way of respecting the voice and arguments of the students who spend their valuable time competing in this activity. But like everything else in debate there are affordances as well as constraints in emphasizing the burden of rejoinder. Personally, I think our activity has placed so much emphasis on the burden of rejoinder that we have lost almost all emphasis on the burden of persuasion. I can’t count the number of rounds I have participated in (as a debater and as a judge) where the vast majority of the claims made in the debate were absolutely implausible. The average politics disad is so contrived that it's laughable. Teams string together dozens of improbable internal link chains and treat them as if they were a cohesive whole. Truth be told, the probability of the average “big stick” advantage/disad is less than 1% and that’s just real talk. This practice is so ubiquitous because we place such a heavy emphasis on the burden of rejoinder. Fast teams read a disad that was never very probable to begin with and because the 2AC is not fast enough to poke holes in every layer of the disad the judge treats those internal links as conceded (and thus 100% probable). Somehow, through no work of their own the neg’s disad went from being a steaming pile of non-sense to a more or less perfectly reasonable description of reality. I don't think this norm serves our students very well. But it is so ingrained in the training of most debates and coaches (more so the coaches than the debaters actually) that it’s sustained by inertia. The takeaway is… that when i judge, I try (imperfectly to be sure) to balance my expectations that students meet both the burden of rejoinder and the burden of persuasion. Does this require judge intervention? Perhaps, to some degree, but isn't that what it means to “allow ones self to be persuaded?” To be clear, I do not think it is my job to be the sole arbiter of whether a claim was true or false, probable or unlikely, significant or insignificant. I do think about these things constantly though and i think it is both impossible and undesirable for me to ignore those thoughts in the moment of decision. It would behoove anyone I judge to take this into account and actively argue in favor of a particular balance between the burdens or rejoinder and persuasion in a particular round.

3. The Role of the Ballot/Purpose of the Activity/Non-Traditional Debate. The first thing I want to say isn’t actually a part of my philosophy on judging debates as much as it is an observation about debates I have watched and judged. I can’t count the number of rounds I have watched where a debater says something akin to, “Debate is fundamentally X,” or “the role of the ballot is X.” This is not a criticism. These debaters are astute and clearly understand that defining the nature and purpose of the activity is an extremely useful (often essential)tool for winning debates. That said, in truth, debate is both everything and nothing and the role of the ballot is multiple. Asserting the "purpose of debate" or "the role of the ballot" is essentially a meaningless utterance in my opinion. Arguing in favor "a particular purpose of debate” or “a particular role of the ballot” in a given round requires reasons and support. Policy debate could be conceived as a training ground for concerned citizens to learn how to feel and think about particular policies that could be enacted by their government. Policy debate could also be conceived as a space students to voice their dissatisfaction with the actions or inactions of the governments that claim to represent them through various forms of performance. Excellent debaters understand policy debate is a cultural resource filled with potential and possibility. Rather than stubbornly clinging to dogmatic axioms, these debaters take a measured approach that recognizes the affordances and constraints contained within competing visions of "the purpose of debate" or the "role of the ballot” and debate the issue like they would any other. The problem is assessing the affordances and constraints of different visions requires a sober assessment of what it is we do here. Most debaters are content to assert, “the most educational model of debate is X,” or the “most competitive model of debate is Y.” Both of these approaches miss the boat because they willfully ignore other aspects of the activity. Debates should probably be educational. What we learn and why is (like everything else) up for debate, but it’s hard to argue we shouldn’t be learning something from the activity. Fairness in a vacuum is a coin-flip and that’s hardly worth our time. On the other hand, probably isn’t a purely educational enterprise. Debate isn’t school. If it were students wouldn’t be so excited about doing debate work that they ignore their school work. The competitive aspects of the activity are important and can’t be ignored or disregarded lightly. How fair things have to be and which arguments teams are entitled to make are up for debate, but I think we need to respect some constraints lest we confuse all discourse for argument. The phrase “debate is a game/the content is irrelevant” probably won’t get you very far, but that’s because games are silly and unimportant by definition. But there are lots of contests that are very important were fairness is paramount (e.g. elections, academic publishing, trials). Rather than assert the same banal lines from recycled framework blocks, excellent debaters will try to draw analogies between policy debate and other activities that matter and where fairness is non-negotiable. So the takeaway is … I generally think the topic exists for a reason and the aff has to tie their advocacy to the topic, although I am open to arguments to the contrary. I tend to think of things in terms of options and alternatives. So even if topicality is a necessarily flawed system that privileges some voices over others, I tend to ask myself what the alternative to reading topicality would be. Comparison of impacts, alternatives, options, is always preferable to blanket statements like “T = genocidal” or “non-traditional aff’s are impossible to research.”

4. Theory Debates (i.e. Debates about Debate Itself) I have a relatively high threshold for theory arguments, but I am not one of those judges that thinks the neg teams gets to do whatever they want. You can win theory debates with me in the back, but it probably isn’t your best shot. As a general rule (though not universal) I think that if you didn’t have to do research for an argument, you don’t learn anything by running it. I have VERY high threshold for negative theory arguments that are not called topicality. It doesn’t mean I wont vote on these arguments if the aff teams makes huge errors, but a person going for one of these argument would look so silly that it would be hard to give them anything about a 28.

I am an average judge to be honest. I do try to do my best but my biggest problem is that I do not really have a stable set of rules or frames for how I judge. Each round is different and I don't always see things in the same way from one round to the next.

Some of the more important things you should know about me as a judge are...

- I am not the fastest flow in the world so make sure you explain your arguments and provide me some idea of how you want me to prioritize your ideas

- I don't have a specific style of debate I prefer but I can probably say that I am a bit more capable contemplating ideas rather than calculating drops on a flow sheet

- I have so much respect for all the work that you all do to become good at this activity so whether you agree with my decision or not please know that I always challenge myself to be fair to you even if we see the debate differently

- I have been judging policy debates for over 17 years now from novice to the ndt

- Have fun and do you. I will try my best to give a decision that accurately reflects the debate I watched to the best of my ability

Eric

I see debate as a space for knowledge production, where we can use our ideas about the world to transform the world or make it a better place. The debaters get to decide what the debate should be about, be that a plan text or a critical approach to the topic. There are various approaches to the resolution and I am open to listening to your particular approach. You should advocate an approach that engages/attempts to engage the resolution.

That in mind I will provide a disclaimer, do not say evil things for the sake of competition, that approach is not persuasive at all! By evil I mean saying that genocides are good/necessary or that rape is ok, this extreme is not one that will persuade me to vote for you.

Framework

NEG- If you are going to go for framework make sure that the rebuttals contextualize the framework debate to the affirmative. Specificity in these debates goes a long way because often times framework is a blanket extension of standards with no explanation as to how the 1AC in particular causes the impacts.

AFF- If you are answering framework make sure you address their interpretation or provide a counter interpretation for the debate. Alf's should attempt to address the resolution, but if you dismiss the resolution I expect there to be a defense of a non-topical approach.

Good Luck and Have Fun!

If you have any questions please feel free to email me @ jntterodriguez@gmail.com

2015 Update: The paradigm below is all still pretty true but I only judge a couple of tournaments per year now so I am not sure how relevant it is. 

_______

Philosophy from the farm subsidies topic (2008/2009):

In general: as long as you win an argument and a reason why that argument means you should win, you should be in pretty good shape. 
Also, I love debate. If I didn’t, I would not be involved with the activity. You might want to keep that in mind if you run arguments about how horrible debate is. 
So, Policy, K, Performance? 
Two things: 
1. I don’t like to on-face reject any arguments, but I do tend to think that “performances” that don’t defend the topic or … a coherent argument are cheating. Still, I don’t think that just “framework” debating will get the job done against these types of arguments. You need to have a strategy that deals with the arg, or at least a substantive reason why your framework stuff matters (more than theory arguments). 
2. Apart from performance arguments, I think that the distinction between “K’s” and “policy” arguments is mostly arbitrary. They are all arguments about the value, truthfulness, or correctness of a proposition …. It’s pretty simple: defend the value of your proposition. Here are some notes on how to do that: 
“middle of the road” K business on the aff- I always liked to run these types of arguments on the aff, but to my chagrin, a counterplan usually solved enough of the case to outweigh because of “the risk of a net benefit.” I think that approach is much more strategic than just reading framework. Affs – make sure to use your built in framing issues to exclude the negs args from my consideration. 
“middle of the road” K business on the neg- see #2 about the arbitrary distinction between “policy” and “K” arguments- the suffix “ology” or “ism” does not automatically make an argument unfair, it just means that the aff has to defend a DIFFERENT aspect of their case. I never know why affs don’t have to defend, for example, the assumptions underlying their claims. However, I am open to specific objections about shady stuff K teams do (like vague alts, or refusing to specify if/how it solves the case). Other than that, just step up and defend that what you said was valuable. 
K’s in general– “I don' t know what the lack is.” I don’t read this type of literature in my spare time … that’s because I don’t really understand it. Please PLEEASE PLEASE please explain this stuff, or I won’t understand and will look at you confused at the end of the round. 
Framework- prefer “race to the middle.” More arguments related to the topic = probably good. 
Disads and “policy” advantages- totally fine. I don’t really appreciate the shit-cannon approach, so please make sure to really develop the arguments. I think defense is under-utilized/under-answered, so pay attention to that stuff. 
Counterplans- as a former 2A, I have a love-hate relationship with counterplans. The counterplan is crucial to negative strategy/the ability to test every word in the plan text. On the other hand, it’s a shame that so many negatives abuse the tool with unrealistic counterplans. Who thought it was a good idea to write “overrule Quirin” or “engage the Middle East” into the Constitution as an amendment? 
Theory- I don’t like theory debates, but that is mostly because I don’t understand them that well. If this is what the debate comes down to, you will do better in front of me by slowing down and actually explaining your theory args, not just reading blocks. Oh, also, I don’t really know what “community norms” about most theory issues are – please don’t rely on some prior knowledge of debate theory – I DON’T HAVE IT. 
Cheap shots- yeah, I will vote on them. Don’t drop these, if you are the victim. Explain the impact, if you are the perpetrator. See above about not knowing what debate theory “should” be. 
Topicality- having a resolution is good. I enjoy a good T debate, but I probably err aff on reasonability questions. 
Other things: 
- I hate prep-stealers 
- I flow cross-ex. 
- I usually end up voting on conditionality bad when there were multiple contradictory conditional worlds and the aff specifically explains these relationships and their impact on the round/their ability to debate. 
- I’ve noticed that clarity matters a lot. If I can’t understand you … I can’t understand you. And, I kind of have a slow ear. 

12 years in policy debate. CSU Fullerton.

Quality over quantity

Im open to whatever just give me something substantive to vote on.

K: I don't know all the literature out there and even if I do I expect explanations and I expect you to make it reasonably understandable for your opponent. I like the wild, the unexpected, the innovative.

FW: I like critical AFF's in general but I think FW is important too. Try to keep it organized for me. Framing becomes super important.

CP: Take your time articulating that cp text to me.

DA: If uniqueness is in question I hope you take some extra time clarifying it for me in the last speech.

T: I like topicality in theory but the I dislike how they sometimes play out. If you want me to vote on a standard it should have in round abuse or generally some well warranted reasoning. Dropped blippy arguments are not persuasive to me.

co-Director of Forensics at CSU, Fullerton since Fall 2019

Director of Forensics at CSU, Fullerton since Fall 2010

3 years coaching/judging primarily policy debate during graduate school (Wayne State)

2 years coaching/judging primarily policy debate during graduate school (Miami University , Ohio - sadly, this program no longer exists)

4 years debate, Novice – Open (John Carroll University - sadly, this program no longer exists)

I'm an Associate Professor at CSUF in the Human Communication Department. My research interests include rhetorical theory and criticism, critical/cultural theory, in particular feminist and queer studies especially related to body rhetoric. As a critic, I put a great deal of time and effort into making my decision – I like to be thorough. As a result, you can make my job a lot easier if you are clear and specific in the last rebuttals. Frame the debates well by telling me where I should cast my ballot and why. Tell me what evidence I should read and why. Here’s what else you should know about me:

The topic: Since I started directing, I cut fewer cards on the topic and, as a result, do not necessarily know all the acronyms or jargon on the topic. Currently and moving forward, I expect to complete little topic-specific research so you will need to educate me on your affirmative and case-specific disadvantages. Explain your case or DA and its advantages/parts in the round. Provide clear standards and warrants for Topicality arguments that reference the resolution. While I may proceed cautiously with kritiks that seem dependent on "links of omission," I am open to cases that creatively connect to the topic and will often view cases that some would label untopical completely acceptable if they have a good defense. Additionally, anyone can make any argument on on why I should be compelled to listen to an argument, and I will do my best to weight such arguments objectively. (More on topicality below). Generally this understanding of my perspective of debate should help you convince me to vote for your position.

Flowing: Please note that when judging online debates I appreciate teams that slightly minimize their speed and work extra hard on clarity and articulation given the technical issues that can arise. Otherwise, I’m generally fine with speed and have a pretty decent flow, however please be clear on your tags and cites, it just makes my life a lot easier. It is possible to go too fast for me, especially on theory debates; if you plan on going for the argument or if you think the argument could threaten your success in the round, your time is best spent slowing down just a bit. This is really good advice for blippy theory, framework, or topicality debates.

Paradigm/Framework: I will vote on anything if it’s a good argument and impacted. My own experience as a debater has left me equipped to judge in a general policy paradigm, however, I am very much open to the idea of alternative debate paradigms, such as performance debate, and since coming to Cal State Fullerton, I primarily coach and watch these types of debates. I tend to err on the side of allowing alternative forms of argumentation as long as the other team has reasonable ground to debate. I will vote on anything, as long as the argument is clear and I understand what I am voting on. I primarily see debate arguments as either offensive or defensive claims and although I think it is much easier to win with offense in the debate, I am willing to vote for compelling defensive arguments. I avoid putting myself in debate rounds whenever possible, but if all the debaters fail to make their position clear, I am forced to intervene and weigh impacts from a strictly utilitarian perspective. I like to be included in the exchange of speech docs especially given that I will need to interpretation the weight and importance of some evidence if the work is not done for me by the debaters. If I read a lot cards after the round it’s probably because you failed to explain the timeframe, magnitude, or probability of the impact, or because you failed to explain the warrants in your evidence. It could also mean that it’s simply a close round, and that both teams did such a nice job explaining their arguments that I need to resort to cards to determine who provides the most persuasive story as supported by the evidence. In short, explain your frameworks and impacts throughout the debate and especially at the end of the round.

Kritiks/Framework: To be honest, I probably enjoy these debates the best, and I am probably most equipped to judge critical rounds. I have a strong working knowledge of post-structural theorists, including Butler, Derrida, and Foucault. I have a decent understanding of Wilderson/antiblackness and Lacanian/Zizek theory but please be clear to explain particular components of your K, especially if it is psychoanalysis. Debaters tend to bastardize the philosophy for all these theorists so don't expect that just because I read these authors I automatically understand the way you use them or that I understand all of a critical theorists’ jargon. The argument needs to be clear in its explanation and impact in the round. If I don’t know what it means to vote for a kritik, I probably won’t vote on it. Also, have a clear framework – if the framework is clear, I am more than willing to evaluate the kritik. The same goes for performance. I am wary of alternatives that do little but suggest they can solve the entirety of the aff plan. At the same time, I question alternatives that are too utopian. Over the years, I have changed my approach to "rules," such as the American Debate Association (ADA) rules; anything is debatable, especially "rules." Also, I take language kritiks and other impacts with in round implications seriously (although just because the team links to the argument that does not necessarily mean that the opponents win the debate; the team running the argument needs to impact). For example, if a teams fails to use gender-neutral language, and they fail to answer the kritik appropriately, I am certainly willing to pull the trigger here if the opposing team can provide compelling implications.

Disadvantages: Although I tend to watch critical debates, I can evaluate traditional, realist-framework debates. But, be sure to tell clear stories on Politics DAs and Economics scenarios – don’t assume I know the internal link stories – I’ve never taken a class in Economics and I was not a political science major. Don’t simply revert to referencing the claims of political theory on politics without explaining the warrants.

Counterplans/Theory/Topicality: I will consider and vote on theory debates, especially CP theory, however you should make sure you are clear with the warrants with your arguments, do not assume that I know that any one particular theory argument means, and do not expect me to vote on blip theory arguments/voters. Proving abuse/or explaining the impact is necessary; if the risk of the impact is legitimate, I will vote here. I am certainly willing to consider and vote on topicality and generally think affirmatives need an offensive approach to their claim's that their case is topical. Although I am lenient on what I consider topical, if the negative proves that the affirmative is not playing fair or if the activity is suffering as a result of these types of cases (or other in-round impacts), I will certainly pull the trigger. When a team goes for topicality, they should invest the majority of the 2NR on this flow. Regarding arguments like ASPEC and Vagueness, you have to work a lot harder when convincing me to vote on arguments.

When debating negative: Don’t undercover the case. If you do not go for case turns or take-outs, be sure your positions actually complete with the Aff’s solvency claims.

Finally, show respect to your opponents, your partner and myself. I really enjoy debates that are funny and/or passionate but also are friendly and collegial. Please do not steal prep time. I won’t count sending/receiving evidence as part of prep time, but don’t abuse the privilege. Some of us really need to pick up this process or you will not leave me sufficient time to adjudicate your decision. If you have any questions feel free to ask, and have fun!!!

Updated for NPTE 2022

On me as a judge:

- I was a critical policy debater in college and currently coach policy, parli, and LD at SFSU.

- I default to being a technical judge but am happy to judge differently if you tell me why I should. I don't protect the flow, please call out any new arguments in the rebuttals.

- **Speed is fine BUT now that we're virtual, please make sure you're speaking clearly if you want to spread. Audio quality can be poor when debating online, so enunciating is really important for me to catch exactly what you're saying.** It is most important that your opponents can understand you so they can engage with your arguments. If you're intentionally going for full unintelligibility or rejecting the English language as part of your performance, carry on; just give us enough so I can weigh it against your opponent.

- I dock speaker points for being rude in flex/cx, making excessive faces during your opponent's speech, or straight up interrupting your opponent's speech. As long as you're respectful, my speak ranges are usually 27-29.5.

On types of arguments:

- I'm drawn to critical and unconventional arguments. That said, I care more about seeing you debate what you believe in and are passionate about than seeing you craft a case you think will please me - if that's traditional policy for you, please keep doing you. This is your education and your debate experience first.

- I love critiques, but you need to establish clear, strong links. I love performance, but you need to establish and extend what your in-round performance is. I'm familiar with most K literature, but you need to make sure your opponent fully understands your K/lit so they can engage with your case.

- If you are not a K team, you are not at a disadvantage with me. I've voted against Ks just as often as I've voted for them.

- If you're neg against a critical affirmative, I want to see you engage with the critique as you would engage with a plan. I will vote neg for dropped theory arguments and/or for proven abuse if the aff refuses to explain their literature to you, but if you collapse to theory and the aff does answer it, you will have a hard time winning my vote.

tl;dr:

- Ks good, inaccessibility bad, flow judge

I'm trans so please keep that in mind if trans issues become part of the debate. :^)

Please use speechdrop instead of email chains! My email is oli.tripp@icloud.com if you have any extra questions after round.