Pronouns: He/Him/His

Email: tjbdebate@gmail.com

I'd really appreciate a card doc at the end of the round.

About me

Debated in policy for four years at Damien High School in La Verne, CA. I placed pretty well at some national tournaments and received some speaker awards along the way. I have worked as a judge and staff member at the Cal National Debate Institute. I was a consultant/judge for College Prep, and this is my first year as an assistant coach for College Prep.

I mostly think about debate like her. If you like the way she thinks then I probably think the same way.

Top Level

**** I will try my hardest to flow without looking at my computer so I suggest debating as if I have no reference to what is being read. Clarity is much more important than unchecked speed ****

Debate is a competition, but education seems to be the most intrinsic benefit to the round taking place. I believe that debates centered around the resolution are the best, but that can mean many different things. Debate is also a communicative activity so the first thing that should be prioritized by all the substance is the ability to clearly convey an argument instead of relying on the structure and tricky nature of policy debate.

The most important thing for me as a judge is seeing line-by-line debating instead of relying upon pre-written blocks. Drops happen and that is debate, but what I most hate to see are students reading off their laptops instead of making compelling indicts of their opponents' arguments off the top of their heads. Debate requires some reaction to unexpected things but I think that it enhances critical thinking and research skills.

When it comes to content, I sincerely do not have any big leans toward any type of argument. Just come to the round with a well-researched strategy and I will be happy to hear it. My only non-starters are arguments that promote interpersonal violence, prejudice toward any group of people, or danger toward anyone in the round. If those arguments are made, the offending team will lose, receive a 0 for speaker points, and I will speak with their coach. The safety of students is the number one priority in an academic space such as debate.

Thoughts on Specific Arguments Below:

Disadvantages: Impact calculus and Turns case/Turns the DA at the top, please. These debates are won and lost with who is doing the most comparison. Don't just extend arguments and expect me to just clean it up for you. I like politics DAs, but I want more comparisons of whose evidence is better and more predictive instead of just dumping cards without any framing arguments. Go for the straight turn. I love bold decisions that are backed up by good cards.

Counter plans: I am all about good counterplan strategies that have great solvency evidence and finesse. I have grown tired of all the nonsense process, agent, and consult counter plans, and while I will vote for them, I prefer to hear one that is well-researched and actually has a solvency advocate for the aff. Regarding theory, most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or to lower thresholds for solvency deficits, not voters. Consult CPs are however the most sketchy for me, and I can be convinced to vote against them given good debating.

Topicality: Love these debates, but sometimes people get bogged down by the minutiae of the flow that they forget to extend an impact. Treating T like a disad is the best way to describe how I like teams to go for it. Please give a case list and/or examples of ground loss. Comparison of interpretations is important. I think that the intent to exclude is more important than the intent to define, but this is only marginal.

Kritiks: Over time I have become more understanding of critical arguments and I enjoy these debates a lot. The alternative is the hardest thing to wrap my head around, but I have voted for undercovered alternatives many times. I think that the more specific link should always be extended over something generic. Extending links is not enough in high-level rounds, you have to impact out the link in the context of the aff and why each piece of link offense outweighs the risk of the aff internal link. I prefer that the negative answer the aff in these rounds, but I do not think it is impossible to win without case defense. The only thing that matters is winning the right framework offense.

Planless Affs: Performance 1ACs are great but there has to be an offensive reason for the performance. I won't vote on a dropped performance if there is no reason why it mattered in the first place. I prefer that these affs are in the direction of the topic, but if there is a reason why only being responsive to the resolution matters, then I am fine with it not being so. Framework is a good strategy, but I don't like voting on fairness, because I don't believe that it is a terminal impact. I believe that having a fair division of labor is important, but not because debate is a game. Debate has intrinsic educational value and both teams should be debating over how they access a better model of the activity. For the negative, I like it when teams just answer the aff method and clash over the effectiveness of the 1AC.

Conditionality: I think that up to 3 advocacies are fine for me. Anything more and I am more sympathetic to the aff. Don't get it twisted, if the neg screws up debating condo, I will vote aff.

Feel free to ask me anything before the round. Most importantly compete, respect each other, and have fun.

Hey y'all-- I'm a sophomore in college and I debated Policy for 4 years at La Costa Canyon HS. Here are some general notes I would like you to read:

~ I mostly debate policy rather than K arguments, so if you read a K (which is 100% fine), then please impact it out. And I consider myself a very open-minded judge so please don't shy away from any arguments. Take risks in your argumentation but still be logical.

~ For spreading, I can keep up

~ In terms of cards, quality of evidence is so much more important than quantity.

Argument Stuff:

Case: Spend time on this. If these arguments go untouched, the probability of you winning goes down.

K: Don't trivialize the issues of marginalized groups for the sake of winning a debate. That being said, I respect K's & hold K debates to high standards. Please be sure the link is there/contextualized and the K has an impact that you should make clear.

DA/CP: I love me a good DA paired with an arguably cheating CP. Honestly though, take time to evaluate these arguments and be sure the link is clear.

T: I LOVE T debates. But, I am pretty reasonable about most of these arguments. Disclosure theory needs to take a hike. And if you read neg ground on a popular aff, you best be jokin.

Overall, have fun in the debate round, be kind and make a genuine effort. You'll do great.

If you have any questions, please email me: gcboyd@stanford.edu

Email chain: eric.boxuan.gao@gmail.com

Stanford '25

Debated 3 years of Policy at Kudos, 4 years at Northwood. Have done all speaker roles at some point, mainly was a 2N/1A.

I've gone for both policy and kritikal arguments.

K affs should be at least related to the topic.

You should be timing yourself. I will stop flowing if your time goes too over.

CP/DA

Have ev comparison - this is usually the fastest way to win debates.

Explain why your cards being true means their theory is wrong.

A DA by itself can win a debate, as long as there's sufficient turns/solves case analysis.

T/Theory

Treat it like a disad - compare standards and weigh them against one another.

I'm not against voting for theory, as long as it's debated well. I personally kicked the aff to go for theory a bit more times than I should have.

Kritiks

K's I've gone for: Lacan, Cap, Security, Berlant, Puar (in that order of familiarity)

When going for the K, the most important thing is to have specific analysis regarding the aff. In a k debate, the team that talks about the AFF more wins.

Tie your story together, instead of just "aff is like [x concept] and [y concept] is bad".

PLEASE EXTEND YOUR IMPACTS.

I've seen too many debates that are much closer than they should be because of a lack of extended impacts. The best link story without impacting it out is ultimately still not a reason to vote for your side.

I appreciate strategic argumentation instead of reading blocks - if they drop a turn, go for it instead of some other piece of defense.

I'm a second-year UC Berkeley student + debated in high school for four years (PF/CX/Parli).

PARLI: (Updated 1/20/21)

Speed: I'm good with speed as long as long as your opponents are good with it. (The goal here is not to speak so fast that I can understand you but your opponents can't. I'm not a big fan of the "read-as-many-off-case-arguments-to-spread-out-your-opponents" strategy in Parli.)

Tag-Teaming: I don't think this is really necessary in Parli, so I would strongly prefer if you would not. If you can convince me otherwise, then sure.

Counterplans: I've always liked a good counterplan. If you plan on running any theory arguments against a counterplan, please remember to articulate exactly why the counterplan is unfair and how it impacts education/debate as a whole/etc.

Disads: I weigh these like anyone else. Please make sure your disadvantages have a good link to the Aff (or be able to argue that your disads have a strong link to the Aff).

Kritiks: Fine, as long as there is a solid link to the Aff. It's been a while since used a K in a debate round, so you'll probably need to give me a refresher on whatever literature you're citing. If you can't defend your alternative well, I'll be less likely to "buy" your K.

Topicality: Don't forget to provide a counter-interpretation in your T shell so I have something to work off of. Also, if you want T to be an a priori issue/a voter, please articulate to me why that should be (on the grounds of fairness, education, etc).

Dropped Arguments: I don't do anything with these unless you tell me to. That is, I won't automatically vote for you because your opponent dropped one of your arguments--you'll need to explain to me why that dropped argument is significant and means I should give you the win.

Other:

-Just because you can run an argument doesn't mean you should (e.g. "death good"). Use your best judgement here.

-It's OK (and encouraged) to give me an off-time roadmap before you start.

-Don't forget to signpost and tell me where you are on the flow.

-Remember to be respectful to your partner and your opponents.

-I like when speakers take POIs, but don't feel obligated to take every POI. (Good POIs/responses to POIs will be rewarded in higher speaker points, though.)

-Please don't make up evidence--I may ask to see your evidence after round.

-If you have any questions, please feel free to ask! I'm always happy to clarify.

I've never done pofo before so I hope this will help you? This is mostly my opinions on Parli and CX, I’ve done Parli for about 2 1/2 years and Policy for a year .

INSTANT Ls

Sexist, racist, and homophobic comments (even if they are implied) will make you get the lowest speaks I can possible give you and and instant L. Also any mention of Baudrillard or Batille will incur this as well

Ks

I like 'em! I need a clear link story and an actual alt to even consider it. FOR PARLI, I need an actual K with a link and an alt and an impact because Ks in parli tend to not be an actual critique. FOR ID Ks yeah i need a really good link to buy it bruh.

T

MY favorite part of debate!!!!!!! I love T!!!!! I need definitions though! And good standards! The whole shebang!

D.A.

I need a good link and some good impact analysis

Condo

No

MISC.

I'm fine with speed, I just need to be on the email chain. MY email is taraejones32@gmail.com so put me on there. FOR PARLI: I need cited evidence and not ass arguments. Don't bother lying and faking evidence because I am always up to date on current event s and can sniff out a liar a mile away. The funnier you make the debate and the more memes you reference the higher speaks you will get.

Pronouns she/her.

Updates for 2023

I have not judged during the 2022-23 season so may be out of practice and unaware of new arguments.

Please be thoughtful about class, race and gender dynamics happening during the debate. My threshhold for abusive behavior in the debate space lowers every year and I become more and more willing to vote on theory in all formats. If I see abuse against an inexperiened team that doesn't know how to run theory, I will drop you all the same and spend my rfd time teaching them how to run theory.

For PF:

My flowing will only be as good as your sign-posting, tagging and articulation. I am not a fan of the pf cases that read like an oratory and are impossible to flow. I expect teams to extend tags, evidence and warrants. Offense is not sticky. I won't flow dropped arguments in later speeches so you don't need to tell me. I also expect teams to follow NSDA evidence rules.

I am open to theory arguments in PF as I see it as one of the only effective mechanisms for addressing some of the ills of pf. You should have a proper theory shell though.

Let's all be nice and generous and kind. I believe good PF debate should be a relaxed exchange of ideas as opposed to suppressed (or not) rage.

Don't give speeches during crossfire. I like a crossfire that is clarifying and illuminates areas of dispute. To that end, I prefer that everybody be super chill. Yelling, berating, and asking obviously abusive questions are all good ways to tank your speaks. You will never impress me by out-aggressing your opponent during CX.

I'm not a fan of blippy debate and tend to vote on the arguments that are fleshed out, well evidenced and that provide a clear path to the ballot. I personally think the emphasis on weighing overlooks the need to have a clear link with good warranting and strong evidence. I'm not entirely tech > truth because I can't always bring myself to vote on technical arguments that are not fleshed out enough to be plausible.

I think the second rebuttal should respond to turns but I'm okay with other responses coming in summary. I see defense as sticky. I like to see teams collapse and don't love the style of debate where final focus is an exact rerun of summary --would rather see that the debate has progressed or that your weighing and warranting has advanced b/c of clash.

For LD and Policy

****Disclosure on the Wiki is encouraged. Please add me to the email chain: danisekimball@gmail.com ****

I can handle a fair amount of speed but haven't judged LD/Policy in a year so you may lose me if you are super fast. It helps me a lot if you make it clear when you are ending a card. I will say "clear" if I can't understand and "slow down" if I can't keep up.

For LD

I am open to different styles including LARP and K debate. Slow down for theory shells and K alts, especially if they are novel. I am much more likely to vote for an argument that has been well explained. I am less technical in the sense that arguments that do not have a clear story with warrants won't always win a round even if they got under-covered.

I am not a fan of silly theory arg's but they still need to be responded to. I will do RVI's in LD but I don't love them.

I am pretty familiar with a lot of the K literature and it is difficult for me to vote for debaters who use it so badly that it is nonsensical.

For Policy:

I like both traditional and progressive debate. I really want students to engage directly with the arguments, their underlying assumptions and areas of clash with the opponent. It is hard to be convinced by an argument you don't understand.

I'm open to role of the ballot/framing issues when weighing structural violence impacts.

Berkeley elims update: elim rounds are open to the public, if you try to ask people to not watch the round I will be incredibly displeased.

About Me

Kyle (he/they), did circuit PF (and some policy and extemp on the state level) and coached for Fairmont. Studied math education at Cal, and didn't debate in college. Please use my first name and don't call me "judge", I promise I'm not much older than you.

I've judged rather infrequently over the past three years - I still keep a very good flow by PF standards (can still get cites for every card), but keep in mind my rust and don't speak too quickly. I can deal with cards being spread IF you are slow on tags and cites AND your cards are long enough that you're not spreading 12 words and going back to slow. I won't flow off a speech doc.

Email me at kylek@berkeley.edu if you have any questions or to add me to email chains.

You can make warrants in round about why I should change any the beliefs listed below unless you are advocating for exclusionary behavior or academic dishonesty.

General

Tabula rasa is a myth; the best a judge can do is explain the ways in which they are not tab before the round. So read this.

The best way to win in front of me is to win one piece of offense, properly extend it in each speech, and convince me it's the most important thing through weighing. I strongly prefer you going very in depth on one argument than trying to win every argument and undercovering everything.

Every claim you make should be warranted, and the team who does better comparative warrant analysis will almost always win. Empirics/evidence without warrants mean almost nothing to me.

Tech > truth but you'll find true arguments are very easy to warrant. Read above. You can (and maybe should) warrant to me why I should be truth > tech on theory or structural violence arguments.

Rebuttal

Neither side can read new independent offense in rebuttal (theory arguments where the violation occurred in the previous speech is an exception). Weighing and turns are obviously fine, but reading a new contention as an "overview" is not cool.

If you only read one section from this paradigm, make it this one: if you are the second speaking team, you need to respond to everything from the first rebuttal related to the arguments that you intend to go for in summary and final focus. If you want to go for a contention in your case, you better cleanly frontline at least one link and impact. Anything said in the first rebuttal that isn't addressed in the second is considered dropped.

Summary/Final Focus

Go for one thing and go for it hard. I love early collapse strategies (as early as the rebuttal speeches). Go for one of the six links into your case, go for a turn, concede defense against your own case to kick out of a turn, make smart decisions and be creative.

Three minute summaries are one minute too long. There's no excuse to not cleanly extend everything you want to go for. This means frontlining, and properly extending warrants and impacts. I need a full link chain extended to grant you offense on an argument.

Do meta weighing - why is your impact that wins on magnitude more important than your opponents' impact that wins on probability? Don't just use buzzwords. And saying "we read link defense, therefore we outweigh because their impact is nonexistent" is NOT WEIGHING. Assume both arguments are true and show why yours is better.

If it's not in summary, it better not be in final focus. This applies to both offense and defense. I have no tolerance for debaters who disrespect their partners, and one of the most common ways it appears in-round is when a second speaker's final focus is nothing like their partner's summary. Your speaker points will suffer greatly if this happens.

"Progressive" Arguments

Theory should be used to set norms and check against abuse. I'm not the person to read frivolous theory in front of.

Here are some of my general beliefs on theory arguments, but keep in mind that I can be (and have been) persuaded to vote against these beliefs. You should disclose and I'll vote for disclosure theory. I'm ambivalent on specific disclosure interps (ex: round reports), but please understand the inherent differences between PF and policy before you read these arguments. I don't have any predisposed leanings on paraphrasing, but misconstruction of evidence is academic dishonesty and will be treated as such. Even if you paraphrase you should have all your cut cards in one document and evidence exchanges should take less than a minute.

On RVIs: you shouldn't win just for following the rules, but you should also be able to argue that theory trades off with topic education and therefore is a voter. I've been told some folks disagree on whether that means I default yes or no RVIs, but that is my baseline stance. Again, I will not hack for/against any of these arguments, but I want to list my general dispositions here for full transparency's sake. Ask me before round if you have any questions.

I will vote for your K or policy argument with non-utilitarian kritikal framing. If you're reading the former, keep in mind I'm not super familiar with the literature so warrant and explain well. K vs. FW debates are among my favorite to watch and evaluate. Both teams in a K round should warrant why I should prefer their model of debate (i.e. have a good ROTB argument). I generally believe K's should have some link to the topic.

Things I would be a very good judge for: LARP vs. LARP, disclosure, K vs. FW, LARP with K framing

Things I would be a pretty good judge for: LARP vs. K, other theory, K vs. K

Things I would be a very bad judge for: non-topical K, frivolous theory, tricks (really any argument that doesn't have a claim, warrant, and impact at bare minimum)

Respect your opponents and your partner. Have fun.

Peninsula '20

Add me to the chain: kristenl778@gmail.com

General:

I was a 2A during high school. I think tech > truth, but truth gets increasingly important the closer the debate becomes. Weigh and do line by line. I am very easily persuaded by smart analytic arguments in response to bad evidence/argument quality. I will look to evidence if I'm given two opposing claims without a way to reconcile them.

Please compile a card doc at the end of the debate and send it to me.

Be nice :)

Affirmatives:

I think they should be topical and defend a plan.

If you read a soft left affirmative, I won't be convinced by going for just the framing advantage in the 2AR and not adequately debating the disad.

Counterplans:

I think I'm good for most stuff (e.g. 2NC counterplans/not having a solvency advocate in the 1NC etc.). The exception to this is if your counterplan competes off certainty/immediacy, which I don't particularly enjoy.

I lean neg in most counterplan theory debates.

Disadvantages:

The more specific to the aff these are the better.

Well explained link story > uniqueness.

Topicality:

Fairness is an independent impact.

Kritiks:

I'm familiar with the prevailing ones. Please explain a lot more than you typically would if you're reading Bataille/Deleuze etc.

Please have a clearly articulated, specific link to the aff that isn't just "state bad" and an alternative that actually does something. Recutting of aff evidence and using cx to prove links is super appreciated/important.

Do your best to stay organized; try not to have stream-of-consciousness speeches in which you allude to the long overview instead of doing line by line.

In K v. K debates (I am probably not optimal for you in these), I think the aff gets the perm but can be persuaded otherwise.

northwood hs 19 (no longer coaching. coaching northwood ff; debatedrills ld) chain: danielluo.pi@gmail.com

northwestern 23 (ma econ, ba econ + math + some other stuff): not debating.

past: i don't debate in college, but coach policy (and previously ld). when i was debating, i got a few bids in policy and ld, was mostly a double 2 (2n otherwise), and usually read a plan.

0. racism, sexism, queerphobia, ableism, and other arguments which advocate violence based on immutable characteristics are bad and will result in an L 0.

1. boilerplate: tech > truth, judge instruct and i'll abandon my predispositions. don't clip. dropped args = true, but implications = up for contestation. evidence quality matters. spin, contextualization, and judge instruction matter much more.

2. "judge type": ideological differences are usually a result of heterogenous academic background filtering the way we read arguments. to be explicit: i work in abstract economic theory and pure mathematics (particularly game theory, mechanism design, information). this implies

a. i think of the world much more through the lens "definition theorem lemma proof." i enjoy specific claims with good warrants that have clear implications for why you should win, and do not enjoy "warrant by n = 1 example."

b. if you ask me to read cards that cite statistics, i will read unhighlighted portions to check statistical significance of the results.

c. i did not go for, nor do i interact with the literature for, "hard-left" critical arguments; you will need to do more work to win my ballot as a consequence of the above. even though i find myself voting for k affs and all types of ks when i do judge them, i have found my predisposition towards preferring axiomatically formal, rigorous argumentation implies winning these arguments is an uphill battle in front of me.

3. what i like:impact turn debates, multiplank process counterplans with smart advantage and uniqueness planks, aggressive 2acs that don't modularize the debate, and well-contextualized politics disads.

4. what i dislike: high theory buzzwords, assuming i have the same references/knowledge as you, a lack of judge instruction, and particularly messy block/1ar organization.

5. condo: conditionality is good. a lot of conditionality is even better.

6. theory: counterplans are arbitrary modifications to the status quo using the actor identified in the resolution to identify the existence of an opportunity cost. any counterplan that meets this definition is a-priori not abusive (i.e. theory is an uphill battle). however, "sketchier" counterplans might justify creative permutations and bolder strategic concessions, both of which will give you higher speaks.

7. ld: i don't anticipate having to judge ld again in the future. if i do and you are reading this trying to pref me, if the word "kant" means anything to you, strike me.stanford 2023 update: the aff gets to read a plan. the neg gets at least some conditionality. these are non-negotiable dispositions and cannot be argued away by judge instruction.

8. speaks: if you care, my speaks have mean 28.45 with standard deviation 0.57. if you know what you're doing, you'll probably get fine speaks.

Email: a.sinsioco1@gmail.com

-Peninsula' 21 - USC' 25

Have fun. Be nice.

I have little specific topic knowledge, so don't take for granted that I understand any topic-specific jargon/am keeping up with the debate meta.

tech>truth

Very hard pressed to vote on presumption type arguments. Absent any offense, even the smallest chance that the aff does something positive for the world is enough reason to vote affirmative

Other than that, any opinion I have about arguments can be overcome by better debating.

Thoughts

The first 30 seconds of the final rebuttal should write my RFD.

K Affs:

Probably read a plan tbh, but I will enjoy K affs with a strong explanation of what the aff actually does clear articulation of how debate operates under their framework and clear articulation of how debate operates under their framework.

I often find defensive arguments weaker and think the counter interpretation solves little of the actual neg offense. impact turn framework standards and the neg's model of debate.

Fairness > Education/Skills > whatever else. Focus on using your framework arguments to engage the substance of the aff and the da's to framework. It's very easy to vote aff in these debates when the negative spreads through framework blocks and fails to directly address the often more developed affirmative case and da's to framework

I really enjoy and prefer judging substantive offense against the K itself. Don't be afraid to go for the heg da or cap good or whatever.

K:

If your K is able to disprove thesis of the aff and the assumptions it relies upon, I will love your K.

I will default to weighing the aff versus the K.

I have an aversion to strategies that solely rely upon winning framework and arbitrarily disregarding huge swaths of the debate. I will assign less weight to these arguments unless they are dropped. K debate is case debate. The kritik should engage with the affirmative and disprove its thesis.

Your links should reference a specific line/assumption which the affirmative's scenario relies upon, explain why that line/assumption is flawed, impact out why I should care/the material implications of that flawed assumption, and how the alternative resolves the link. The more specific the better.

Ideally, you should be leveraging your answers on case to bolster your argument otherwise I'm willing to grant the aff the truth of their scenario which makes it difficult to win that their assumptions are flawed.

CP: I dislike cp's that compete off immediacy and certainty and find them a bit harder to adjudicate personally.

DA's: Enjoy most flavors of disads, but generally dislike ones whose links are predicated on silly interpretations of fiat.

T: Clearly explain what debate looks like under each interpretation and the implications of your impacts, as well as how your interpretation solves your impacts. I generally feel predictability and precision often guides the way I adjudicate these debates on a top level. What I should prioritize is certainly debatable

Case: I find well-researched, dissections of the affirmative case to be the coolest things to judge and will reward the effort.

Theory: Condo is good, and I don't see value in interps that numerically limit the number of conditional advocacies. Either all condo or no condo

Most theory arguments are reject the argument unless you specifically explain otherwise

Email: kevinsun127@gmail.com

Debate is a research game. Demonstrate topic knowledge, and you'll earn high speaker points. Isolate one or two questions to hinge the debate on, and you'll have an easier path to victory.

You don't have to read a plan. Just impact turn framework. Don't need an elaborate explanation of your vision of debate.

Fairness is an impact.

Evidence quality matters a little more than in-round strategy. That being said, dropped arguments are true (though it'll be hard to convince me that a 1NC DA shell with 50 words highlighted is a "complete" argument).

Conditionality is good. Unlikely to vote on cheap-shot theory arguments unless dropped.

Topicality usually comes down to evidence quality. If you're decidedly right about the meaning of a word, then you'll probably win. If there's some ambiguity in this, then case-lists help your case better than a generic under/over-limiting block.

Critiques should dispute the reasons to vote affirmative. In other words, not a fan of negative strategies that consist entirely of frivolous pre-requisite questions and framework interpretations. The K should make sense in a world where the plan happens.

Counterplans that compete off of certainty/immediacy are not ideal.

Feel free to post-round.

Send out the 1AC before the speech.

On Evidence Ethics

I have judged a handful of high stakes debates this year that were decided on evidence ethics. I’ve found that these decisions are inevitably unsatisfying as they will rely on my own subjective assessment of the argument in question.

I can safely say that I am completely unqualified to judge these debates. I am not on Twitter or Facebook, and I do not interact with debate people regularly outside of tournaments. I do not know what the community consensus is on certain authors, and I will feel uncomfortable rendering a personal judgement an author’s character after hearing 10 minutes of spreading on the subject.

In hopes of giving debaters some foresight, I would like to clarify my perspective on this genre of theory argument. High stakes evidence ethics challenges (e.g. “reject the team because they included the wrong author qualifications”, “reject the team because [author] is problematic”) will require a high burden of proof and an egregious violation. I have a strong predisposition against positioning these ethics challenges as reasons to fully disregard the rest of your opponents arguments, and I would prefer to just reject the argument in question rather than to hinge my decision on it.

In these circumstances, I would suggest clearly explaining which of your opponents arguments I should throw out if I resolve this challenge in your favor.

Would rejecting this author evaporate your opponent’s framework argument? Should the negative even be allowed to substitute this author with another that makes a similar argument? You’re likely to get further with me by detailing the implications of this ethics challenge in terms of the rest of the debate rather than relying on me to assume that I should automatically make it a gateway issue.

I would suggest finding other ways outside of a competitive debate argument to navigate this ethical challenge rather than placing it in my hands as a judge.