The debaters must to remember to focus on their impacts, as well as their framework/value criteria as it relates to their impacts. That is where they tell me "where the goal is" and "who reaches it" for the debate. Having the biggest impact doesn't mean anything if it doesn't fulfill the right framework.

If framework is not debated by the neg, I will default to 1AC's Framework.

Email: marinaalan02@gmail.com

I am a parent judge. Please go slowly for case and refutations and don't use any circuit arguments. Only pref me for a lay round.

dv '18

arguments need warrants (so read many good cards). warrants should make sense (so good analytics > bad cards). warrants should also be extended properly (so I don't have to read your cards just to understand your argument). the threshold for adequately responding to an argument is determined by the quality of its warrants.

"[new/inexperienced debaters] - don't worry about any of the [below]. you do you, and I'll try my best to adapt" - Daniel Luo (official 5head).

general things:

default util, drop the arg/reasonability, no rvis, epistemic modesty

please do impact calculus and judge instruction. otherwise I will disappoint you (and annihilate your speaks) and then everyone is sad

stop reading terrible theory arguments.

if you split the 2nr I'm only evaluating the strat that loses

won't judge kick unless you say "the status quo is always an option" or something along those lines. unless you split your 2nr, then I'm judge kicking the counterplan that would've won the round.

no such thing as 0% risk but there is such a thing as risk low enough to be irrelevant

link turn on the DA doesn't require the aff to win uniqueness (because if that were true uniqueness would overwhelm the link), but winning uniqueness puts the link turn argument in a better place

read defense with an impact turn or like at least do impact calculus please (also I like impact turns)

durable fiat solves "trump doesn't do the aff" but not "local governments don't enforce the plan"

most schools don't fund debate so stop acting like that's the only reason education matters.

k affs get perms

if your satire aff isn't funny it doesn't solve and I'll presume neg after the 1ac

ks need links more nuanced than state bad and affs need answers more nuanced than state good

k rotb are bad and you shouldn't need one to win (doesn't mean you concede util, just don't overrely on totally excluding aff offense)

if the 2nr on framework says "tva+risk of limits da" there's a solid 95% chance I'll negate

tech over truth

here are my thoughts on things:

very true:

oppression bad

existentialism

nibs bad

plans good (also don't read plans bad)

object fiat bad (e.g. advantage is china war and cp is "china doesn't go to war")

the perm in most kvk debates with an aff that isn't just a 6 min impact turn to framework

probably true but beatable:

hege bad

cap bad

nuke war causes extinction

framework vs k affs

>2 condo bad (1 condo cp is 1 condo, 1 cp w 7 individually condo planks is way more than 7 condo)

probably untrue but winnable:

hege good

cap good

trump irreparably wrecked soft power

sketchy impact turns (dedev, co2 ag)

that politics disad you haven't updated since camp

<= 2 condo bad

very untrue:

lib (unless you are a traditional debater, any attempt must include a robust answer to Sen's paradox or it isn't a complete argument)

bad/friv theory (afc, aspec on usfg topics, font size)

any counterplan theory I haven't already mentioned read as a reason to drop the debater

anything you would want to read as a spike

"limits are a prison"

plans bad (or any T interp w a caselist only including whole res)

speaks

avg is 28.5

29.5+ if you hold a solid zizek impression the whole round [number of people who have done this is higher than expected as of 2/17/2020] (and if you're rly good ig)

29-29.4 if your speech makes arjun's astral projection watching over my shoulder cry tears of joy

28-28.9 if you make minor (but still loss-worthy) mistakes

26-27.9 if you highkey screwed up

loss 19 for clipping (claim stops round, need recording of speech, and all the other stuff everyone else says)

loss 0 for being explicitly racist/sexist/etc.

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

I was a policy debater at Niles North High School for 4 years, currently I'm a student at USC (not debating). I would say that about ~107% of my 2NRs in high school were politics and case, so that's my background.

Start the email chain as early as physically possible. I will punish your speaker points if you wait until the last second to send it out, unless you're breaking a new aff/advantage/etc

My preferred style of argumentation is sending out the email chain right now and starting on time or before start time.

Ways to increase your speaker points:

specific neg strategies, especially if you have specific links to the aff on the K

pronouncing Reuters correctly

sending out the email chain before the start time, the earlier the better

starting the round before the start time

Ways to decrease your speaker points:

the words "pre-fiat" and "post-fiat"

"time starts...NOW!"

"cold conceded"

"ok judge..."

waiting until the last second to send out the email chain, in the thinking that this gives you any strategic advantage

"where in your evidence does it say..."

pronouncing reuters incorrectly

Biggest one: asking to send out a new doc without the cards the other team didn't read

(marked docs are OK)

asking to send out a doc with the overview/analytics

(interps and CP text is kosher)

"which evidence did you not read"

Preferences:

First and foremost you need to tell me on what grounds I should evaluate each piece of ev. I'll read all the evidence at the end of the round and if no one tells me what I should do with it then its much harder and so much less fun for me.

My default is that the only two reasons to reject the team are T and conditionality. It would be difficult to convince me otherwise.

The most important part of T are the case lists each side presents because that gives me a good vision of the topic each of you bring. Impacting your argument is especially important on T.

If you're aff and you've gotten this far without sending out the email chain, send it out now.

Head Coach: Harvard-Westlake School, Los Angeles CA | mbietz AT hw.com

I am diagnosed (and am on medication) with severe ADD. This means my ability to listen carefully and pick up everything you say will wane during the round. I would strongly suggest you have vocal variety and slow down, especially for what you want to make sure I get.

Jonah Feldman, friend and former coach at UC Berkeley, summed up a lot of what I have to say about how I evaluate arguments

I do not believe that a dropped argument is necessarily a true argument.

I am primarily interested in voting on high-quality arguments that are well explained, persuasively advanced, and supported with qualified evidence and insightful examples. I am not interested in voting on low-quality arguments that are insufficiently explained, poorly evidenced, and don't make sense. Whether or not the argument was dropped is a secondary concern...

How should this affect the way I debate?

1) Choose more, especially in rebuttals. Instead of extending many different answers to an advantage or off-case argument, pick your spots and lock in.

2) If the other team has dropped an argument, don't take it for granted that it's a done deal. Make sure it's a complete argument and that you've fully explained the important components and implications of winning that argument.

His full paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6366

More stuff:

I never thought I'd have to say this, but you have to read aloud what you want me to consider in the round. Paraphrasing doesn't count as "evidence."

The affirmative probably should be topical.

I think that I'm one of the few circuit LD judges who votes affirmative more than I vote negative. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must engage. Being independently right isn't enough.

I consider myself a policy-maker with an extremely left bent. Answering oppression with extinction usually doesn't add up for me. I'll take immediate, known harms over the long-term, speculative, multi-link impacts 90 out of 100 times. This isn't paradigmatic, so it is NEGS failing to engage the Affirmative Case.

Given my propensity to vote affirmative and give the affirmative a lot of leeway in defining the scope of the problem/solution, and requiring the negative to engage, I'd suggest you take out the 3 minutes of theory pre-empts and add more substance.

Topicality is probably not an RVI, ever. Same with Ks. Today I saw someone contend that if he puts defense on a Kritik to make debate a safe space, the judge should vote for him because he'll feel attacked.

Cut your presumption spikes. It's bad for debate to instruct judges not to look for winning arguments. It also encourages debaters to make rounds unclear or irreconcilable if they need to catch up on actual issues.

Where an argument can be made "substantively" or without theory, just make it without theory. For example, your opponent not having solvency isn't a theory violation. it just means their risk of solvency is very low. Running theory flips the coin again. So it's both annoying and bad strategy. Other examples might include: Plan flaws, no solvency advocate, and so on. Theory IS the great equalizer in that it gives someone who is otherwise losing an argument a chance to win.

Cross-x cannot be transferred to prep time.

Some annoyances:

- Not letting your opponents answer a question. More specifically, male debaters who have been socialized to think it is ok to interrupt females who have been socialized not to put up a fight. If you ask the question, give them a chance to answer.

- Ignoring or belittling the oppression or marginalization of people in favor of smug libertarian arguments will likely not end up well for you.

- People who don't disclose or they password protect or require their opponents to delete speech documents. I'm not sure why what you read is private or a secret if you've read it out loud. The whole system of "connected" kids and coaches who know each other using backchannel methods to obtain intelligence is one of the most exclusionary aspects of debate. This *is* what happens when people don't disclose. I'll assume if you don't disclose you prefer the exclusionary system.

Some considerations for you:

- if you’re reading such old white male cards that you have to edit for gendered language, maybe consider finding someone who doesn’t use gendered language... and if you notice that ONLY white men are defending it, maybe consider changing your argument.

- if you find yourself having to pre-empt race or gender arguments in your case, maybe you shouldn't run the arguments.

Updated for CPS 2018: This update is to mostly reflect how I've been judging rounds lately.

Background:
I debated for four years for Loyola high. I broke at multiple tournaments and had a 4-3 record at the TOC.

I am more familiar with policy arguments, philosophy, and theory, and am less familiar with kritiques. However, I am not really a fan of how most philosophy and theory debates are done today, and thus my familiarity does not always correspond to what arguments I vote on.

Specifically, I think that moral philosophy positions that involves tricks are doing a disservice to the literature. Further, theory debates are often frivolous, although what I may consider frivolous may be different than what others consider frivolous. Some examples of what I consider frivolous theory are the following: font-size theory, must spec status in speech theory, some spec shells, etc. My litmus test for frivolous theory might be the following: does the theory shell isolate an issue of fairness that has actual educational implications on the debate round?

Kritiques usually have good explanations attached to them, so I've voted on them in the past and will probably continue to vote on them in the future.

Overview:
I evaluate the round via an offense/defense paradigm. Thus, I will vote for the debater who provides comparatively more offense back to the framework that has been won in the round, lest there are other issues (theory or kritiques) that precede this evaluation. Beyond this, I will try to evaluate the round in the most objective way possible. However, as all judges do, I have certain basic preferences that it would help to conform to.

First, when there is a clash on an issue or position, I tend to default to the more thorough and comprehensive explanation that makes sense to me. While technical drops are important, I don't think they automatically preclude good analysis. Strong weighing matters more to me than a dropped blippy argument on the flow.

Granted, this threshold only exists when there is clash on a position (and maybe sometimes across positions). If a position is totally conceded, or mostly conceded except for a couple of weaker arguments, my threshold for explanation and extensions becomes much lower (if totally conceded, it approaches zero).

Second, I flow CX, both because of theoretical implications of answers, and because I think your position is only as well warranted as your CX answers indicate. If I don't think there's a warrant after a particularly devastating CX on a position, you're going to have an uphill battle to convince me of the argument. (This is true only if the other debater brings up the flaws they pointed out in CX during a speech. CX by itself is not a rebuttal and thus cannot be the sole basis for my decision).

Third, I heavily favor debater's original analysis and arguments in later rebuttals (2NR and 2AR) as opposed to cards. While cards are good at setting up a position in constructive speeches, I heavily prefer debate styles that can go beyond cards with good explanations.

Theory defaults:
I default competing interpretations. I default no-RVI's. Topicality is a voter. All other issues must be justified by the debater.

Random Notes:

I like numbered responses to arguments, and clear distinction between line-by-line analysis and overviews.

I will only vote on arguments that I have flowed. During rebuttals, I mostly flow from what you're saying, rather than from the speech doc, so adjust accordingly.

While debate is a game, it is an educational game that brings lots of enjoyment to many of our lives. Please treat other debaters and it with respect.

toss me on that email chain: aacchapman2@gmail.com

I graduated from UCLA in 2019. I coached LD for 4 years at Harker. I work in a volunteer capacity with the Heights now. That said, I have always had a lower threshold for speed. I'll yell slow twice then I stop flowing until I can comprehend the argument.

I am the most familiar with policy/framework/theory arguments. I won't vote on an RVI on T

Practices Trigger Warnings

Debaters reading positions about suicide, depression/specific mental health, sexual violence, or any similarly traumatic issue, the onus is on them to ask those in the room permission to read the position. Spectators may leave, but judges and opponents do not have that option, meaning there is an expectation that if one of them objects to the triggering subject, that the debater will not read that position. If a debater does not adjust their strategy after being asked to, they will start the round with a 25. If you do not ask before round, but someone is triggered, speaks will similarly be docked. If there is no trigger warning but no one is triggered, the round can continue as normal.

The question for what necessitates a trigger warning is difficult to objectively delineate - if you have a reasonable suspicion someone could be negatively impacted by your position, ask before you read it - explicit narratives are probably a good starting point here. Trigger warnings are contentious in debate but I've seen students negatively impacted in rounds because they were not present and have engaged in conversations with other coaches that lead me to conclude something along these lines is necessary. At the very least, debate is (or should be) a 'safe space', and I believe this is a necessary first step towards achieving that goal. Feel free to discuss this before the round if you are worried it will become an issue in round.

This (admittedly strangely) probably means I'm not the judge for "must read a trigger warning" shells - they often make debate rounds uncomfortable and i have seen them leveraged in ways that make debate spaces unsafe - if no one was triggered, don't spend your time on that shell.

https://medium.com/@erikadprice/hey-university-of-chicago-i-am-an-academic-1beda06d692e#.bqv2t7lr6

This article is very good at articulating my views on the importance of trigger warnings
It is not up for debate that if someone was triggered on account of your failure to adequately make use of trigger warnings, you'll be punished through speaks and/or the ballot

[Evidence Ethics]

1. Things I will drop a debater on whether or not their opponent brings it up: Card clipping, mis-representing the authors claims, grossly misrepresenting a cite (Use discretion here - but a completely missing site would seem to qualify here). The round stops if I notice this happen, or if the opponent brings up this claim. If the opponent brings forward this claim, I will evaluate the claim after the round has stopped.
2. Things I believe should be debated out (with the caveat here that it's an uphill battle - I think these are good norms): Other disclosure norms (not including the whole paragraph in a cut card, broken links, etc).
3. If you expect the round to be stopped (Category #1, or Category #2 but its a panel) I expect clear standards/arguments in a doc emailed out laying out the evidence claim, and specifically, why I should vote on it
4. I will not vote on evidence ethics claim that hedge on the TFA constitution. While I respect the TFA executive board and generally agree with most of the constitution, I think it sets a bad precedent in requiring debaters, especially in Texas, to be beholden to overarching academic councils.

[Things I would like written out before a speech]

1. Interps & Counterinterps
2. Perm texts

[Strategies I love]

1. A good internal link debate w/ deep evidence comparison
2. Having a true/stellar response to UQ or Inherency
3. Nuanced T
4. A unique plan aff that is extended the whole round & leveraged correctly

[Strategies I don't love]

1. Tricks
2. Dense Phil
3. Analytical args
4. Dense critical lit

she/they, lay-uh, not lee-uh

leah.clarkvilla@gmail.com

[Judge Info]

A) I've competed and coached high school and college policy debate since 2008.

B) I've taught new novice students and instructed K-12 teachers about Parli, PuFo, LD, and Policy

C) I am an educator and curriculum developer, so that is how I view my role as a judge and approach feedback in debate. I type my RFDs, please ask your coaches (if you have an experienced coach) to explain strategic concepts I referenced. Otherwise you can email me.

D) I am very aware of the differences in strategy and structure when comparing Policy Debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate.

d)) which means I can tell when evidence from one format of debate [ex: policy -> ld] is merely read in a different format of debate for strategic choices rather than educational engagement.

heads up: i can tell when you are (sp)reading policy cards at me, vs communicating persuasive and functionally strategic arguments. please read and write your speeches, don't just read blocks of evidence without doing the persuasive work of storytelling impacts.

Parts of an Argument:

Claim - your argument

Warrant - analytical reasoning or evidence

Impact - why the judge should care, why it's important

Impact Calculus:

Probability - how likely is it the impact will happen

Magnitude - how large is the harm/who will be negatively affected

Timeframe - when this impact will occur

Reversibility - can the harms be undone

prewritten analytics should be included in the doc. we are online. transparency, clarity, and communication is integral in debate. if you are unclear and i miss an argument, then i missed your argument because you were unclear

for policy and/or ld:

1) AFFs should present solutions, pass a Plan, or try to solve something

2) K AFFs that do not present a plan text must: 1. Be resolutional - 1ac should generally mention or talk about the topic even if you're not defending it, 2. Prove the 1AC/AFF is a prereq to policy, why does the AFF come before policy, why does policy fail without the aff? 3. Provide sufficient defense to TVAs - if NEG proves the AFF (or solvency for AFF's harms) can happen with a plan text, I am very persuaded by TVAs. K teams must have a strong defense to this.

3) Link to the squo/"Truth Claims" as an impact is not enough. These are generic and I am less persuaded by generic truth claims arguments without sufficient impacts

4) Critique of the resolution > Critique of the squo

5) NEG K alts do not have to solve the entirety of the AFF, but must prove a disadvantage or explain why a rejection of the AFF is better than the alt, or the squo solves.

6) Debate is a [policy or LD] game, if it is a survival strategy I need more warrants and impacts other than "the aff/alt is a survival strategy" with no explanation of how you are winning in-round impacts

7) Framing is FUNctional, the team that gives me the best guide on how/why I should vote for X typically wins the round. What's the ROB, ROJ, the purpose of this round, impact calc, how should I evaluate the debate?

8) Edu is important. Persuasive communication is part of edu. when the debate is messy or close I tend to evaluate the round in terms of 1. who did the better debating, 2. who best explained arguments and impacts and made me more clearly understand the debate, 3. who understood their evidence/case the most.

9) Dropped arguments are not always necessarily true - I will vote on dropped arguments if it was impacted out and explained why it's a voter, but not if the only warrant is "they conceded _____it so it's a voter"

10) I flow arguments, not authors. It will be helpful to clarify which authors are important by summarizing/impacting their arguments instead of name dropping them without context or explanation.

email chain: jackcrawford1825@gmail.com

I debated in HS for 4 years under La Salle NC with 2 quals for the TOC/other nat circ experience.

Holistically I have 8 years of debate experience & there arent many debate args/styled that I haven't had personal experience debating for/against. Currently a mostly K/theory debater in college in VLD.

"Progressive debater"

Speed's cool, don't spread through your tags.

I'm tab.

Post-round me one on one after the round if you really would like to challenge my decision, I won't have an argument with you in front of a room full of people.

Everything here is for LD and below this ( I marked where) I'm slowly making a PF paradigm again because I'll start judging it later in the year.

K

To avoid an awkward conversation at the end of a round, the perm doesn't work as offence.

NEG:

I think you have the burden of providing specific links and framing your impacts at the end of the debate.

I won't do work on the Baudrillard shell for you for example, it's very important you explicitly say why you're winning what and its implications on the round. Some auths. can stretch farther and in different ways than others but you need to do it explicitly for me to give you credit for that.

TLDR: I won't vote what Baudrillard elaborates, but what you elaborate in the context of Baudrillard for example.

AFF:

I'm fine with whatever, you don't need to defend USFG action but you should show how you are in some way tangentially related to the topic to avoid the FW wall. Or dont, there's still a world where I'd vote for it.

I should probably add at the bottom of this I primarily read more contemporary french theorists than anything else, with the exception of other auths. like hegelians, kantians, marxists, those crowds.

Theory/FW

Theory: So while I'm all for your TOTALLY RADICAL hijinx on the T page, it would behoove you to win more than just that the debate was difficult for you to win. In my mind debate ought to be very difficult, to reach the threshold for me to evaluate a T shell the way it ought to be evaluated (apriori) then you should hit a higher bar than "x made the AR difficult".

That said, I'm all for extremely technical theory debate, just keep in mind what I am comfortable voting on.

I don't vote on disclosure.

I don't vote on speed theory in the event there's a speech doc. (I'll still clear you in round)

FW: I default competing interpretations if for some nightmarish event happens where nobody discusses this.

Otherwise, its a debate like any other.

Case/DA/CP?

I'm tab, do whatever you like.

I evaluate on the line-by-line and appreciate your ability to group & get into substantive arguments rather than blippy sentences that touch each line.

I generally advise that you don't assume you have a 100% chance in terms of the strength of link to your impact scenario, you should explain how it gets to that point with 100% certainty.

It's not that I don't vote on your 3 word 100% certainty impact analysis, but that doing this leaves you open to a compelling argument (for me).

Speaks/CX

30's for everyone

If something in CX isn't made in a speech I didn't hear it and its not on the flow.

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

^^speaks/cx^^

PF

I'm flowing. You win my ballot by winning in a technical way the flow.

Come to the round preflowed, you don't have to wait on me before you flip for sides.

Speed is fine, I debate fast in LD, you need to send out & be capable of making speech docs for the opponent if you're going to start spreading. This needs to be done in a reasonable amount of time and I won't wait around/accomodate to make this a more viable option for you. You spread, you should be able to take on the higher expectations that go along with it.

jackcrawford1825@gmail.com -- for the email chain

Cards

I like cards and you should read them.

If you take 5-10 min. on every card call I'll get angry and start tanking speaks, you should be able to access your cards quickly.

Front half (AC/NC & AR/NR)

Constructives can be anything, I'm tab and I don't ever take my own opinons of policy into a debate round.

I will evaluate and abide by the conceded/won framework very strictly and also as an apriori issue unless told otherwise.

Rebuttals can do whatever, I don't evaluate offensive overviews coming from 2nd rebuttal. I expect 2nd rebuttal to handle offense.

Back half (2AC/2NC & 2AR/2NR)

The 3 min. summary in my eyes is something that just puts more onus on the 1st speaker to do more weighing/analysis than blippy line-by-line work.

Summaries that go first need to extend offense on the other teams case (like extend your turns), you don't need to re-extend your defense unless you're making cool tricky pivots.

Summaries that go second should do the same thing & handle defense on your case.

FF

Please frame/weigh your impacts, if you don't go for your f/w or try to win under the f/w in ff it's prob. a really bad thing for you in my eyes.

Offense that you don't get into ff I don't evaluate, and framed offense beats a larger quantity of offense 9/10 times.

Theory

I don't vote on disclosure or formal clothes. I look down on these args being read in round, espec. in this event.

If you can't win a reason why the theory vio. made the debate impossible for you to win, it's not apriori, and I cannot imagine a scenario I'll vote on the shell. (I say why in the LD section)

It's an apriori issue that works as an RVI because the event's too short by a massive margin to prevent this from being over-strategic.

Therefore, you ought not spitball blippy poorly constructed theory args. (please) at non-tech teams because it's a coinflip if you can hit the high threshold & avoid the RVI. I can and will enforce the RVI.

If you cannot spread, but are trying to, please don't. I'd much rather hear you be coherent as opposed to stumble and double breathe every 5 seconds to imitate spreading.

Space - If an aff defends the topic but doesn't defend "implementation" in the traditional sense because of the way the topic is worded, I still have a hard time conceptualizing why it doesn't link to disads.

HW 22 - I have not judged in over a year. I do not know anything about the topic, and I don't remember every opinion that I've ever had about debate. That being said, if some of the pet peeves I had before come up, odds are I will be even more irritated by it. Just look up my wiki for arguments that I generally liked.

Online debate is annoying, send out docs in a prompt manner. The 1AC/1NC I generally do not care how fast you go, just make sure that everyone is in agreement on what was read and what wasn't. Both of you should record for potential shenanigans. I don't care if your camera is on/off, but just make sure I can hear you. If I yell clear, sometimes it might not be your fault, but its your responsibility to just slow down. If I didn't hear it, then I didn't flow it. Just something we have to deal with in online debate.

San Marino HS 18

NYU 22

dengeric2k@gmail.com for email chains

About me:

I debated on the circuit for 2 years at San Marino High School in CA. I received 5 career bids and made it to octos of the TOC. I did college debate for a year as a 2A. I've taught at VBI and TDI/SJDI. My primary argumentative preferences were for policy arguments, though I did read a fair share of affirmatives that did not defend the topic. These preferences have not really swayed anyone from reading arguments I don't like in front of me, despite my best efforts, so you do you and I'll do my best to adjudicate. I am not super active coaching or competing anymore so I do not know what core topic lit is nor do I understand the "hip" new K.

For a tl;dr of arguments that I read when I debated here is a link to my wiki with open-sourced docs: https://hsld17.debatecoaches.org/San%20Marino/Deng%20Neg disclaimer: I read a lot of arguments that I personally disliked or did not find persuasive, the frequency of arguments read usually indicates my like or dislike of those arguments.

I used to have a long spiel, but I think nobody cares because people still read bad arguments in front of me. Instead, I will just give some random thoughts on arguments:

Disclosure -- pretty much non-negotiable, I'll listen to arguments that are based on academic literature/philosophy but I will not listen to arguments relating to fairness and education against disclosure. e.g. disclosure = surveillance? weird/bad argument, but I'll listen. disclosure = worse for fairness and education? not a fan. new affs bad/round reports disclosure/must open source etc do not fall under this -- they're both true, but I'd much rather the debate be about anything else.

Nebel T/Plans bad/T-generics/T-bare plural -- whatever variation of no plans/plans bad that you are running, it's boring and demonstrates a lack of preparation and research. I will vote on this argument but I hate it and you should too.

theory -- frivolous theory arguments are not my strength, nor am I particularly found of them.,I'm not any good at judging these debates because they're way too messy and it is not something that can be resolved by excellent debating due to them being late-breaking and the plethora of new arguments that end up being made. if you're THE theory debater this year you're not gonna like me

K Affs/Non-topical affirmatives -- beat framework, have a defense of your model not just your aff; solvency based on wins/losses/ballots is highly questionable and I'm skeptical of these arguments. Those reading framework should have a defense of their model. Fairness is an impact, and attempting to solve the aff through a tva or education is not necessary but may be helpful. Those reading Ks against K affs will probably not like my decision both ways, as I am not the best judge for in-depth debates about philosophy/academic literature.

RoB/standards/ld philosophy -- saying any of these things does not mean its the only thing that matters (that's what debate and impact calc is for) -- I view these things as just buzzwords in order to substitute with real impact calc. I would prefer you not be lazy and actually explain instead of hiding behind these words.

truth vs tech -- this is arbitrary -- if your strategy is predicated on winning blatantly false/unwarranted arguments by spewing out a bunch of them, I am a) not going to be able to flow them, and b) the threshold for convincing me the opposite of your arguments is very low. Technical debating is made easier with truthful/well-researched arguments.

Plans/DAs/CPs/etc. -- evidence quality matters. You should want me to read your evidence to confirm the claims that you are making, otherwise your argument probably isn't as good as you say it is. I have a soft spot for advantage counterplans and the states counterplan, but find that many teams are not answering/reading these in the correct manner. I am not a fan of the "everything except this one instance of the topic" PIC as I find that these are mostly disads with a counterplan text attached and no real solvency advocate. PICs should exclude a meaningful part of the aff and have a solvency advocate. If your PIC falls under this category, I will most likely significantly lean aff on theory. Otherwise, I slightly lean neg on most counterplan theory questions. Conditionality is probably good, but its certainly winnable that its bad in LD.

misc -- If this is still a thing, I strongly dislike evidence made by debate coaches/meta-articles about debate. They're subjective and incentivizes people to write debate articles to make an argument in round. I will just treat it as an analytic.

speaks -- I give low speaks relative to people, but maybe other people are inflating? If you're trying to win top speaker, I'm probably not the best judge for you unless you're really good.

I debated for three years at Notre Dame in Sherman Oaks, CA. I currently am debating for the University of Southern California.

Fine with anything

Disads and Topicality - Offense/Defense paradigm. Lean towards reasonability on most T arguments.

Counter plans: Lean neg on counter plan theory if the counter plan is specific to the affirmative, and vice versa.

Critiques: Prefer critiques with a specific link to the plan action or a very specific link wall to their discourse or what not. For example an apocalyptic rhetoric critique with a link to warming discussions in classrooms or policy setting is much more persuasive than evidence written about commercials or media representations of warming (unless it's a link to a media article the affirmative read).

Critical affirmatives: The closer you are to the direction of the resolution the more likely I am to vote affirmative against framework. Affirmatives that claim to solve broader academic issues or civil problems are less persuasive than affirmatives about debate. I'm not particularly ideological about what the affirmative has to / should defend, but I'm equally open to framework and really enjoy judging framework debates.

zanedille@gmail.com

(recently updated)

Email: danidosch@gmail.com

I am an assistant coach for Immaculate Heart High School. I debated for Immaculate Heart for four years. I am now a 4th year philosophy student at UC Berkeley.

Most important stuff:

I try my best to not let my argument preferences influence my decision in a debate; I have no problem voting for arguments that I disagree with. That said, I will only vote on arguments — that is, claims with warrants — and I have no problem not voting for an "argument" because it is not properly warranted.

I will not vote on arguments that I don't understand or didn't have flowed. I do not flow from the doc; I think the increasing tendency of judges to do this is abetting the issue of students being literally incomprehensible. I will occasionally say clear, but I think the onus is on you to be comprehensible.

You must send to your opponent whatever evidence you plan to read before you begin your speech; you do not need to send analytics. If you mark cards during a speech — that is, if you begin reading a card but do not finish reading that card — then you must indicate where in the card you stopped, and you should send a marked doc immediately after your speech. You do not need to send a document excluding cards that were not at all read.

If you want to ask your opponent what was read/not read, or what arguments were made on a certain page, you of course may, but you must do it in CX or prep. There is no flow clarification time slot in a debate!

The upshot of the last few comments is that I think flowing is a very important skill, and we should endorse practices that cultivate that skill.

You will auto-lose the debate if you clip cards. Prep ends once the speech doc has been sent. If you want to advance an evidence ethics violation, you must stake the debate on it.

Be respectful to your opponent. This is a community.

Other stuff:

Above all, I like clash-heavy debates between well-researched positions.

My favorite negative strategies include impact turns, counterplans, and NCs. My favorite affirmative strategies are plans with “big-stick” or “soft-left” advantages.

I don't really like "tricks" of any genre because I think overwhelmingly they simply lack warrants.

I don't like strategies that depend entirely on framework or framing arguments to exclude your opponent's offense. You should always answer the case even if you are reading a framework/impact framing argument that explains why I should prioritize your offense over your opponent's.

As I said, I will never not vote on an argument simply because I disagree with it. I will, however, ignore arguments that are not warranted, and I think certain claims are very difficult, if not impossible, to provide a warrant for.

Here are some examples of claims that I think are very difficult to provide a warrant for:

• It would be better if debates lacked a point of stasis.

• The outcome of a given debate is capable of changing people's minds/preferences.

• It would be better if the negative could not read advocacies conditionally.

• I should win the debate solely because I, in fact, did not do anything that was unfair or uneducational.

• There is a time skew between the aff and neg in a debate.

• A 100% risk of extinction does not matter under my non-utilitarian/non-consequentialist framework.

• My 1ar theory argument should come procedurally prior to the negative's topicality argument.

• There is something paradoxical about our understanding of space/time, so you should vote for me.

Here are some claims that I will never vote on, whether you try to warrant them or not:

• That which is morally repugnant

• This debate should be about the moral character of my opponent

• X is a voting issue simply because I labeled it as such.

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School. I am a conflict for any competitors on this list.

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped.

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to perm do both shields the link. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

they/them

paradigms should constantly evolve - will update as i develop further views of debate and the world.

add me to the email chain - dialupdavid@berkeley.edu

second year policy debater, currently @ uc berkeley, debated 4 years in hs.

For those who are scrambling to do prefs last minute, below is a tldr (we've all been there)

If you have time to do prefs, please read this tldr and the "long version" -

do you! I will evaluate any style willingly, i'm coming in familiar with most styles of debate and experience coaching a few events (namely policy, LD, and parli). Feel free to spread, i will be able to handle top speed, but keep in mind that speaker points are going to be affected by lack of enunciation or clarity. Many of my 2nr's are spent going for the K (that doesn't mean yours should be) but I was pretty flex early on, so debate as you would on any other day, as long as it is respectful to everyone in the room. DON’T let my preferred style of debate affect the arguments you read in front of me. I am of more use to you if the rfd is going to be centered around the k and I only include my argument preference to be clear about that. Debate should be a space to develop your agency or recognize and tackle the lack thereof, that’s my only preconception about the forwarding of any argument in a round.

Tech > Truth but if your "flow winning" arguments are rooted in bullshit then you'll have a hard time winning my ballot (i.e. "they conceded the sky is green", wouldn't inform my ballot). Tell me why a conceded argument informs and structures my decision on that specific flow. In most instances, win the flow, win the round - unless you do something that makes the debate space very explicitly worse.

i may be facially expressive - so feel free to use that to your advantage.

Long Version:

Case Debate: I feel that neg case specifics are a lost craft in debate (from what i've seen in the time that I've been involved). I love a good case debate, if you have a very specific and offense based neg case then i will enjoy the round significantly more, if a significant portion of your 1 and 2nr's are case turns, i'm all ears. Less of a fan of case generics but I understand their utility and necessity.

For the aff, I find that a lot of high school debaters don’t extend their impacts, please do.

I am willing to vote neg on presumption, if the aff doesn't do anything, then convince me of that.

Style: I was a K debater who mainly stayed in the realm of "identity" based arguments and dabbled in post modernism - while there is a good chance that i have dived into a lot of the lit you're going to read in front of me, overviews and explanations should assume a more basic explanation (i will understand the complexities of your buzz words, but we all know that is not the most effective way to debate). The only reason I mention my preferred style of debate is so you know who you're preffing, that doesn't mean it should affect the arguments you read in front of me.

If you're more traditional policy, that's great too, I am not entirely politically incompetent (I hope) and will understand the scenarios in your ptx disads, etc.

Debate as you will. Unorthodox, traditional, while doing a handstand, it doesn't matter to me, i'll evaluate it. I won't lie and say im "tabula rasa", but my internal biases almost definitely won't be the reason you lose a round.

Please contextualize args, I beg of you, speaks will probably be affected by generic blocks but that doesn't mean that they cant win you the debate.

Reliance on cards is a common practice that i've noticed. My biggest suggestion is if you're caught between taking the time to articulate an argument well and reading a blippy card, don't read the card.

Evidence is not the end all be all of debate (or "true" claims) and some arguments do not require evidence to be valid.

Theory/Procedurals:

I like creative procedurals - generic procedurals may be less well received by me but I understand their utility and necessity, you're probably going to have to win that the other team truly made the debate unfair and there's a high threshold for that in most situations for me. The reason why there is a high threshold stems from the lack of impact work I see on t/fw flows. I get it, your standards affect the way the debate plays out, but why does that matter? Impact it. If the impact work is weak, then i lean aff against t/fw.

A TVA never hurt anybody and is the best way to win my ballot on the T flow, but there is usually a high burden to "prove" that the tva solves the aff.

I will happily vote on condo, agent cp's bad, and arguments of the sort if argued convincingly. You can do this by isolating ways the other team made the debate unnecessarily difficult. Ex) reading condo and telling me "they say *this* on one off case and *this* on another, these two arguments vehemently disagree with each other". I am particularly more sympathetic than your common judge if work like this is done.

You are best off reading the most inclusive interp on t/fw that still excludes the instance of the 1ac. This makes your job a lot easier and garners you the most offense/minimizes the offense read against your interp.

I like non-traditional theory arguments.

K debate (on the aff and neg):

This is what I spend most of my time involved with. That doesn't mean read a K in front of me and you'll be rewarded, I hold a high threshold for K debate so butchering args may hurt speaks. Vice versa, a good k debate will boost speaks. These are probably my favorite debates to judge and where my RFD can serve you the best - I prefer very case centered link work and an application of the meta level descriptions in the world of the aff, contextualization is premium. Thinking of links as case disads or turns may help you frame the links in a way that is compelling to me.

Let me know when the overview is going to be long, I usually put them on another flow.

I will gladly vote for a k aff, if articulated well. I like k affs that are in the direction of the topic, but feel free to not relate to the topic at all (just know that this may come with additional challenges).

If you are a critique of the resolution - be ready to explain why discussions of the topic are bad and why the education you forward is valuable. Please give me a reason that you reject political intervention, the burden for this isn't too high from me, i know ptx and political hope aren't accessible to everyone.

You don't need to claim to solve the structure with your k aff, in fact, I am more compelled by affs that resolve individualized impacts or mend unique instances in debate.

Non Trad or "performance" Debate:

I am receptive of these arguments.

If you read a poem, rap, dance, perform a ritual, use a prop, play music or sing, etc. please employ this as offense! Don't do it to flower your speaks, extend these arguments in a way that informs my ballot and is direct offense to the presentations or responses you receive. Tell me why your performance is a representation of your affirmation or alt, do the solvency work.

I reward creativity, only if the above is done. Innovative arguments are always going to be my favorite to judge.

DA's + CP's:

I find most impact scenarios with ptx and assorted da's hard to buy, largely because internal link work is lacking, and if we're being honest with ourselves they're not probable. This doesn't mean i'm not going to vote for them if they're won.

Don't kid yourself and try and convincingly yell about how the probability is 100%, that doesn't do you any favors. Do decent internal link extension and employ case specific links (that are in the context of the aff's policy) and you'll be in good shape.

If the link is not in the context of the aff, at least do a decent job articulating how the policy warranted in the link evidence is similar to the aff.

Feel free to read any type of CP, I don't have any dislike towards a specific type, but I can be compelled by aff theory vs counterplans that are almost entirely the aff. This also includes theory vs PIC's, so be aware.

Make your cp's competitive and make sure they resolve at least a snippet of the aff's impacts, this should be a given.

I like creative and non-traditional cp's as a format.

Framing + Organization:

This is a highly important component of debates that I adjudicate, if you are winning the framing level of the debate then your impacts are most likely going to be prioritized. I usually like the framing to come at the top of a speech (feel free to put it elsewhere so long as you maintain an able-to-be-followed organization). This applies to most framing - from util to "ethics" or subject form based framing.

Organized and coherent structure to speeches will mean more generous speaks, this means sticking to your road map and suggesting where to put something that isn't so obvious on the flow.

If your overview is going to be longer than 2 minutes (it probably shouldn't be, but it happens) then let me know.

If you have any other questions that aren't covered here, or questions about the paradigm, feel free to ask in person.

Speaks:

solid humor may be rewarded with an additional .1 or .2 speaks, it keeps the debate interesting, don't make a joke out of something that is objectively not to be joked about. don't speak over your partner or “puppeteer”/“parrot” them, both speaks may be docked.

30 - you literally did nothing wrong, best speeches i've ever heard and you actively engaged with your partner.

29.5-29.9 - you deserve to be top speaker and have very few mistakes, or you did something really cool and original that i've never seen before and is good for debate (whatever that may mean).

29 -29.4 - you should be a top 10 speaker at the least, there was something important that needed to be worked on but other than that you were entirely solid.

28.5-28.9 - you will probably make it to elims at the tournament and/or you were putting in an effort and that effort is truly paying off, good speaker.

28-28.4 - there are some significant improvements to be made, but you were a decent speaker and may be a lower seed in elims.

27.5 - 27.9 - there were clarity/comprehension issues, argument matching may not have been the strongest, stride for improvement.

27 - 27.4 - ehhhh, speeches were disorganized and can use major improvement.

26.9 and below - you did something that vastly made the debate space worse.

Yes, I would like to be included in the email chain: ghanimian.levon.98@gmail.com

Educational background:

- BA in History from California State University, Northridge. My focus was on the Medieval and Early Modern Middle East.

- MA in Community-Engaged Education and Social Change from Claremont Graduate University. My research mainly focused on Settler Colonialism in education and how to use Critical Pedagogy to develop praxis.

Debating and Coaching background:

High School: Traditional LD with Granada Hills Charter

College: Policy with California State University, Northridge

Coaching: Traditional and Circuit LD at Granada Hills Charter (2016-2021), Public Forum at Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy (2017-2020). I mainly coached Traditional LD at Granada Hills Charter.

Debate Style: Since I did traditional LD in high school, almost all of my circuit knowledge comes from policy debate. I mostly read K's in Policy.

It's been a minute that I've judged TOC debate, so you might wanna limit how much jargon you use. Please take time to explain things clearly to me. I appreciate debaters who do this a lot!

General:

- LARP > Plan v. K > K v. K > Phil/Theory > Tricks

- Please slow down for analytics. I can't follow your arguments if I can't understand them.

- Don't be rude.

- Don't be someone who advocates for discriminatory or harmful positions.

- I'm not omniscient. I greatly value quality over quantity. Take time to explain things to me, especially terms or concepts that would generally be considered inaccessible.

- Clarity is one of the most important things for me in a round.

- I used to be completely tech>truth, but tricks and friv theory are pushing me to a more techy truth approach.

- I usually see myself giving 28.5 on average. I tend to give one 30 out per year.

- I'm pessimistic about the future of debate mainly because competitors do not bother to explain anything to the judge and they treat the judge as if they're an idiot for not knowing something. Taking the time to break away from your script to explain something to me is something I look forward to.

FW:

- I'm generally fine with any T/FW arguments you decide to run as long as they're ethical. Warrant your interps and counterinterps well. I like to see good clash with T/FW. In other words, actually interact with your opponent's claims.

- Please articulate your links clearly.

- I'm not the most familiar with RVI args, so reading it in front of me might leave me wondering how to evaluate the argument.

Kritik:

- Theories I'm fairly familiar with: Critical Pedagogy, Settler Colonialism, Cap, Foucault.

- I like performance debate a lot, but sometimes it's hard for me to follow along with the link, so I'd appreciate it if the links are clearly articulated.

- I am really interested in identity K's, but I don't feel comfortable voting for debaters that don't identify with their K and simply use it as a tool to win. Otherwise, I'm all for hearing identity politics and performance.

- Please clearly establish your alt.

- I'm down for PIKs

- I believe TVA is a strong argument against K Aff's.

- If you are going to run something that is high theory: Zizek, Delueze & Guattari, Derrida, Baudrillard, Agamben, etc., please explain it to me like it's not high theory. In other words, explain it to me like I'm five.

DA:

- My only request here is that YOU do all of the link work for me. I will not fill in gaps for you.

- A conceded DA will usually never look good for you.

CP:

- Net Benefit, net benefit, net benefit

- Don't drop the perm. I would like to see actual interaction with the perm.

- I think condo, generally, is good, but I'm willing to evaluate a condo bad arg.

- I don't mind PICs

Theory:

- I'm not a fan of frivolous theory by any means. (Highlighter, Brackets, Shoes, etc.)

- I believe that theory should be used as an actual check against abuse in round.

- I don't mind "X" argument bad arguments.

- Otherwise, explain theory clearly and simply to me.

Tricks:

-No, just no.

Case:

- Both sides, DO NOT drop the case.

- Aff, I think it's super important to hammer down on the fact that the case stands through. Too many debaters spend too much time on off cases and leave their case in a very vulnerable position.

- Responding to the case is a MUST. If you're a K debater, it's not mandatory for me but it will convince me to vote for you even more if you are able to pull direct rhetorical links from the AC.

Postrounding:

- Please feel free to ask me any questions after I give my RFD.

- It's very possible that you do not agree with my, or any other judges', interpretations in a round you lost. This DOES NOT give you the right to yell at your judge or the competitor.

- If you have any other questions after the round, please feel free to email me.

Speed:

- I'm generally okay with spreading, but I'd appreciate if slow down for analytics.

- Slow down for tags and authors.

- DO NOT spread if your opponent is not okay with spreading.

Public Forum:

- I vote off of a general offense/defense paradigm and use cost/benefit framework. However, I am MORE THAN HAPPY to have another FW in round.

-I expect arguments to be extended through summary to final focus if you intend on winning off of them. I don't have specific preferences for PF besides these, so if you have questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Debated for Palos Verdes Peninsula High School all four years.

I usually ran very policy arguments, so I tend to lean towards topical Affirmatives.

I never ran K affs or just Ks in general, I dont really like. Always sympathetic to good stock util extinction impacts and cap good.

Disads and Counterplans are no different, I've been out of the high school policy loop for a little bit now so I am not familiar with the topic. Make sure you explain links, the plan text, impacts, all that good stuff clearly.

Impact calc is pretty important to me.

Make sure you extend arguments throughout the debate - I will evaluate how arguments are handled until the end of the round, so don't expect me to manually do all that work for you.

Theory is fine by me, but needs to sound convincing enough.

Theory should have all components in the shell, I tend to not like frivolous theory, unless its absolutely absurd maybe you'll catch me laugh at you. Make sure you make it clear what violating the interp means: for example dropping the debater or a specific argument. I'd vote on it.

I won't really vote on condo unless, of course, its dropped in its entirety.

Topicality is very important as well, with reasonable definitions. I like topicality when it's run well, I'd vote on it.

Also love good framework debates against critical affirmatives.

Anything not responded to is fair game for me to evaluate (as long as its extended).

Keep track of each other's time, I wont care if they use 15 minutes of prep time if you don't call them out on it.

Oh also prep time ends after the cards are sent out.

Email: tobby46@gmail.com

That means add me to the email chain please. Thank you

pls read the whole thing!:)

do what you are best at, and try to maintain good spirits while doing so!

the innate purpose of education is healthy, reflexive, and fruitful for any parties involved

at the end of the day, you are educating yourself to an extent that the average human will not reach, and you also have the ability to test that knowledge competitively with your peers- that's really an amazing thing, and something that should be remembered even in the heat of competition.

i'm not including any information about my debate history, as i am not currently coaching: far less (personally) concerned about the inner-workings of debate procedurals and standards being set within the community. on the flip-side, i am much more concerned about evaluating debates purely for the sake of deciding a winner, as well as being able to provide students with ample constructive criticism that allows them to elevate competitively, as well as foster more creative educational possibilities in future rounds, whether winner or loser.

and most of all, have fun- the more you can laugh and reflect on a round with a grin, on even your worst mistakes (or biggest successes), the more you will be able to be kind to yourself and become better, not at the expense of your mental health. and remember, never have fun at the negative expense of your opponent- a brilliant troll becomes ignorant the moment they become a bully.

peace & good education,

cheers!

she/they

put me on the chain - skylrharris917@gmail.com

lukehartman3@gmail.com

Background:

I debated for four years at Olathe Northwest and one year at Kansas State. I was previously an assistant coach at Blue Valley North (2014-2018 and 2021-2022), a lab leader at the Jayhawk Debate Institute (2018), and an assistant coach at Peninsula (2019-2021). I am now a patent lawyer based in Austin.

General Comments:

• I prefer policy-oriented debates, but I'm not terribly picky and will listen to most arguments as long as you can justify them.
• I don't pretend to be truly tabula rasa, as I believe that setting some ground rules (namely, that the affirmative team should defend the resolution and that the negative team should disprove the desirability of the affirmative) is a necessary prerequisite to meaningful, fair debate.
• Logic > tech > truth
• I'm far more willing vote for a smart analytical argument than a shallow extension of a card. Evidence should be read for the purpose of backing up your arguments, not the other way around.
• The technical aspect of debate is important to me. I'm generally willing to assign substantial risk to dropped arguments, but you still have to extend those arguments and their respective warrant(s).
• I love cross-x. If your cross-x is well thought out and used to generate arguments and understandings that are useful in speeches for important parts of the debate, my happiness and your speaker points will increase. [Credit to Nick Miller for most of the preceding sentence.]
• I enjoy a good joke (and occasionally a bad one).

Topicality/Theory:

The affirmative team must affirm the resolution in order to win the debate, and I believe that maximizing fairness and education (generally in that order) is good for debate. "The plan is reasonably topical" is not an argument unless the negative's interpretation is patently absurd; the neg's standards/voters are reasons why the aff is not reasonably topical. T is never an RVI. Conditionality is fine unless abused in an egregious fashion; for example, if your 1NC strat consist of 3 Ks and 4 CPs (I've seen it), you should probably go home and rethink your life.

Kritiks:

I am not especially well versed in high-theory critical literature, so do what you can to avoid burying me in jargon. I am probably persuaded by permutations more often than the average judge, and I tend to be skeptical of alts that seem utopian and/or impossible. I'm not a fan of 2NRs that go for "epistemology first" as a way to remove all substantive clash from the debate. Additionally, I tend not to think that my ballot has any particular "role" besides choosing who wins/loses the debate. "Role of the ballot" arguments should be articulated as impact framework, and they require actual standards/warrants -- not just the assertion that "The role of the ballot is [to vote for exactly what our aff/K does]." I am extremely skeptical of the idea that an isolated use of gendered/ableist language is reason enough for a team to lose a debate round. Please avoid reading from dead French philosophers if at all possible.

Debates judged (current topic): 0

Debates judged (career): 337

Email: a1jalan11@gmail.com

PV Peninsula Lincoln Douglas 2011-2015

Conflicts: PV Peninsula HS

Affiliations:
Assistant Coach (2015-16 Season): PV Peninsula
Private Coach (2015-16 Season): Felix Tan
Instructor at VBI, 2015
Instructor at LADI, 2016

I debated LD for 4 years at PV Peninsula High School, qualifying to the TOC my sophomore, junior, and senior years.

I rarely judge these days (maybe 2-3 times a year) and am no longer actively involved in coaching or research. Don't assume I know what the common acronyms or jargon mean for the topic.

In general, read well-warranted and researched arguments, don't cheat, don't go for frivolous theory, and you should be fine. I am too lazy to check if a person has disclosed, but I will still enforce my rule of not giving above a 27 in speaker points if you point out that your opponent failed to do so.

Defaults
In a sort of “big picture” manner, this is a set of defaults that I will have – if you make arguments to the contrary, then I’ll use those defaults instead.

1 – Epistemic modesty: arguments are assigned lower or higher credence values, not “won.” Instead of deciding which arguments “come first,” I’ll use your weighing arguments to assign greater or lesser credence to each source of offense. Ethical frameworks and role of the ballot arguments are also weighing.

2 – I have a strong conviction that debate is a comparison of two advocacies of some sort. This can be a plan and counterplan, two philosophical principles, two speech acts, or a theory interpretation and counter-interpretation, but for me to understand how arguments function I need to have an understanding of what both debaters defend. It seems logically impossible to evaluate a debate in which there is no comparison of something. This is rarely an issue, but it most often comes up in exceptionally strange K debates in which a debater might play music for the entire 1AC or something.

3 – The job of the aff is to prove the resolution or a subset of the resolution (a plan) to be good, and the neg’s job is to prove another policy option (or status quo) to be better. If it's topical for the affirmative to defend the status quo, I think the neg would have to offer a counterplan that's inherent, although I haven't thought about this much and am puzzled about how it might play out.

4 – Theory/T precludes substance (including the K) since it sets the rules for a fair/educational debate and a skewed round can’t be accurately evaluated.

5 – Offense does not have to link to a comprehensive normative framework to matter, but such arguments can be used to weigh impacts. If neither debater offers me an ethical framework, I’ll default to util.

Speaker Points
26 - You're a relatively bad novice.
27 - You're a relatively good novice/bad Varsity debater. You will definitely not clear.
28 - You will probably clear and get to early out-rounds.
29 - You'll definitely clear, and get to late out-rounds.
29.5 - You are the best debater of the year and will probably win the tournament.
30 - You are the best debater of all time and will probably win TOC this year.

Disclosure Rule: If you have not been disclosing for at least the duration of the tournament, your speaks will be evaluated normally but will be capped at a 27. I reserve the right to go lower. If you don't want your speaks to get tanked, please show me your disclosure page before/after the round to avoid the chance that I can't find it.

Updated Aug 25, 2022

History:

I coached and competed for Dougherty Valley. Graduated in 2018.

General:

The greatest question debate ever asked me: how can a judge be tabula rasa?

Everything in this paradigm is a default so argue on them if you don't agree:

Impact calculus is your job, preventing judge intervention is mine. Use a point of order anyway though.

Do whatever overview and road maps you want off time, regulate each other on this.

Topicality:

The topic is owned by the debaters.

Follow it or don't but I will prefer enforcement of the rules of the debate form.

Breaking those rules means I need to hear some theory first.

Theory:

Theory only works if you follow the structure.

A priori - prioritization of the largest issue is the entire point of theory.

That doesn't mean I throw away B, C, or D because anyone can turn them back into A.

Default competing interpretations.

Default no RVI - you should only waste as much time on theory as you want to.

The whole point of debate is that you've read and thought about the rules.

Speed:

We all type and write at different speeds throughout the debate.

Slow down when people ask you to and it'll be quite difficult to turn this into a voting issue with me.

Prefer yelling clear over slow. Use this power sparingly.

Kritiks:

Focus on the philosophy and structure, that's the whole point.

The only problem I've ever had with these arguments is when someone uses them so fast their opponent can't even understand.

Our mutual understanding of what is going on is the most important thing to me in the debate.

Plans & Counter-plans:

Plans and counter-plans are a useful stucture in any debate form.

Run perms to test the competition.

Severance is fine, but be careful if you're hit with theory.

Speaker Points:

I'll set this based on how respectful the debate ended up being.

I'm happy to answer questions - humzamuhammadkhan@gmail.com

julian kuffour (any)

julianjudging@gmail.com

slower = better. won't flow until the 1nc on the case (reading the cards), won't clear you or say i understood what you said if you're unclear or i do not follow your argument.

2013-2017: Competed at Peninsula HS (CA)

I earned 21 bids to the TOC and was a finalist at the NDCA.

Yes I want to be on the email chain, add me: jlebarillec@gmail.com

I am willing to judge, listen to, and vote for anything. Just explain it well. I am not a fan of strategies which are heavily reliant on blippy arguments and frequently find myself holding the bar for answers to poor uneveloped arguments extremely low.

Speed should not be an issue, but be clear.

Clash debates:

Aff — Strategies that impact turn the Negative’s offense in combination with solid defense and/or a counter-interp (good)

Neg — Fairness, debate is a game (good)

skills (less good)

Topicality + Theory: More debating should be done over what debates look like under your model of the topic, less blippy debating at the standards level. Caselists are good and underutilized. I think some Condo is good. I think the Aff should be less scared to extend theory arguments against counterplans that are the most cheaty.

Kritiks: I find the link debate to be the most important here. Most times I vote aff it’s because I don’t know why the plan/Aff is inconsistent with your criticism. Strategies that are dependent on multiple non sequitur link arguments are unlikely to work in front of me.

I think that evidence comparison is extremely important and tends to heavily reward teams who do it more/earlier in the debate.

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.

CKM '18

Berkeley '22

Assistant coach at Immaculate Heart. She/her. annabellelong@berkeley.edu

I’ve heard/debated it all and will listen to/vote on anything, provided you do it well. Specific argument preferences are below, but none of these preferences should significantly change what you read or how you debate in front of me. If you win the debate, I will vote for you.

Ks: I’ll vote for them. I'm familiar with most commonly read Ks. I think good K teams do more than just read the same shell and 2NC overview every round, and I’ll appreciate it and find it easier to vote for you if you have contextual links to the plan/impacts. It will be difficult to convince me that debate is bad.

K vs K: the area where I’m least familiar. I'm not super comfortable evaluating these rounds. You will have a hard time convincing me that the perm doesn't solve.

Counterplans: On condo: it’s good. On kicking planks: you can do it. On 2NC counterplans: they are good. None of these preferences mean I can't be convinced otherwise, but if debating on the question is equal, that is how I will typically lean.

Disads: I really care about evidence quality – if any card you’re planning to read has frankensteined a sentence out of words from three different paragraphs, it’s probably a bad disad, and I won’t be a fan. Zero risk is definitely a thing.

Framework: yes. Plans = good, debate = good, topic education = good. I’ll vote on fairness. I think portable skills are real and that movements-style framework can be strategic. I am not the best judge for you if you read a k aff, but I certainly won't auto vote neg on framework. Always tech over truth.

LD: I strongly dislike and do not feel comfortable judging theory/tricks debating, I love policy-style arguments, and am not fond of judging traditional LD philosophy debates (convincing me util is wrong/not the best way to make governmental decisions will be difficult). It will be nearly impossible to win an RVI in front of me. You should not pref me if you frequently go for theory or tricks. I will functionally judge the debate as if it is a 1v1 policy round (with the exception of maybe being more sympathetic to condo).

Misc.:

It is often in your best interest to go slower than your top speed. I do not flow off the doc and will not vote for arguments that I do not have on my flow.

Record your speeches locally in the event of a technical issue.

I am not timing your speech or your prep time.

Hey, I debated at Damien for four years went to the TOC a couple times and now go to USC

Some thoughts:
Aff:
Affirmatives should defend the hypothetical enactment of a topical plan. Middle of the road or big stick, doesn't matter to me. 

Neg:
Read what you want as long as it engages the affirmative in a meaningful manner. This necessarily excludes decontextualized criticisms 
T/Theory:
My default is competing interpretations, but interpretations should be reasonable.

Reject the argument not the team, except for conditionality.

DA:
DA's other than politics are awesome, but I went for politics a fair amount in high school.

CP:
I prefer cp's to compete functionally/textually, but it is possible for a team to persuade me otherwise 
PIC's are awesome.
Advantage CP's are awesome.
International fiat tows a fine line. Could be persuaded it's good or bad.

Process Cp's and consult cp's tow the line even more

K:
I am not biased against these per se but they are by far the hardest argument to execute, absent dropped silver bullets i.e. root cause, ontology first, or floating pik's.
Framework should be impacted.
Links should be responsive to the content of the 1AC.
Impacts should be based off of such links, not the overall knowledge/material/methodological structure you are criticizing. K's should not be an excuse to sidestep conventional impact comparison.
Alternatives should either be explained to solve such links or explained within a framework that makes alternative solvency irrelevant.

Judge:
Explanation over evidence. If you ask me to read a card after the round which has warrants not explained in the debate, those warrants are irrelevant.
Tech and truth. Technical concessions matter, but there can be larger truths which belittle the weight of such concessions. Control framing to control the debate.
Rebuttals. Make choices. Go for what you are ahead on, and explain why what you are ahead on is more important than what you are behind on using even if statements.
Prep time ends after you are done writing the speech.

Debate's a game have fun! 

Experience: FYO/Coach

I realize that FYO's have bias and can't completely avoid that but I'll do my best to come into the round as tab as possible. I did LD for 4 years in highschool and broke at a couple bid tournaments - nothing to impressive. I am now coaching circuit debaters ect. ect.

Add me to the email chain! - claymar6@gmail.com

TL;DR:

- I'm good with pretty much any argument

- Slow down on author names - debaters are messy (LD'rs especially) that way i know where to put your args

- low threshold for extentions, but will not shadow extend for you

- high-threshold for disproving RVI's on neg - JUDGES REALLY OUT HERE HATING RVI'S ON T, NOT ME BABY

- If I don't understand your argument, I won't vote on it.

General stuff:

As far as how I evaluate the rounds: I usually judge each round based on a competing worlds paradigm and I usually default tech > truth. Dropped arguments are not flowed, and I'll say this a lot but I don't buy shadow extensions except in very extenuating circumstances.

I think its important to emphasize how important that in the round as a debater you put a lot of effort into telling a story and leaving as few holes in your argument as possible. In a perfect round, you tell me why you're winning, capitalize on the arguments and develop the ones that need to be. Every single argument should have a warrant, i will straight up intervene and not evaluate them.

Very low threshold for extentions, but I won't shadow extend them for you.

You should be disclosing and an doing an email chain if at a bid tournament, no excuses. I find a lot of debaters will read arguments without warrants and most of you spread through tags anyways so it's good to have. We've all had to flow through asinine and unrecognizable spreading, and if thats your thing thats totally fine, but do an email chain. If your evidence does not have cites I will treat it like an analytic.

As for me primarily:

On neg i mainly read Debility and schlag, and berlant, psychoanalysis and cap I guess :/ occasional CP/DA & NC's

On aff i read plans, lol.

also i think value debate is super lame. If you get called out on your lay value based aff not actually doing anything - you better be able to defend it.

Plans:

I read mostly plans in LD, and thus am mostly familiar with them. There's something beautiful about a well written plan. I don't really see how you could butcher a plan, so there's not to much to that.

Phil Affs:

I love a good phil aff! I think they can be strategic, but if you don't understand the arguments, then don't read them. Make sure to be super clear with tags/names because most phil rounds I judge end up getting muddied. If you're clear then there shouldn't be a problem.

K affs:

Totally down for a K aff. I'm not gonna be that judge that says all affs need to be topical, because I've had a lot of good debates against k affs where i learned a lot. Debate is a space of expression and good arguments. The same principle applies with K affs as with phil affs though, dont read an argument that you don't understand just to get a W or throw your opponent off, I'll know. I hold the principle that the further away from the topic that the k aff is, the easier it is to convince me that T is a voter issue.

Neg: If you're reading T than I need substantive engagement. Don't just read T-USFG ev that you found on open evidence.

FW/T:

T debate is my favorite especially on these poorly written NSDA topics. I think a good T debate has a lot of layers and against some crazy plans it has serious merit. I am a blank slate when it comes to "frivolous T", I'll let the debaters decide on that. When it comes to FW, I've seen it all and worked with some debaters who have come up with some really cool FW arguments against K affs. I like to see that kind of innovation, but regardless I will weigh it however you tell me to.

Essentially, I won't come into the round with presumptions about topicality arguments. I don't have any defaults when it comes to RVI's or Competing interps unless told otherwise. WIth that being said, i notice that i am often voting for RVI's. I hold the negative to a HIGH threshold for disproving why the aff should get an rvi when they are also ahead on the T debate in the first place.

Theory:

I like theory arguments, and I think a well done one is strategic. In order to get my ballot with my theory argument you need to be ahead on atleast 1 standard, and also be winning a voter and ballot argument. High threshold for theory extentions. Here are some things that your shells NEED to have.

1. A written down interp that we can refer back to.

2. A substantive abuse story and real interp.

3. Real extensions and explanations of ballot arg/voters

Counterplans/Pics:

I think these policy oriented arguments are fun, but i think that counterplans or pics should atleast come with a solvency mechanism and a net benefit. That should be obvious but i've seen way to many debaters read them without. I've read cheaty counterplans in my day, and I'm okay with them here, with that, I'm also very open to theory about abuse.

Kritks:

I am very familiar with kritikal arguments as I read a lot of them in highschool. As far as identity based arguments go, I never read them in round but read a good amount of its literature so I understand most of them fundamentally. At the most bare bones level, you can read anything you want, but make sure you have some sort of framing mechanism so that you can weigh the kritik against the aff.

In depth:

Negative: The 2nr should be more than "alt solves and links are disads to the perm" the 2nr should be a story on how the alternative has some sort of impact on the real world, whatever it may be. The link debate shouldn't be just repeating the tagline. 2nr link story & debate should be a comprehensive argument about the internal warrants and why they matter. The framing mechanism should have a clear and explainable path to the ballot. Far to many debaters just read generic RotB's and expect the judge to fill in the holes. I will not fill in holes with your story.

I've definitely read my fair share of generic links, but I always made sure they were strong. Your best bet with me with generic links is to make sure that the literature is accurate and specific to the topic at hand. If you have lines from the AC or critical concessions coming out of the 1ac or 1ac cx I HIGHLY reccomend you use those as they will most definitely bolster the validity of you link.

Aff: A lot of debaters are scared of the kritik, but I don't think they should be, biggest thing I can say is USE THE AFF AND AC FRAMING. I default to allowing the aff to weigh its mech vs any k alt Unless told otherwise.

K stuff I'm not well read in (doesn't mean I won't get it, just means I haven't read the lit myself)

1. SetCol

2. Fem

3. Baudy

K stuff I have read the lit for:

1. AB/Afrop

2. Psychoanalysis

3. Cap

4. Semiotics

5. Schlag

6. Biopower

7. Debility

8. Heidegger

9. Berlant

Trix:

Not a fan, but I'll listen to them. High threshold for weighing trix-y arguments.

Speaks:

A lot of you have been asking how I give speaks so here are my ratings. I have adopted them from Kedrick Stumbris, an old coach of mine.

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.1-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

28.8-29.0 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.6-28.7 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.4-28.5 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.0-28.3 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

27.7-27.9 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

matt mcfadden
matt.mcfadden.99@gmail.com - email chain - please put me on it

IF YOU ARE NOT TAKING PREP FOR THE 1NR, THE SPEECH SHOULD BE SENT BEFORE THE 2N SITS DOWN

YOU CANNOT EMAIL PERM TEXTS. THE 2AC MUST READ THEM.

---update - 2023 ---

if you want to read a k on the aff, i'm not the judge for you

if you want to read a k on the neg - and do it well - i am the judge for you

you cannot insert re-highlightings. you must read them.

---update - 12/5/2021 ---

Acceptable:

- All impact turns

- Specific, well-researched K's

- Tag team for asking questions

- Condo

Unacceptable:

- AFFs without a plan text

- Talking about your identity, race, sexual orientation, class, kinks, or anything of the sort

- Untopical AFFs

- Generic, unapplied arguments

- GBX-style process CPs

- Quantum Physics-based impacts

- Tag team for answering questions

---end of update---

---update - 11/7/2020 ---

reasons to strike me:

-you read a 1ac without a plan text

"27.5 if you think the 1ac is a strategy to survive."

-you talk about your identity in debates

-you read baudrillard

-you have 3-minute-long 2nc overviews

-you think a good 1nc can be made by a conglomeration of generics

---end of update---

---update---

vote from my flow |--------------------------------------X| read every card at the end of the debate

the 1ac can be whatever you want it to be |--------------------------------------X| read a plan

the cp needs a solvency advocate |------------------------X--------------| the cp doesn’t need a solvency advocate

pics are bad |--------------------------------------X| pics are good

condo is bad |---------------------X-----------------| condo is good

go for t |---X-----------------------------------| don’t go for t

k’s that link to every aff |--------------------------------------X| k’s that link to this specific aff

---end of update---

predispositions – if you accurately describe your evidence as phenomenal, i will reward you with extra speaks in proportion to how good your cards are. if you oversell your sub-par cards, i will be thoroughly disappointed. regardless of my biases, please just go for what you are prepared to execute and have the research on.

there are really only 2 things you need to take from this –

1 – do what you're good at
2 – do LINE BY LINE
"i vote on dropped arguments that i don't believe" -ian beier

things that bother me -

prep: please have the 1nr emailed out before 2nc cross-ex is over. you can go get water for -.5 speaks or you can use prep to do it.

topicality – love it. please read a good amount of cards. if you've done the research to support a well-articulated t argument, i will be overjoyed to judge the debate. although i generally default to competing interpretations, after thinking about it, reasonability is compelling if the 2ar accurately articulates why the neg interpretation is unpredictable and overly burdensome for affirmatives, which outweighs 2nr offense – this is especially persuasive if you have aff-specific cards in relation to the topic literature or legal question of the resolution. negatives that 1 – do thorough impact calculus external to ‘they explode limits – limits are good’ and 2 – give overwhelmingly extensive lists of the absurd affs their interp justifies are crucial. limits is an internal link to the topic-specific expertise the resolutional question is designed to impart.


theory – can be tedious to resolve, but i'm intrigued. 1ar's do not extend this enough. 2ar's that do the impact comparison, turns case analysis, and offense/defense framing on theory as if it were a da are very enjoyable. if theory arguments aren't well-articulated and are overly blippy, i am fine with simply dismissing them.

must disclose judge prefs theory – no, thank you. i am not sympathetic.


kritiks – the most intricate debates or the most mediocre debates – i mean this sincerely. if you are good at making a real argument, yes please. specific link work with intricate turns case analysis and examples relating to the aff win debates. reading a new phenomenal critical theory card will make my day - ie if you have done the research to support your argument, let's go. the more generic your k is, the less inclined i am to vote for you. if you are a team that goes for the k like a disad (techy, line-by-line, interacts with the case) i'll be happy to judge the debate; the inverse is true as well.


cp – wonderful.

counterplans with long texts – my favorite.

pics – they're the best. HOWEVER – they should be substantively different than the aff and have a solvency advocate.

process cp's – you're probably cheating.

states cp – teams overestimate the impact of their solvency deficits and underestimate the efficacy of theory as an answer. aff – please go for theory.


da – yes, please.

well-researched link evidence works wonders. taking a minute of the 2nr to detail turns case analysis puts you in a great position.

if you don't have a da, you don't have a da. 1% risk calculus won't make your link for you.


impact turn – please go for these if your evidence is recent and of high quality. this means not spark. doing thorough comparison between the data and qualifications of your cards versus theirs is how these debates are won.
"people should impact turn.... everything" -ian beier


neg v. k affs – if you're neg and don't win these debates, you're the exception. these are the hardest 2nr's, so i'm willing to grant some leeway.

presumption – make this argument.

framework – yes. compare your impacts at the internal link level and do intricate turns case analysis. i enjoy institutional engagement arguments vs identity affs and truth testing/fairness against more abstract affs.

the k – though i think it is an admirable strategy, unless you have hyper-specific evidence about the aff or its mechanism, you are highly susceptible to the perm.


k affs – good luck.


aff v. the k – you have an aff; that's all you have to defend.

affs lose to the k when they don't answer offense that is embedded in link arguments, lose the framework debate, letting them get away with broad and absurd generalizations, and going for too much.


execution – evidence quality doesn't replace the necessity of good debating. but i really do love good evidence.

zero risk – it’s not possible strictly in the sense of ‘zero risk’, because there is inherently a possibility of all events but it is possible to diminish the risk of an advantage or da to such a degree that it is not sufficiently significant to overcome from the noise of the status quo. i think the new fettweis card is pretty devastating impact defense. lots of neg da's are utterly ridiculous.

cx – if their cards are awful, or their da is incoherent, pointing it out is fun. being strategic in the rhetorical method you use to get the other team to say what you want, then referencing their answers in speeches to warrant arguments is persuasive and gets you additional speaks if what they said is truly applicable.

"be snarky if you want" -grace kuang

judges/people i admire - dheidt, tallungan, khirn, tyler peltekci, dan bannister, grace kuang, spurlock, matt munday, tucker carlson, forslund, scott brown.

bad args – 'racism/sexism good' args are obviously non-starters. i won't immediately dismiss 'death good' but if this is really the position you're in, you have more immediate problems than my judging preferences.

edited: no text

Meadows '17

UCLA '20

UVA Law '24

email: abdusnajmi7@gmail.com

Specific arguments:

Kritiks -- This is where most people go first when they look at paradigms so I'll just put it at the top. The best debates I've seen are the ones where the neg has a super specific link story against an aff. The reason I get so frustrated with aff teams is because the aff never really utilizes any of their aff against the K, they just read stuff like "realism inev" or "neolib good" or "who the hell is baudrillard (Balsas 2006)." There is nothing wrong with these arguments in a vacuum -- they are necessary to win debates (you need indicts, impact turns, etc.) -- but my point is that you have to make a story about how your aff RELATES to those arguments and why that means your aff is NOT what the K describes. And what that means is READ the link evidence. A lot of the time the neg's link cards aren't about the aff at all, they are about random reasons why hegemony might be bad.

I don't think "framework - you don't get a K" is a good argument at all, but framework is important for both teams to explain why the judge should view a debate in a certain way.

Please do not make a million permutations without any explanation/warrant -- saying "perm do both, perm do the aff and non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt, perm do the aff and then the alt" doesn't really get you anywhere -- the neg could stand up and say "perm do both fails" and i'd be totally fine. You didn't explain what perm do both means or why it would work, so why should the negative explain why it fails? I just don't really think it's fair for the 2AC to say "perm do both" and then the neg has to read a 4 minute perm block just to answer 3 words. So neg -- take advantage of this. Obviously explain why the perm fails, but know that I will cut you some slack if there is legit 0 explanation of any of the perms. This also avoids those debates where no one knows what perm was extended in the 2AR and which perm the 2NR was answering.

The reason this section's explanation is so long is because K debates can either be the worst debates or the best debates. If both sides are knowledgeable about their authors and arguments, it's extremely fun to watch and both sides will get great speaker points -- but if both sides are just going through the motions and reading generic stuff, it's kind of terrible and boring.

Topicality -- literally was like 60% of my 1NRs, I think it's really effective when the negative paints a scary version of the topic under the aff's interpretation. Impact comparison is really important for both sides; limits is an impact in my opinion, but obviously it can also be an internal link to ground. Explanation o/w evidence -- but having the best/qualified definition will probably make the debate easier for you to win. I think reasonability is a question of ground -- i.e. is there enough stuff the negative could read against the aff based on topic generics released at camps? It doesn't make sense for reasonability to be like "gut check am i reasonable" because that's arbitrary and based on someone's thoughts -- it's not debatable. That being said, you can obviously argue a different interpretation of what reasonability is and i'd be happy to hear it/vote for it!

No Plan Affs/Framework -- Enjoy them, and am totally open to listening to them. The closer the aff is to the topic, the less of a threat framework should be. Just saying I mainly read policy affs in high school, except once at the TOC and that aff still had a plan. I think fairness is an impact for framework, but most people think it's an internal link to limits (which i also think is an impact, it's just a separate one). I don't really think it's smart to go for education on framework -- kritik teams will always have more game on education-type arguments.

Disads -- topic specific DA's > generic ones. don't really think politics DA is that cool/hipster, but aff teams don't know how to point out how stupid it is so neg teams end up winning a lot of these debates for some reason. Pls pls pls pls do impact turn debates. these are SO FUN to watch and if u just drop a million, quality arguments and do awesome case defense it's like sooo hard for the 1ar to come back. but this means u have to have a decent sized 1nc shell! reading 1 card on case that impact turns econ decline does not cut it. the 2ac has to be able to slightly predict it, i'll give them leeway if you only read 1 impact turn card in the 1nc. that being said!!! Aff teams -- it's really cool and i will reward u with speaker points if u kick out of the aff in the 1ar and go for straight impact turns -- i LOVED doing that and we won a ton of debates bc of it (@ jaden lessnick). but that doesn't mean always do it front of me -- u should always protect your aff and don't kick out of it if you don't need to.

CP's -- they are great, i like case specific pics, i think theory needs to be a bigger deal though. so many cp's are illegit and i went for "reject the team" a lot -- (especially on things like agent cp's) -- only if the 2nr goes for it. but you have to say WHY i should reject the team. but obviously keep in mind (neg) i will still vote for these arguments if you debate it well -- that's the point of debate. it's just my personal preference. if you debate it really well i'll higher your speaks and stuff, don't just not read an argument cuz i'm not the biggest fan of it. i don't think "rejecting the argument" solves anything and is kind of unfair to the aff. states cp is probs cheating so just have a fed key warrant or just go for theory lmao

Theory -- I don't have a specific threshold for how many condo advocacies are allowed/not allowed -- having 2 that are inconsistent is probs worse than having 3 that totally are. Plz do impact comparsion, this is what wins theory debates. no one really does it which is why theory debates get a bad rep. every theory argument is a reason to reject the team unless told otherwise, but if the 2nr doesn't go for it, it's an uphill battle for "rejecting the team."

Affiliations/Judging conflicts: Harvard-Westlake, Marlborough
I debated for four years at Harvard-Westlake School in Los Angeles, qualifying to TOC thrice. I now coach for Marlborough.
If you have questions, email me at mdokrent@gmail.com

Short version:
I like hearing well-developed, supported, smart arguments. This can include philosophy, t or theory, Ks, plans, CPs, DAs, etc. Form doesn't matter a huge amount to me. Just steer clear of my landmines and make good arguments: your speaks and win record will show it.

Flashing/emailing is on prep time.

Traditional Policy stuff: yes
Theory: yes if there’s real abuse.
Philosophy (almost all sorts): yes
K: yes
Shenanigans: no
Performance: yes

Do I say clear? Yes.
How many times? Until you get clear or it becomes clear that you're ignoring me.

Mandatory scary stuff:

Landmines: The following things are not ok in debate. I WILL INSTANTLY DROP YOU FOR:
-Religious/theistic arguments *I don't think very many (if any) other judges hold this prohibition, so I want to emphasize that I do hold it, and I will hold you to it.*
-moral skepticism (unless the topic specifically mandates it, like the Nov-Dec 2011. I'll specifically note it at the top of my paradigm if one of these comes up.)
-presumption (if you tell me I should ignore substance to vote on presumption. I might presume if there is legitimately no offense but I will do everything in my power not to.)
-any argument that is “triggered” in a later speech. If you defend it, you must say so in your first speech
-biting the bullet on something atrocious like genocide, rape, mass murder, etc. (That is, openly acknowledging that your framework would not condemn something like this. Simply arguing that your opponent’s framework can’t condemn genocide will not be a reason to drop them.)
-an a priori (these are arguments that say that the resolution is true or false for linguistic/semantic reasons and don't link to a framework. Despite debaters' best efforts to hide them, a prioris are pretty easily visible.)
-blatantly lying in cx
In general, be honest. I won’t instantly drop you for anything not on this list, but if you pull tricks or are generally sketchy I will be pissed. My stance on this is pretty similar to Chris Theis’.



The following arguments I will not listen to, but will not drop you for the sole reason that you ran one of them (you can still win elsewhere on the flow). I will not vote on:
-any argument that is not normative, like ought implies can or ought means logical consequence.
-theory arguments against an interp in the AC are counterinterpretations/defense only


Things I dislike but will vote on if you win them by a wide margin (either they're conceded or you crush):
-Competing interps requires a counterinterpretation.
-Affirmative “ethics” choice (When the aff gets to pick the standard/value criterion – distinct from AFC as run in policy, which I am ok with)
-Meta-theory comes before “regular” theory. OK to run a “meta-theory” shell and weigh impacts, but I don’t believe that meta-theory exists differently than theory. One sentence in a theory voter will not convince me otherwise.
-Anything that would have me take an actual action other than judging. (It takes a really good reason to make me not be lazy. I might vote for the position and ignore the action anyway.)

And a bunch of theory shells fall into this category too. If you run one of these shells, I will be skeptical and probably find the most stock responses persuasive. I'll vote on it, but you'll have to do lots of work and win it by a lot:
-Must run/not run framework
-Must run/not run plan/counterplan (inc. plans bad)
-Must run/not run kritik (noticing a theme?)
-Must run/not run DAs, etc.
-Can't have both pre- and post-fiat impacts
-Can't make link/impact turns (yes, people actually run this shell)
-Negatively worded interps bad ("Must have positively worded interp" for the formalists)
-Neg must defend the converse

Since the Judge Philosophies wiki page has been deactivated.

I am a junior at California State University Long Beach and I debated LD for four years at La Reina High School. I will listen and vote on nearly any argument with certain exceptions i.e. racism, sexism, etc. good. If you choose to run theory, I will be happier if it is warranted, but a well-done frivolous theory debate can be fun to judge. I read a lot of critical arguments in high school so feel free to run them eg-Anti-blackness, feminism, etc. Policy-style debate is fine too. Finally, spreading wise, I have not heard spreading in a while so if you could start slow and build up speed that would be great.

2022 update

Prob not an ideal judge for you if you will go for

a. high theory

b. theory debates

Background:

Currently a graduate student at USC

I will be able to adjudicate any type of round, as I've run all from an Ocean Energy aff/politics to a Lacan aff/anti-blackness; I know you've done the work to refine whatever argument you want to read, so I will respect that - just tell me what to do with my pen. Admittedly, I’m no longer debating. I’m still confident in my ability to make a coherent decision, but probably won’t know the topic literature. Ask me anything here before the round or if I can do anything to make the round/tournament better for you :) christopherp1322@gmail.com.

TLDR: Debate whatever arg you want, don't be mean, put me on the email chain

LD Update: Everything below applies - a few comments specific to the format

1. Do I vote for RVIS? Yes and no? Yes, as in I'm open to voting for any argument. No, as in I've never voted for the argument because

a. teams don't give me reasons why I should vote for it.

b. The only justification is that "they dropped it!"; just because they don't specifically answer the RVI doesn't mean that the rest of the speech is probably a response already

c. given the nature of the argument, its probably difficult to win. Though I'd be conducive to hear a "drop the debater because they're ableist; here's why" - though that's probably theory

d. (UPDATE) Voted a team down because the other team clearly pointed out ways the other team made fun of black female scholarship and told me why that mattered.

2. Since AC's are short in time teams often have terrible internal link chains. Negs should point this out

3. I don't think I'll vote on a completely new AR argument (unless maybe hinted before or actually super abusive?).

General comments about me:

• Put me on the email chain
• I often close my eyes, put my head down, etc. Many people think that this is because I'm sleeping; nah, that's just my preference to avoid having my facial expressions influence the round. If that's something you're not comfortable with, just let me know
• I dislike the phrase "is anyone not ready". In the wise words of Richie Garner, "it is a linguistic abomination (see: bit.ly/yea-nay)."
• Please don’t read at a million wpm at the top of your rebuttals/theory args - its not very fun to flow in this situation.
• I guess I like the K? But please - read whatever argument you want to. I do my best to not let my biases affect my decision in relation to being more or less receptive to certain arguments. Rather, the only extent to which I let my kritikal background affect my process of adjudication is that I can provide more comments/feedback post-decision with kritikal arguments because of my background, rather than with arguments involving specific legal/political intricacies. In summation, the burden is on you - k or policy - to lead me through the ballot, but I'm more productive in discussions of k's after the round. Trust me, I probably won't be able to answer your super-specific resolutional question.
• I read mainly psycho, anti-blackness, Marx, and ableism in college debate.

Everything else is alphabetical:

CP: The following statement is probably my default lens for judging any argument: if the counterplan is your go-to I’m all for it. I expect the CP to solve the case or at least a portion of it, and is competitive to the plan. I’ve read a lot of abusive counterplans in the past like Consultation/Agent CP’s/PICs and don’t mind them. Obviously if the aff can effectively debate theories against these CP’s that’d be great.

DA: Contextualize the link. If the link’s warrants are in the context of the travel ban and the aff is entirely different and the aff points this out, I’ll probably err aff (unless the negative can effectively articulate that the aff is similar to what the link story says). I don’t find politics arguments too interesting, but if that’s your go-to let’s do it.

K-affs: I’ve run these affirmatives before. I’ll vote on your advocacy if you can explain to me why your model is valuable. I'll flow your performance or anything you do in your speech (make sure to extend them). Although I like critical arguments, be careful about tangential relationships to the topic because it makes me more sympathetic of TVA's, as I think that k-affs should still probably be topical. It doesn't need to include a hypothetical implementation of a policy, but you should still somehow reduce restrictions on immigration/affirm the resolution. Be creative with the definitions and explain why I should value your definition of immigration vs a legal one. Just criticizing and discussing the resolution will probably make you lose vs T a lot. If you don't affirm the resolution I'm still down for that, but be ready to impact turn everything and defend your model of debate.

- PS: If you know you’re hitting a school with historically less resources and you’re running some high theory Baudrillard aff, come on. Obviously I won’t vote you down based on your argument choice, but endorse an accessible reputation for debate. You can try to flash your blocks/analytics/full 1AC, don’t sidestep in CX, or maybe run a more intellectually accessible aff. If not, I can’t stop you but it’d be a really nice gesture - might help your speaks.

Kritiks: I’ve mainly been a kritik debater throughout my four years of debating. With that being said, don’t assume I’ll be hip with your postmodern theory and/or be more sympathetic of your psychoanalysis/antiblackness k. Just follow the same advice above and explain your k, tell me what to focus on, etc. Explain how the aff entrenches x and how that leads to a bad implication, how the link turns the aff or outweighs it, the productiveness of my ballot if I vote negative, how the alternative resolves something that outweighs the aff, and how the alt overcomes the UX of the link (although if worded correctly, I’ll vote for an alternative that is a leap of faith.) A good k debate to me will help your speaks! Also if there's a long OV or FW block let me know to put it on another flow.

T - USFG/FW: You shouldn't exclude their 1AC based on the premise that its "non-traditional"; you aren't reduced to just being able to say racism is good. Likewise, you shouldn’t read the same definition requiring the same USFG action. I say this not because I hate T (which is the contrary), but because your performance/substance probably won't be great with that strat. Be creative! My favorite FW debater is radical and explains why there is intrinsic value in having discussions rooted in the legal realm/reducing restrictions on immigration within the context of the aff’s impacts. If you can contextualize your education/fairness impacts against the 2AC and/or explain how you turn the aff, I’ll be loving your debate. I will be less sympathetic to generic FW blocks that just articulate fairness and education without reference to the aff.

Theory/Topicality: This is the area where I'm the least literate on, so please keep that in mind if your strategy involves a legitimate interest in theory. Just do meaningful comparison and tell me why I should be erring towards your model of debate over theirs. Obviously if theory is dropped by the opponents and that becomes what you go for, I’ll (probably?) vote for it. However, if the theory is otherwise read for just time skew and the other team sufficiently answers the argument I’ll generally disregard it. If you can articulate a substantive impact then it probably has a purpose and I’ll be more sympathetic – I’ll be less sympathetic to 20 second blippy blocks meant to outspread the 2AC. To be transparent, I haven’t judged many non-T theory debates. I’d be extremely interested if you can perform a well-articulated theory debate.

Otherwise, please have fun! This round is for you.

Scott Phillips- for email chains please use iblamebricker@gmail in policy, and ldemailchain@gmail.com for LD
Coach@ Harvard Westlake/Dartmouth

My general philosophy is tech/line by line focused- I try to intervene as little as possible in terms of rejecting arguments/interpreting evidence. As long as an argument has a claim/warrant I can explain to your opponent in the RFD I will vote for it. If only one side tries to resolve an issue I will defer to that argument even if it seems illogical/wrong to me- i.e. if you drop "warming outweighs-timeframe" and have no competing impact calc its GG even though that arg is terrible. 90% of the time I'm being postrounded it is because a debater wanted me to intervene in some way on their behalf either because that's the trend/what some people do or because they personally thought an argument was bad.

I am a good judge for you if/A bad judge for you if not

1. You cut good cards and highlight them to make complete arguments in at least B- 7th grade English, which is approximately my level. Read uniqueness. If your disad is non unique, not putting a uniqueness card in the 1NC is not cute, its a waste of time. If your best answers to an IR K are Ravenhall 09 and Reiter 15 you are not meeting this criteria, ditto answering pessimism with "implicit bias is malleable".
2. You debate evidence quality/qualifications and read evidence from academic sources rather than twitter/forum posts. If you are responding to a zany argument not discussed in academia, blog/forum away. If that is not the case I implore you to ask why these sources are the only ones you can find.
3. You listen to what the other team is saying and give a speech that demonstrates that you did by answering all of their arguments correctly and in the order in which they were presented . Do not read a collection of non responsive blocks in random order. And then in follow up speeches you compare/resolve those arguments rather than repeating yourself.
4. You make smart analytics against arguments with obvious weaknesses. Most 1NC disads and 1AC advantages in current debate are incoherent/missing several pieces. You do not have to respond to an incomplete argument, point out it is incomplete and move on. Once completed you get new answers to any part of it.
5. You rely on knowing what you are talking about more than posturing/grandstanding.
6. You understand your arguments/can explain things. In CX and speeches you should be able to explain words/concepts from your evidence correctly, and be able to apply them. If your link card says "the aff is not disarm" thats not a link, thats an observation
7. You can cover/don't drop things. Grouping things is fine. Making a philosophical argument for why line by line debate is bad, and instead making your argument in the form of big picture conceptual analysis is fine. Randomly saying things in the wrong place, dropping 1/2 of what the other team said and then expecting me to figure out how to apply what you said there is not. I will not make "reject argument not team" for you.

I operate on a "3 strikes" rule: each side gets up to 3 nonsense arguments- a CP that is just a text, a bad disad or advantage, an unexplained perm etc. After that your points and credibility plummet precipitously. If I'm reading your card doc I will stop reading your evidence after 3 cards highlighted into nothing. If you include 3 "rehighlightings" of the other teams evidence that are obviously wrong I will ignore all your evidence/default to the other sides.

If debated by two teams of equal skill/preparation, the following arguments are IMO unwinnable but I vote for them more often than not because the above suggestions are ignored.

-please let us weigh our case or we said the word extinction so Ks don't matter

-the framework is: object of research, you link you lose, debate shapes subjectivity, ethics first without explaining what ethics are/mean

-War good, pollution good, renewables bad- it doesn't matter if these are in right wing heritage impact turn form or academic K form

-the neg needs more than 1cp and 1K for debate to be fair. Arguments like "hard debate is good debate... so make it hard for them" are so bad you should be able to figure it out/not say them

-PICS that do/result in the whole plan are legitimate. The negative can actually win without these, especially on a topic where there are 3 affs.

-counterplans that ban the plan as their only form of competition are legitimate, especially on a topic with only...

Add me to the email chain: rithvik321@gmail.com

Pre-HWL update: I read an NFU aff on the college XA topic and judged at CPS, so I'll get acronyms and know the core affs + neg generics pretty well. I really enjoyed the debates I judged at CPS and hope to be preffed by similar debaters. My points in LD have been a little low, so I'll correct for that, but I still won't be giving out 29s like candy.

Top level: Judge direction and technical sharpness should be your top priorities. I'm not very expressive unless you make a particularly bad or reprehensible argument. Please flow!

For policy debates: If judge kick isn't debated out, I'll kick CPs for the neg. I err neg on CP theory unless there's a clear abuse story. I think States and ESR are legitimate but can be compelled that planks added to get out of solvency deficits, amendments, kicking planks, etc. are theoretically suspect.

For K debates: I read the K a lot in high school (mostly Baudrillard and settler colonialism) and have made mostly policy arguments in college (save for Cap), so I am okay with judging in clash purgatory. I don't mind whether neg teams go for fairness or skills-type arguments, but both sides should do clear impact comparison. I also strongly prefer that K teams follow the line-by-line. If you say "but methods debate" in a K v K debate, I will have no idea what this means.

Cheapshots: I read Sextus Empiricus, the sorites paradox, etc. in high school, and I will vote for this genre of argument if you execute well, but I really prefer judging real arguments.

LD:

---Yes: policy or K arguments (especially topic-specific), theory like condo/PICs bad

---No thanks: "traditional" arguments

---Absolutely not: frivolous theory/tricks/"I hate clash"

Final notes: Have fun, and don't take yourself too seriously! If you have any questions, ask before the round or email me.

Please put me on the chain -- hailey.danielle98@gmail.com

I did policy debate at Washburn Rural High School (2013-17) and the University of Southern California (2017-21). I was always a 2N. I also previously coached LD at the Marlborough School (2018-21). I now work in an academic role in global health & infectious disease ecology. I judge for UDLs and some national circuit tournaments in Nashville/Atlanta/Kansas when convenient.

Update as of 2022

I am no longer actively involved in debate. If I'm judging you, please assume it is the first debate I've judged on the topic. I’ll pick up on basics of the topic pretty quick, but in-depth T debates and super niche CPs might be challenging. If this is your thing, go for it, but add context and explanation. Avoid acronyms.

Basics

Your burden is to make it make sense -- I am pretty neutral on whatever "it" is. Choose a strategy (early) and write the ballot for me. The earlier you do it, the better.

Don’t take any of this paradigm to be hard and fast rules! These are just my general thoughts and reflections on how I feel about debate.

Please go like 70% of your fastest speed if you're reading blocks in rebuttals. If you want it to show up in my decision, I need to be able to type it.

I'm more tech>truth in policy, but that may differ in other activities depending on the context (and framing of the debate). That said -- not a fan of arguments that only win if dropped. Don't just throw things at the wall to see what sticks. Thoughtful strategy and creative argumentation are the way to good speaker points.

Cards dumps as substitution for deeper analysis is bad. Use evidence for warrants, not claims. If your highlighting is just a repeat of the tag, you might as well not have read the card.

I will not vote for moral blackmail -- this applies to “vote for me or else I have to quit” and similar. If you have a concern like this, talk to your opponent/coaches/me outside of the round, but please do not make my ballot the arbiter of that decision (!!!)

Meta-Thoughts

Consequences-X---------------------------------No Consequences

Always 1%-----X---------------------------------0% Risk a Thing

Stone Faced------------------------X------------Reacts to your args

K vs Policy

Policy----------X----------------------------------K

Vote to affirm me------------------------------X Vote to affirm my argument

Link of omission-------------------------X-----Omit this argument

Not our Baudrillard-----------X-----------------Yes your Baudrillard

Ks don't have to link to the plan text (yes the aff overall), the aff gets to be weighed. Again, consequences matter to me.

K Affs v Framework debates usually come down to who wins what the purpose of debate is.

LD Specific

Nebel T--------------X-------------------------------Pragmatic Interps

RVI------------------------------------------------X-Real Args

Tricks/Phil----------------------------------------X--Real Args

Short Policy Debate-X------------------------------Different Type of Debate

I refuse to vote for theory that I subjectively believe to be frivolous regardless of the line by line, but speeches can alter my views on what is frivolous. Yes 1AR theory.

Pet Peeves:

- Reading your blocks monotone at 100% speed

- "Do you disclose speaks"

- Bad/miscut/misrepresented evidence :(

- Tagging cards "extinction" and nothing else :(

- Asking for cards or combining speech docs and saying its not prep????

- Asking what cards were read when no cards were marked

- Google docs :(

One Last Thing

If there is something/someone that you feel unsafe around, I am more than happy to assist you in finding the resources necessary to remedy the problem, but I ask they do not become a central component in the debate. That's not to say your concerns are not welcome or invalid, but I'd rather pursue a solution rather than give you a ballot and move on with my day.

I have been coaching and judging High School debate since 2003, though I have spent the better part of the last decade in tabrooms, so don't get to judge as much as I used to. :-)

If I had to classify myself, I would say that I am a pretty traditional judge. I am not a huge fan of Ks, because for the most part, I feel like people run Ks as bad DAs, and not a true Ks.

I cannot count the number of times I have had a student ask me "do you vote on [fill in the blank]"? It honestly depends. I have voted on a K, I have voted on T, I have voted on solvency, PICs, etc., but that doesn't mean I always will. There is no way for me to predict the arguments that are going into the round I am about to see. I can say that, in general, I will vote on almost anything if you make a good case for it! I want YOU to tell me what is the most important and tell me WHY. If you leave it up to me, that is a dangerous place to be.

Important things to keep in mind in every round.
1) If your taglines are not clear and slow enough for me to flow, I won't be able to flow them. If I can't flow it, I can't vote on it. I am fine if you want to speed through your cards, but I need to be able to follow your case.

2) I like to see clash within a debate. If there is no clash, then I have to decide what is most important. You need to tell me, and don't forget the WHY!

That leads me to...

3) I LOVE voting issues. They should clarify your view of the debate, and why you believe that you have won the round.

update for strake: keep in mind that i haven't judged, coached, or thought about debate since the 2020 TOC. do whatever you want and i'll do my best to adjudicate it impartially, just err on the side of overexplanation for obscure k lit. you should probably slow down a bit in rebuttal speeches because online debate and also because i haven't heard spreading since april. i'll give you above a 29 if i think you should clear. also have fun:)

-

e-toc updates n stuff

(1) coaching affiliations: loyola BC, loyola LH, anderson AR

(2) most important - please slow down/be especially clear given the variability in audio quality.

(3) i will no longer vote on arguments that ask me to evaluate any part of the round after a speech that is not the 2ar. i've found that procedurally excluding any speech results in an incredibly arbitrary and interventionist decision calculus that neither debater will benefit from in the way that they hope to.

updated for 2019-2020

mountain view high school (ca) '18 // ucla '22

email: maya.sanghavi@gmail.com - please feel free to reach out by email/fb if you have pre/post round questions or if you're a small school debater and need help of any sort!

i debated circuit LD for MVLA for two years, graduated in 2018, and received one bid to the TOC my senior year. i've taught at NSD Flagship (2018, 2019) and TDC (2019). i now attend UCLA and am an assistant coach at loyola high school.

for prefs:

debate is your activity, so i'll vote on any argument that has a coherent claim, warrant, and impact. i have no ideological leanings on the kind of debate you choose to have - the only preference i have is that you debate how you want to. i will do my best to evaluate the round how you tell me to, and, absent clear argumentation, i will attempt to operate under the assumptions shared by both debaters (i.e. if a shell is read without a voter, but both debaters act as though the shell is drop the debater, i will evaluate it as such). the last thing i want to do is intervene, so it's in your best interest to make the round as clear as possible - this means weighing a bunch, justifying everything, giving clear overviews, and actually explaining your arguments.

i'm most familiar with theory, topicality, and philosophical framework debates, and less familiar with policy and kritik debates. i'm probably worst at evaluating in depth policy v. policy or k v. k rounds, but as long as you explain your arguments well, i should be fine regardless of what you read. i will vote on tricks if won, but i don't like them. i'm impartial on the k-aff vs t-framework debate.

be nice & have fun :)

I would like to be on the email chain, my email is jpscoggin at gmail.com

I am the coach of Loyola High School in Los Angeles. I also own and operate Premier Debate along with Bob Overing. I coach Nevin Gera. I prefer a nuanced util debate to anything else.

Arguments

In general, I am not a fan of frivolous theory or non-topical Ks.

High speaker points are awarded for exceptional creativity and margin of victory.

I am fine with speed as long as it is comprehensible.

Procedure

If you are not comfortable disclosing to your opponent at the flip or after pairings are released it is likely in your best interest to strike me. If the tournament has a rule about when that should occur I will defer to that, if not 10 minutes after the pairing is released seems reasonable to me.

Compiling is prep. Prep ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed from your computer.

I am very interested in seeing clash in the debate. I prefer that you present your case and refute the other side.

I do not mind you running counter-plans, theories, kritiks, or anything else that you like. The only thing that I ask is that you let me know what you are doing.

I also want you to sign post what you are doing so that I can follow your case.

If you are refuting your opponent's argument, then I would like for you to point out what your opponent said and then tell me your point of view.

I want you to be very specific with all of your points and refutals. If you are vague, I will not know what you are saying and, therefore, not consider that argument.

In a nutshell, I want to see a good clean, logical presentation and no underhanded tactics.

Please add me to email chain: Email: schirjeev@gmail.com

I am a lay judge. Go a little bit slower than you would usually just to make sure I get everything on the flow.

email chain/questions: kaylasoren@gmail.com

Background info: I debated LD for 4 years at DuPont Manual and graduated in 2016. I coach independents and go to USC.

Overall:

I keep a thorough flow of the round (not the speech doc), and I will do my best to judge solely off of it. Layer the debate and tell me which layers come first. I will listen to any argument, but I will dock speaks or drop you if you’re being blatantly offensive. In and out of round, we should be as empathetic and inclusive as possible.

Framework:

I like some sort of framework to evaluate the round. I don't care what kind. If you’re running obscure philosophy, don’t assume I have background in it. I do like phil rounds, so don't hesitate to run it!

Kritiks:

I am definitely more persuaded by affirmatives that advance an answer to the resolution. Negatives need to have very specific links to the affirmative. Explain the alt and why it solves for its impacts well. If you're against a legitimate k about social issues, you should engage the k. I will not be persuaded if you solely run theory/T on it. Performance k’s are cool.

T/Theory:

Default competing interps, no RVIs, drop argument. If you go for reasonability, tell me how to evaluate what is reasonable. If there are multiple shells, weigh between them. Ask me before the round about particular shells if you want. PLEASE DO NOT RUN FRIVOLOUS THEORY OR TRICKS

Other:

- Flashing isn't prep

- High speaks come from good strategy and if I think you should break.

- Impact calc is very important

- Please don't hesitate to collapse the round

- If you're going against an opponent in which you are by far the more experienced debater, be helpful and considerate. Win the round kindly!

- Females, I shouldn't have to say this, but I full-heartedly support your aggression.

- Permissibility and presumption are not persuasive.

- I think debate is a game to an extent, but I do think it is a place for fostering meaningful discourse and change.

Immaculate Heart '18

University of Southern California '22

email: miasspeier@gmail.com

Conflicts: Immaculate Heart High School, Brentwood High School

Experience:

I primarily debated traditional/flay LD for all four years of high school. I am a 3x qualifier to the CA State Tournament and a 2x qualifier to the NSDA National Tournament. I placed 8th at Nationals in Lincoln Douglas. I DO have some experience debating on the circuit but I (by no means) am a full-fledged expert.

Speaker Points:

My range will most likely be 27-29. 27 needing improvement and 29 being great. 30 being you are wonderful and one of the greatest speakers I have ever heard. If you're being rude/offensive/awful/problematic in a round, I will give you low speaks — be kind!

Speed:

Speed is fine. I didn't spread too often when I debated, but I can try to keep up. Share everything you will be reading with me (please). If you're incoherent, I will say clear. If you're too in the moment and refusing to adjust, I will be sad and either I'll make a pleading facial expression or I'll stop flowing.

Judging:

I am not super technical. Given that, I want you to clearly explain and outline plans, CPs, DAs and so on. I am not the most experienced when it comes to more critical positions, but don't let this dissuade you from running them. This just means that you need to be clear and coherent when doing so. When it comes to theory, I understand it, but I have admittedly little experience when it comes to running it. But I'm a smart and logical person — so just explain things well. Performance debate is something I know nothing about.

All this being said, I think that tech is cool and whatnot, but I also like to think there's still some value in being able to clearly convince me of your arguments. You do you — but adapt or shift in the way you see fit.

https://debate.msu.edu/about-msu-debate/

Pronouns: she/her

Yes, put me on the chain: jasminestidham@gmail.com

Please let me know if there are any accessibility requirements before the round so I can do my part.

Updated for 2023-24

I currently coach full-time at Michigan State University. Previously, I coached at Dartmouth for five years from 2018-2023. I debated at the University of Central Oklahoma for four years and graduated in 2018. I also used to coach at Harvard-Westlake, Kinkaid, and Heritage Hall.

LD skip down to the bottom.

January 2024 Update -- College

The state of wikis for most college teams is atrocious this year. The amount of wikis that have nothing or very little posted is bonkers. I don't know who needs to hear this, but please go update your wiki. If you benefit from other teams posting their docs/cites (you know you do), then return the favor by doing the same. It's not hard. This grumpiness does not apply to novice and JV teams.

At the CSULB tournament, I will reward teams with an extra .1 speaker point boost if you tell me to look at your wiki after the round and it looks mostly complete. I will not penalize any team for having a bad wiki (you do you), but will modestly reward teams who take the time to do their part for a communal good.

October 2023 Musings

I don't mean to sound like a curmudgeon, but what happened to flowing and line-by-line? Stop. flowing. off the doc. Flowing is fundamental and you need to actually do it. Please stop over-scripting your speeches. I promise you will sound so much better when you debate off the flow.

I could not agree more with Tracy McFarland here: 'Clash - it's good - which means you need to flow and not script your speeches. LBL with some clear references to where you're at = good. Line by line isn't answer the previous speech in order - it's about grounding the debate in the 2ac on off case, 1nc on case.'

In most of the college rounds I've judged so far this year, I have noticed that debaters are overly reliant on reading a wall of cards to substitute for actual debating. I don't know who hurt you, but you don't need to read 10 cards in the 1AR. Reading cards is easy and anyone can do it. I want to see you debate.

Tldr; Flexibility

No judge will ever like all of the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate them fairly. I appreciate judges who are willing to listen to positions from every angle, so I try to be one of those judges. I have coached strictly policy teams, strictly K teams, and everything in between because I love all aspects of the game. I would be profoundly bored if I only judged certain teams or arguments. At most tournaments I find myself judging a little bit of everything: a round where the 1NC is 10 off and the letter 'K' is never mentioned, a round where the affirmative does not read a plan and the neg suggests they should, a round where the neg impact turns everything under the sun, a round where the affirmative offers a robust defense of hegemony vs a critique, etc. I enjoy judging a variety of teams with different approaches to the topic.

Debate should be fun and you should debate in the way that makes it valuable for you, not me.

My predispositions about debate are not so much ideological as much as they are systematic, i.e. I don't care which set of arguments you go for, but I believe every argument must have a claim, warrant, impact, and a distinct application.

If I had to choose another judge I mostly closely identify with, it would be John Cameron Turner but without the legal pads.

I don't mind being post-rounded or answering a lot of questions. I did plenty of post-rounding as a debater and I recognize it doesn't always stem from anger or disrespect. That being said, don't be a butthead. I appreciate passionate debaters who care about their arguments and I am always willing to meet you halfway in the RFD.

I am excited to judge your debate. Even if I look tired or grumpy, I promise I care a lot and will always work hard to evaluate your arguments fairly and help you improve.

What really matters to me

Evidence quality matters a lot to me, probably more than other judges. Stop reading cards that don't have a complete sentence and get off my lawn. I can't emphasize enough how much I care about evidence comparison. This includes author quals, context, recency, (re)highlighting, data/statistics, concrete examples, empirics, etc. You are better off taking a 'less is more' approach when debating in front of me. For example, I much rather see you read five, high quality uniqueness cards that have actual warrants highlighted than ten 'just okay' cards that sound like word salad.

This also applies to your overall strategies. For example, I am growing increasingly annoyed at teams who try to proliferate as many incomplete arguments as possible in the 1NC. If your strategy is to read 5 disads in the 1NC that are missing uniqueness or internal links, I will give the aff almost infinite leeway in the 1AR to answer your inevitable sandbagging. I would much rather see well-highlighted, complete positions than the poor excuse of neg arguments that I'm seeing lately. To be clear, I am totally down with 'big 1NCs' -- but I get a little annoyed when teams proliferate incomplete positions.

Case debate matters oh so much to me.Please, please debate the case, like a lot. It does not matter what kind of round it is -- I want to see detailed, in-depth case debate. A 2NC that is just case? Be still, my heart. Your speaker points will get a significant boost if you dedicate significant time to debating the case in the neg block. By "debating the case" I do not mean just reading a wall of cards and calling it a day -- that's not case debate, it's just reading.

I expect you to treat your partner and opponents with basic respect. This is non-negotiable. Some of y'all genuinely need to chill out. You can generate ethos without treating your opponents like your mortal enemy. Pettiness, sarcasm, and humor are all appreciated, but recognize there is a line and you shouldn't cross it. Punching down is cringe behavior. You should never, ever make any jokes about someone else's appearance or how they sound.

Impact framing and judge instruction will get you far. In nearly every RFD I give, I heavily emphasize judge instruction and often vote for the team who does superior judge instruction because I strive to be as non-interventionist as possible.

Cowardice is annoying. Stop running away from debate. Don't shy away from controversy just because you don't like linking to things. This also applies to shady disclosure practices. If you don't like defending your arguments, or explaining what your argument actually means, please consider joining the marching band. Be clear and direct.

Plan texts matter. Most plan texts nowadays are written in a way that avoids clash and specificity. Affirmative teams should know that I am not going to give you much leeway when it comes to recharacterizing what the plan text actually means. If the plan says virtually nothing because you're scared of linking to negative arguments, just know that I will hold you to the words in the plan and won't automatically grant the most generous interpretation. You do not get infinite spin here. Ideally, the affirmative will read a plan text that accurately reflects a specific solvency advocate.

I am not a fan of extreme or reductionist characterizations of different approaches to debate. For example, it will be difficult to persuade me that all policy arguments are evil, worthless, or violent. Critical teams should not go for 'policy debate=Karl Rove' because this is simply a bad, reductionist argument. On the flip side, it would be unpersuasive to argue that all critiques are stupid or meaningless.

I appreciate and reward teams who make an effort to adapt.Unlike many judges, I am always open to being persuaded and am willing to change my mind. I am rigid about certain things, but am movable on many issues. This usually just requires meeting me in the middle; if you adapt to me in some way, I will make a reciprocal effort.

Online debate

Camera policy: I strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but there are valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.

Tech glitches: it is your responsibility to record your speeches as a failsafe. I encourage you to record your speeches on your phone/laptop in the event of a tech glitch. If a glitch happens, we will try to resolve it as quickly as possible, and I will follow the tournament's guidelines.

Slow down a bit in the era of e-sports debate. I'll reward you for it with points. No, you don't have to speak at a turtle's pace, but maybe we don't need to read 10-off?

Miscellaneous specifics

I care more about solvency advocates than most judges. This does not mean I automatically vote against a counterplan without a solvency advocate. Rather, this is a 'heads up' for neg teams so they're aware that I am generally persuaded by affirmative arguments in this area. It would behoove neg teams to read a solvency advocate of some kind, even if it's just a recutting of affirmative evidence.

I will only judge kick if told to do so, assuming the aff hasn't made any theoretical objections.

I am not interested in judging or evaluating call-outs, or adjacent arguments of this variety. I care deeply about safety and inclusion in this activity and I will do everything I can to support you. But, I do not believe that a round should be staked on these issues and I am not comfortable giving any judge that kind of power.

Please do not waste your breath asking for a 30. I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen.

Generally speaking, profanity should be avoided. In most cases, it does not make your arguments or performance more persuasive. Excessive profanity is extremely annoying and may result in lower speaks. If you are in high school, I absolutely do not want to hear you swear in your speeches. I am an adult, and you are a teenager -- I know it feels like you're having a big ethos moment when you drop an F-bomb in the 2NC but I promise it is just awkward/cringe.

Evidence ethics

If you clip, you will lose the round and receive 0 speaker points. I will vote against you for clipping EVEN IF the other team does not call you on it. I know what clipping is and feel 100% comfortable calling it. Mark your cards and have a marked copy available.

If you cite or cut a card improperly, I evaluate these issues on a sliding scale. For example, a novice accidentally reading a card that doesn't have a complete citation is obviously different from a senior varsity debater cutting a card in the middle of a sentence or paragraph. Unethical evidence practices can be reasons to reject the team and/or a reason to reject the evidence itself, depending on the unique situation.

At the college level, I expect ya'll to handle these issues like adults. If you make an evidence ethics accusation, I am going to ask if you want to stop the round to proceed with the challenge.

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

LD Specific

Updated March 2024 before TFA to reflect a few changes.

Conflicts: Harvard-Westlake (assistant director of debate 2018-2022), and Strake Jesuit (current affiliation).

My background is in policy debate, but I am very fluent in LD. I co-direct NSD Flagship and follow LD topics as they evolve. I assist Strake in LD and policy.

If you are asking questions about what was read or skipped in the speechdoc, that counts as CX time. If you are simply asking where a specific card was marked, that is okay and does not count as CX time. If you want your opponent to send out a speechdoc that includes only the things they read, that counts as your CX time or prep time -- it is your responsibility to flow.

You need to be on time. I cannot stress this enough. LDers consistently run late and it drives me bonkers. Your speaks will be impacted if you are excessively late without a reasonable excuse.

I realize my LD paradigm sounds a little grumpy. I am only grumpy about certain arguments/styles, such as frivolous theory. I do my best to not come off as a policy elitist because I do genuinely enjoy LD and am excited to judge your debate.

FAQ:

Q:I primarily read policy (or LARP) arguments, should I pref you?

A: Yes.

Q: I read a bunch of tricks/meta-theory/a prioris/paradoxes, should I pref you?

A: No thank you.

Q: I read phil, should I pref you?

A: I'm not ideologically opposed to phil arguments like I am with tricks. I do not judge many phil debates because most of the time tricks are involved, but I don't have anything against philosophical positions. I would be happy to judge a good phil debate. You may need to do some policy translation so I understand exactly what you're saying.

Q: I really like Nebel T, should I pref you?

A: No, you shouldn't. He's a very nice and smart guy, but cutting evidence from debate blogs is such a meme. If you'd like to make a similar argument, just find non-Nebel articles and you'll be fine. This applies to most debate coach evidence read in LD. To be clear, you can read T:whole rez in front of me, just not Nebel blog cards.

Q: I like to make theory arguments like 'must spec status' or 'must include round reports for every debate' or 'new affs bad,' should I pref you?

A: Not if those arguments are your idea of a round-winning strategy. Can you throw them in the 1NC/1AR? Sure, that's fine. Will I be persuaded by new affs bad? No.

Q: Will you ever vote for an RVI?

A: Nope. Never. I don't flow them.

Q: Will you vote for any theory arguments?

A: Of course. I am good for more policy-oriented theory arguments like condo good/bad, PICs good/bad, process CPs good/bad, etc.

Q: Will you vote for Ks?

A: Of course. Love em.


Any other questions can be asked before the round or email me.

Gabrielino High School 2014-2018

I was coached by Matthew Graca and I share the same views and debate opinions as him.

Graca: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=graca

SHORT VERSION

1. tech>truth
2. Speech times are set, one team/person wins

Add me to the email chain, I’ll follow the doc when I’m lost and to look at stuff post-round. Email: ethantandebate@gmail.com

1. If I’m lost, I’ll look lost and please re-orient me.
2. For extensions, warrant them and be specific of what I’m supposed to extend.
3. IMPACT CALC PLEASE. MAKE ROUNDS EASY.
4. SLOW DOWN ON ANALYTICS/THEORY/PRE-WRITTEN BLOCKS, these are often the things that win rounds, so if I don’t catch them your chances of winning decrease.
5. 4 years of HS experience in circuit LD and Policy. I don’t follow the topics or know the meta and stuff beyond the generic stock arguments, so please explain your stuff.

GENERAL STUFF

1. Debate Experience: Debated 4 years in High School. Junior/Senior year did mostly circuit LD and Policy. A couple college policy tournaments here and there.
2. Topic Familiarity: No experience. I have read zero things on the topic so explain your arguments and evidence and lingo/acronyms and all that jazz. That being said, I know of the stock/generic arguments, so please explain whatever you have because I don’t know the meta.
3. Delivery/Speed: Haven't debated in over a year and I last judged ~10 months ago but I still can comprehend speed, but don’t go full speed from the start, edge yourself in. If you spread and I have to yell “clear” or "slow" more than 3 times, I’m going to look confused and lost trying to flow. Also, I’ve realized that changing volume helps me flow better and grasp what you’re saying. ***Post-Cal Update: Please for the love of god work your way into full speed. You're risking making the flow really messy from the beginning and poor RFDs are a result of bad flows***
4. Cheap Shots/Blippy Arguments: If there’s a voter attached to it, it’s a voter. It’s up to the other team to say why they don’t count. If this is your type of strategy, be reasonable. Your arguments have to make sense and must be warranted.
5. Kritik FW: Whoever debates better under the interpretation wins.
6. Views on T: Honestly, that’s what your job as debaters are. My only default is competiting interps.
7. CP Threshold: Honestly, I don’t have that great of a knowledge on CP Theory, but if you want to run theory, keep it organized and I’ll be a-ok and I’ll follow.
8. Dropped Arguments: Dropped args are "true," but the implications of it can still be contested and should be.
9. How I evaluate rounds: I will evaluate rounds by first determining framing , i.e. standard, value criterion (For my LD folks), role of the ballot, etc. Second to that, I think of debate like a basketball game. Offense gives you points, defense doesn’t give you points but prevents the other team from getting points. Overviews are just you dribbling the ball, extensions with warrants and turns are offense, defense is just case answers and generic answers to case/off-case positions.

PROCEDURAL STUFF

1. Disclosure: I don't really take a stance on disclosure, but if I have to, I will vote and evaluate disclosure theory.
2. Prep/Cheating: Compiling speech docs are prep, sending emails/flashing is not prep. CX is not prep, asking questions during prep is ok. Don’t steal prep and don’t clip cards.
3. CX: I will flow CX to a certain extent. If you want me to make note of what happens in CX, let me know so I’ll have it for sure. CX to me is an important part of debate, so you cannot use CX as prep. Tag-Team CX is ok.
4. Timing: I’ll time speeches, but time your own prep. Hold each other accountable.
5. Prompting/Speaking: Having your partner speak or prompt is ok. However, if it happens too often, your speaks will be affected.

FRAMEWORK

• Frame the framework by telling me what type of debate you want via your interpretation and tell me why that is net good/beneficial for debate.
• “I think of FW like a cp - give me your interp of debate, how you solve it, and hit me with those nice and clear net benefits to your vision of debate.” -Matthew Graca
• Abusive Interps, ROBs, etc. How I’ll treat them is based on what you tell me to do with them.

KRITIK

• I’m ok with kiritks. I find them interesting and they’re a game-changer, ONLY if well executed.
• Alts: I struggled with these when I debated and when I watch rounds. All alts from the look of the 1NC sound good, but the important stuff everyone glances over is “HOW DO YOU PERFORM THE ALT?” Example: If your alt is “giving back the land” or “revolutionary suicide,” how do you give land back and how, or how do you commit revolutionary suicide? Do you or anyone actually die? Explain this stuff in your overviews or during CX. ***MID-CAL/UC BERKELEY UPDATE: EXPLAIN YOUR ALT. TELL ME HOW IT FUNCTIONS. WHAT IS THE NET BENEFIT TO THE ALT? I will not on a K where I don't get an explanation about what the alt does how the alt functions in the round. Simply reading the alt with a card is NOT sufficent enough.***
• “Even if you're not performing your alt, why is your method good/better than the other team's method?” -Graca

TOPICALITY/THEORY:

• It is imperative that you slow down with this stuff. Interps and analytics are key to these debates and if I can’t catch what you’re saying, that’s probably why my decision is flawed.

1. I prefer theory be in this form for organizational purposes.
1. Interp: The rule
2. Violation: How they broke the interp
3. Standards: Why that’s bad
4. Voters: Why that’s an aff/neg ballot
2. My defaults are competing interps and drop the team/debater.
3. RVI’s: Topicality is not an RVI. But I mean if its in the speech, you should answer it, but I’m a hard press for RVI’s.
4. I’m not fond of frivolous theory.
5. For theory, examples of in-round abuse are better and more convincing than potential abuse.
6. Sounds dumb, but attach a voter to your argument. If you don’t tell me what to do, then I don’t know what to do with it, so your opponent in the next speech can tell me to disregard it.
7. In my opinion, Topicality is a big time-suck because so many people drop it. If you read topicality, then at least try to go for it, if you do, I’ll reward you with some speaks.

THOUGHTS ON LARP/POLICY ARGS

• Counterplans
• Go for it. They must have an net benefit though. If you go for multiple CP’s in the 2NR, tell me how to evaluate them.
• Aff should probably perm and tell me how the perm functions.
• Judge kick is ok if you tell me
• Disads
• Anything is fine as long as it makes sense
• Also elections, ptx, or midterms is not persuasive. I'll still evaluate them you read it, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty, I prefer anything else.
• Impact Calc and weigh please.
• Case
• Answer case, and run impact defense.

SPEAKER POINTS

• If you want I'll disclose speaker points
• I start from a 27.5. It will go up or down based on strategy, mannerisms, spreading quality etc.
• I am impartial to all spreading styles except for the "booming and committing verbal genocide" style and the "spread at 0.05dB for the card text so no one can possibly tell I'm clipping xD" style.

• <20, rude, mean
• 25-27.5, couple of things to fix
• 28-29, average range, decent speaker
• 29.5, impressive
• 30, solid, perfect speeches and strategy

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:

30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.

29.5: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.

29: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.

28.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.

28: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.

27.5: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors

Below 26: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

—Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—

Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.

Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.

• I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
• If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
• if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: ktotz001@gmail.com

My internal speaks scale:

• Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
• 25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
• 27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
• 29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.

Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.

• I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.

Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!

Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!

• I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
• There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.

*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***

• norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
• gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
• norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate

K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!

• A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
• most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
• in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
• Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
• Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
• Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)

Peninsula 17

USC 21

No, you don't have to have a plan.

Yes, kritiks are fine. But you better be able to explain your theory (especially high theory) well and do specific link work.

David Wells

Head Coach Bakersfield High School

dmwells101@yahoo.com

Policy Debate Experience

4 years HS policy debate 1992-1996

3 time College NDT qualifier 2000-2002  CSU, Bakersfield 

Policy and LD Judging Philosophies below

Policy Judging Philosophy

Tech vs. Truth

Truth is often determined in round by the argumetns presented so I guess I lean toward technique that has well explained arguments.  Blippy arguments are rarely persuasive and often easily grouped and defeated.

Prep Time

Please don't use the restroom right before your speech and expect it not to take your preptime.  

Prep time can be used before or after CX.

Flashing docs is not considered prep time, unless you "realize" you need something that requires prep.

Evidence vs Analysis (The lost Art of Argumentation)

Good analysis beats bad evidence most of the time.  My HS Coach was fond of saying, "Debate with your brains not with your briefs."  That being said, good evidence with good analysis is best.

AFF

I prefer Affirmatives that defend a topical policy action, preferably with a plan.  The topical case can be big impact, systemic impact or critical in nature. I can be persuaded that other ways of debating are worthwhile, but the burden of proof falls heavily on the AFF without a plan as to how they actually affirm the resolution, not just an identity or issue unrelated to the Nationally chosen topic.

I have no problem voting for performance AFFs that are well debated.  I do not care at all for Adhom. attacks.

I dislike blip theory debates.  I do like theory debates that are developed, well articulated, and impacted.  I have no problem voting on theory.  Just make it good theory.

NEG

Counterplans, DAs, Kritiks, Case Debates, and Topicality are all fine.  The more specific the evidence/links the more likely you will get weight for your arguments.

Be ready and able to defend your Neg Strategy.  2NR should make strategic decisions and no go for everything.

LD Judging Philosophy

Speed/Clarity: I debated Policy at the national level in college so speed is fine.  Let me clarify, clear speed is fine.  I determine your clarity.  So I will say clearer twice, then slower, then stop flowing if you fail to adjust.  If you do "speed" drills but not "clarity" drills, you probably should speak slower.

Strategies: I really just want to see a clash of ideas.  Arguments that avoid a directly clash can be persuasive but rarely get high speaker points.  Preferably, an actual debate about values and value criterions is preferred.  The move toward LD becoming individual policy debate is interesting...not decided if it is beneficial.  If you debate policy style, you need to be clear why that is to be preferred and how it stays germane to the Resolution.

The Topic: I like LD cases that embrace the value question of the resolution head on and develop their position.  If you run a policy it should be germane to the topic and ought to be a reasonably predictable case for competitive equity.  This can be debated out in the round.

If you have questions of me, just ask.  I'm not perfect.  I'm getting older.  You know the topic better than me.  So, teach me your position and you have a better chance of winning.  If you just read a lot without analysis, you let me be the learner with a poor teacher and who knows what I may think...?

Be Polite and enjoy the debate.

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

As a debater: 4 years HS debate in Missouri, 4 years NDT-CEDA debate at the University of Georgia

Since then: coached at the University of Southern California (NDT-CEDA), coached at the University of Wyoming (NDT-CEDA), worked full-time at the Chicago UDL, coached (and taught math) at Solorio HS in the Chicago UDL

Now: Math teacher and debate coach at Von Steuben in the Chicago UDL, lab leader at the Michigan Classic Camp over the summer

HS Email Chains, please use: vayonter@cps.edu

College Email Chains: victoriayonter@gmail.com

General Thoughts:

1. Clarity > speed: Clarity helps everyone. Please slow down for online debate. You should not speak as fast as you did in person. Much like video is transmitted through frames rather than continuous like in real life, sound is transmitted through tiny segments. These segments are not engineered for spreading.

2. Neg positions: I find myself voting more often on the "top part" of any neg position. Explain how the plan causes the DA, how the CP solves the case (and how it works!), and how the K links to the aff and how the world of the alt functions. Similarly, I prefer CPs with solvency advocates (and without a single card they are probably unpredictable). I love when the K or DA turns the case and solves X impact. If you don't explain the link to the case and how you get to the impact, it doesn't matter if you're winning impact calculus.

3. K affs: Despite my tendency to read plans as a debater, if you win the warrants of why it needs to be part of debate/debate topic, then I'll vote on it. As a coach and judge, I read far more critical literature now than I did as a debater. My extensive voting history is on here. Do with that what you will.

4. Warrants: Don't highlight to a point where your card has no warrants. Extend warrants, not just tags. If you keep referring to a specific piece of evidence or say "read this card," I will hold you to what it says, good or bad. Hopefully it makes the claims you tell me it does.

Random Notes:

1. Don't be rude in cross-x. If your opponent is not answering your questions well in cross-x either they are trying to be obnoxious or you are not asking good questions. Too often, it's the latter.

2. Questions about what your opponent read belong in cross-x or prep time. You should be flowing.

3. While we are waiting for speech docs to appear in our inboxes, I will often fill this time with random conversation for 3 reasons:

i. To prevent prep stealing,

ii. To get a baseline of everyone's speaking voice to appropriately assign speaker points and to appropriately yell "clear" (if you have a speech impediment, accent, or other reason for a lack of clarity to my ears, understanding your baseline helps me give fair speaker points),

iii. To make debate rounds less hostile.

High School LD Specific:

Values: I competed in a very traditional form of LD in high school (as well as nearly every speech and debate event that existed back then). I view values and value criterions similarly to framing arguments in policy debate. If you win how I should evaluate the debate and that you do the best job of winning under that interpretation, then I'll happily vote for you.

Ballot Writing: LD speeches are short, but doing a little bit of "ballot writing" (what you want me to say in my reason for decision) would go a long way.

Public Forum Specific:

I strongly believe that Public Forum should be a public forum. This is not the format for spreading or policy debate jargon. My policy background as a judge does not negate the purpose of public forum.

I debated for La Canada High School from 2013-2017.

Email: axyzhao@gmail.com

POLICY

Familiar with common kritiks like neolib, security, and biopower. Please thoroughly explain your links in the context of the aff.

I'm probably best at evaluating a counterplan/DA strategy, but obviously will listen to everything else to the best of my ability.

I err neg on condo, but don't default judge kick.

Know less about the topic than you do, so please over-explain acronyms and topic-specific jargon.

__

LD

I default to epistemic modesty when evaluating philosophy/framework debate. "Winning framework" does not mean that I will only evaluate impacts under that framework; I will treat framework as a weighing mechanism, making certain impacts more or less important than others.

I default to debate as a comparison of advocacies - you have to win offense to your advocacy.

Explicit extensions of every card in the 1AC are not necessary. Debaters only have to explain their offense briefly if it's dropped.