I'll send you a SpeechDrop link.

Experience

Rounds judged on this topic: 0
Disregard any topic specific info throughout my paradigm, it refers to a past topic.

Rounds judged on 2020-21 topic: 1
- Washburn Rural

Debated at Lansing High School in KS for 4 years
Debated 1 year at KU
Senior at University of Kansas
Assistant Coach for Lansing High School for ~3 years

General—

I’m a few years removed from debating now, so I'm not as fast at flowing as I used to be. You can read fast on cards, but I’d recommend you go at a moderate pace for tags/cites and theory arguments. Moreover, it would be advisable for you to explain your framing for the round a bit more than you normally would; odds are, you don’t want me trying to unravel the round for you, especially since I’m not particularly familiar with the literature on this topic.

If I feel that a team is intentionally personally attacking the other team (e.g. sexism, racism, repeatedly shouting at the other team, generally making the space feel unwelcome or unsafe for anyone else, etc.), I will drastically dock your speaker points on the first offense. If such behavior continues, I will vote you down. If you choose to continue to the point where the other team is visibly uncomfortable and/or upset, you will lose the round, get 0 speaker points, and I will find your coach. I would hope that no one reading this would act in such a fashion, but I want to be upfront about how seriously I take this issue.

If you’re going too fast or you’re unclear, I’ll say “clear” raise my hand on the zoom call.

Don’t be too rude, I’m not afraid to dock speaker points. I get that sometimes it’s unavoidable.

Generally tech over truth.

Read what you’re good at and explain why you should win. If you do that better than the other team, you’ll win the round.

Specifics—

Case

Extend your entire internal link story, not just your impacts. Explain the specifics of your solvency mechanism -- there are so many different ones on this topic, and I don't want to misinterpret your aff.

DAs

Are pretty dang terrible on this topic. Give me lots of impact calc and turns case. Since most of the DAs on this topic have the same or similar impacts as the aff, explain why I should prefer one internal link chain over the other. I don’t just only want to hear about the impacts in the 2NR - that leads to messy debates that are very difficult to adjudicate.

CPs

Read whatever CPs you want. I don’t care if they are completely cheating, if the aff doesn’t make a theory arg, I’m not gonna intervene. That being said, I have a pretty low threshold to reject the arg on “that CP is cheating”. Especially on this topic, I tend to err against process counter plans.

If you're gonna make a judge kick arg, make it in the block or in CX if the aff asks. Aff teams - ask this in CX of the 1NC.

Ks

You need to prove a link to the aff or their reps/epistemology. Explain what your alt does and give a clear framing as to how I should evaluate the K vs the aff. I'll vote on floating PICs, but make it clear that you're running one. I am most comfortable with neolib/cap, security, and some subset of anti-blackness Ks, but generally assume that you need to explain your warrants more than you normally would.

K Affs

Justify why you don’t have to defend the topic or a plan text. I probably err toward framework. I’m not your ideal judge if you don’t read a plan. I'm a little unsure as to why, perhaps neg teams being poor at framework debates, but I disproportionately vote for affs that don't read a plan. I'm a lot more likely to vote for affs with arguments about exclusion to weigh against framework than things like Baudrillard.

T

I’ll vote on in round and/or potential abuse. I'm pretty persuaded by predictable limits args on this topic since it seems like there are no real limits on the topic. Give TVAs and caselists. Go slower on T - my flowing is a little rusty and the internet will eat some of your words.

Theory

I’m probably not gonna vote on theory unless you're weighing it against T. In that case, explain how your theory args interact with the impacts of T, otherwise I'll end up having to make potentially arbitrary decisions when writing a ballot. I will reject an alt/CP/perm etc. based on theory if you're winning it and evaluate the round as such.

Ask specific questions pre-round or email me at zachatkins21@gmail.com

inactive

If its a PFD round treat it as a PFD round not a policy round. Thanks!

Any other questions feel free to ask me in round or email me @ blowjobmike@gmail.com

Debated 4 years at Dowling HS in Des Moines, Iowa (09-12, Energy, Poverty, Military, Space)
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School

UPDATE 10/1: CX is closed and lasts three minutes after constructive. I won't listen to questions or answers outside of those three minutes or made by people that aren't designated for that CX. I think it's a bummer that a lot of CXs get taken over by one person on each team. It doesn't give me the opportunity to evaluate debaters or for debaters to grow in areas where they might struggle. I'm going to start using my rounds to curb that.

Top Level
Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.

Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)

General
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.

Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.

CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.

Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.

T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.

Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.

K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.

Speaker points.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.

Debated through high school and for one year at the University of Kansas.

I would say that I'm a hybrid stock issues/policy maker but with a strong policy-maker lean. However, I'm also there to arbitrate your arguments, so if you want me to apply another paradigm, as long as you can cogently argue it and convince me why I should change, I'm flexible and willing to change for the round.

I will accept the K, provided you capably understand it and can demonstrate that understanding to me and translate your understanding to a compelling rationale for voting for it. I tend to flow Kritikal arguments similarly to disads. Seriously. Spoon feed me the K and I will happily vote on it, but you should assume my understanding is, um, "not advanced." Here is where I blatantly steal a line from the paradigm of Jeff Plinsky: My policy maker lens is difficult for me to put down here, so you had better be able to tell me how your advocacy can actually solve something. In a K v K debate, this still applies - you need to prove you actually solve something.

I will accept generic disads, but try to have them link. Specific disads are always better and with what seems like functionally all affs available via wiki, there's no reason not to do the research to find a specific link. In evaluating disads, my natural inclination (which you can overcome) is to prefer realistic impacts even if they are small, to enormous but highly attenuated impacts such as multiple extinction events/cannibalism/nuke wars/etc. I don't like to count who has the highest number of nuclear exchanges at the end of the round, but if I have to, I will.

I am a dinosaur and, as such, value topicality. I will almost certainly not make topicality a "reverse voter" and give the aff a win if the only thing they've accomplished is to beat neg's T arguments. However, I will vote neg on T only, assuming neg wins it. In line with my feelings on T, before you run a PIC, ask if the aff is topical. Please note: I am not telling negative teams that I want them to run topicality. That is your decision. I am just telling you that I will vote on it if you win it.

Speed is fine and I can usually follow and flow very fast debaters. If I am holding a pen, even if I'm not writing at any given moment, I am following you. If I have put down my pen, it means you've lost me and should probably back up or make some other effort to get me back. I greatly prefer closed cross; my view is that you should be able to spend three minutes defending the speech you just delivered. While speed is fine, in my position as a dinosaur, I still value rhetoric and persuasion. If you're a compelling speaker, let that shine. Group the other side's arguments and go slower and compel me to vote for you.

Again indulging my prerogative: I not only accept, I encourage new in the two. It's called a "constructive" speech for a reason. Go ahead and construct. Similarly, I will accept add-on advantages from the aff and internally inconsistent arguments from the neg as long as they have kicked out of whatever makes them inconsistent and still allows the affirmative a chance to respond by the end of the round. Do not abuse this. If I think that you're purposely spreading them with inconsistent arguments just to force them into a time suck and not running the argument in good faith, I will not be happy about it and you will bear the consequences of my unhappiness. For example: I once watched a team run the thinnest of topicality shells in the 1NC. They basically did little more than say "topicality" and read one definition and that was it. No voters, no standards, no warrants. That forced the aff to answer in the 2AC and left the neg in a position to have forced the timesuck or blow up topicality in the 2NC. That, to me, was faithless argumentation by the neg. Don't do that.

As befitting a Gen X'er, I value courtesy and think you can absolutely hammer someone and not be a d**k about it. Play nice. Being a jerk probably won't earn you the loss, but I will punish you on speaks if your conduct warrants it. This is intended to be a very strong warning against racism, ableism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. Engaging in those things will get you an L even if you might have otherwise won the round. My politics lean left, but I consciously try to monitor and check my biases. If your best argument is something that I would not support in real life, you can run it and know that I will make every effort to fairly consider the argument, the way you argue it and its merits in the debate.

On vagueness and topicality: I have noticed a trend where the aff's plan text is essentially the text of the resolution but with a specific "whatever" (country, program, etc.,) stated within the "plan." This is not a plan. It is vague and if the aff is not willing to specify what they are or are not doing/curtailing/removing/adding/replacing, then I will absolutely be open to the argument that they are unfairly claiming and denying territory necessary to allow a fair debate. I won't vote on this if no one brings it up, but I think it's fair to expect an affirmative case to actually specify what it will do. Edited to add: I REALLY MEAN THIS ONE. I find it very frustrating when an aff not only doesn't say in the 1AC what it is exactly that they're doing, but then refuse to answer (or not know the answer) when asked about it on cross. Affs should not do this and negs should beat the snot out of any aff that tries this.

Thoughts on the email chain: I do not want to be on it. This is still a verbal activity. If you say something clearly and intelligibly enough for me to hear it, I will hear it and flow it. From time to time I might ask you (during prep, for example) to give me your tag or the name of the person cited. But if you say something so unintelligible that I can't understand it, I won't credit you for having said it and the fact that it might be on the email chain isn't going to change my mind. I might ask you to show me a card or cards at the end of the round so that I can make sure it says what I think it says or what you say it says. But I don't like the notion of crediting a verbal statement because I read it in an email.

Bottom line: I'm the arbiter of your arguments. While the above is a statement of my preferences, I'm more than happy to judge a debate outside those boundaries and you should feel free to argue your best stuff if I'm your only judge. If you find me on your panel, you should consider going for the other judges as I consider myself to be highly adaptable and can judge a round geared for lay judges and I can also judge one geared to impress college judges.

Thank you for allowing me the privilege of watching and judging your debate.

I have worked with the SM East Debate program for 3 years. You may run any arguments that you want. Be prepared to explain if reading multiple cards. Read at the speed you are comfortable with.

Background: 2 years of debate at Shawnee Mission West High + 1 summer of debate camp at JDI. Judge since ~2016; mostly novice with some DCI.

General overview: Most of my experience is with policy debate and this is what I feel most comfortable judging; however, it is not my place to tell you NOT to run a specific argument. I want you to tell me how I should be voting, but if you do not, I will default policymaker and weigh impacts. I'll also vote on stock issues. Be very careful with speed and clarity because I'm not going to flow off the speech doc or shout "clear" because it's not my job to make arguments for you or tell you how to speak. SLOW DOWN for tags, T, and theory. Please DO NOT assume I've researched the topic or know what any of the jargon means. I have no qualms voting you down solely for disrespectful conduct.

Aff: should defend a topical plan text or advocacy statement. Slow down a bit when reading said plan text. 2AC overviews are great.

Disads: yes please. How does it turn the case? How does it outweigh? I think politics disads are fair ground so I'd rather not hear "fiat solves the link" or "logical policymaker could do both," etc.

Counterplans: are important for neg ground. I see no issue with a few conditional advocacies but I will not kick conflicting advocacies for you in the 2NR. Should probably have a net benefit. I honestly do not have very established opinions on competition, "abusive" CPs, really technical theory, etc. so any argument here is fair game and I could probably be convinced to vote either way on any given argument.

T/Theory: Please. Slow. Down. I promise you, I am more impressed by debaters who know when NOT to speed than those who speed through debates in which I need to write down almost every other word that is said. As I said earlier, conditionality is fine (although I'll certainly listen to a condo bad debate), but it's on you to kick your own arguments so your 2NR makes sense.

Kritiks: Do not assume I've read your literature. Cap/neolib and Heidegger were the most common when I was in debate and these are the ones with which I am most familiar. I'm willing to listen to anything if you're willing to explain it. Please thoroughly explain your alt as I think these debates usually fall through either when the alt is unclear or alt solvency is lacking.

If you have any questions, please ask!

8 years of policy debate experience

will vote on anything as long as its warranted

not a fan of shadow extensions

very high threshold on T this late in the season- prefer proven abuse, default to reasonability unless told otherwise

will vote on Ks but i don't know all the lit so you need to do the work on it

WIlLLVOTE DOWN ACTIVELY RACIST SEXIST OR BIGGOTED DEBATERS

ill vote in the place of least resistance

prefer impact calc over dropped args but will vote on both

I have been judging policy debate for over a decade. I am a policymaker judge.

I'm looking for a well-reasoned debate, not source vomit. If I can't understand you, you will lose points. I am open to K arguments if they are well-formed and warranted.

I have been judging debate for over twenty years, but am old myself so when I debated in high school it was very different (real cards). I am a teacher (I teach cultural anthropology so we discuss a lot of social justice issues) but not a debate coach. I like to see that debaters understand what they are saying - that they can explain in their own words, not just read endless cards at top rate speed without explaining why the cards are relevant.

Harms, inherency, and solvency are the most important Aff stock issues for me. I want to know what problem you are trying to solve and how you are going to do it. And why it will continue to be a problem without your plan. I am very interested in real world problems.

Counterplans and generic DAs are fine from Neg, but again, I like to at least see a firm link.

Topicality is fine - but I don't love the generic harm to debate, I love some good word play, so if you can convince me something isn't topical by really delving into language I will sometimes judge on that.

Kritiques are sometimes okay- I like to see real world issues being brought up and debate tied to real world issues. But if they get really esoteric I honestly get lost.

Again - I like to see direct clash, ties to real world, debaters who understand what they are saying and can explain it to me.

I prefer medium speed - if you are unintelligible I get nothing out of that.

(1/14/22 State Update) - Even with as many rounds as I've judged, if it's a very topic specific acronym or something...just explain it. Also, I have not updated my actual paradigm for like 5 years now, but most of it is still accurate. The wearing of masks has also made it where my upper half of my face is very expressive...sorry. I am also a tired teacher currently. Also, I have ADHD - I promise I'm paying attention/listening even if I'm not making eye contact or look like I'm doing something else/staring off in space.

_____________

Debated 4 years at Emporia High School (Transportation - Surveillance). Debated primarily DCI circuit my senior year if high school, went to NSDA nats and placed top 25. I did not debate in college.

Currently in my fifth year of coaching at Emporia High School. I also am in my 2nd year of teaching at EHS, but I did not coach the 2020-2021 season due to us taking a year off for COVID.

I tried to be as precise as possible in this, ask me any clarification questions if need be.

If it's an email chain, add caylieratz [at] gmail [dot] com to it...but please use speechdrop at this point if possible.

General Comments: I'm not extremely familiar with everything on this topic, so if it's something uncommon please try to explain the acronyms or other things to me. Please try to have clash in a round. Don't make me do the work for you. Extend your arguments with warrants or I won't count them as still existing in the round. Tell me why you're winning the round. Write my ballot for me if you have to. Don't be rude. Don't be sexist. Don't be racist. Flashing is off-time unless you take a bunch of time doing it and hands-off prep while it's happening. If you clip you lose.

Cross-Ex: CX was one of my favorite parts of debate. Please use this to grill your opponents about the nitty-gritty of their ev and their arguments. If it's open CX, I expect the two people who are doing the CX to do most of the talking unless it's a couple of questions being asked, or if it is a clarification answer. Don't be rude in CX. You can interrupt your opponents if it's warranted, but not to just be rude. Don't talk over one another and don't turn it into a shouting match. I think you all can really win arguments in CX, but you have to do it respectfully - but with clash.

Speed: Speed in fine but please ease me into it. SLOW DOWN on your tags and analytics, so I can understand them. Make sure you emphasize the tags and the things you want me to listen to, and please make sure you emphasize when you're going to the next card or flow.

Disadvantages: Disadvantages are completely fine with me. I think they should probably link, but you do you. I prefer real-world impacts, but if you have to run a NoKo or Nuke War impact then that's fine, just make sure you do the impact calc debate and/or analytics on it.

Counterplans: Counterplans are fine, but conditionality is probably a voter if you run more than one. They should probably be advantageous to the aff. Make sure your counterplan can actually solve the aff.

Kritiks: I am unfamiliar with most K literatures, as it was not what I debated in high school besides neoliberalism and biopower. I will listen to a K, but you need to be able to explain it to me super well and cut the jargon out of it. Don't just spread a K at me and expect me to understand - if I look confused, I'm probably confused. I also think the alt should probably solve unless you can convince me otherwise, but I lean heavily on whether or not the alt can solve.

T/FW: Topicality is important, but make sure you explain the violation/standards well. I probably lean toward reasonability more than competing interpretations, but the debate it yours to get me to sway either way. On other theory, conditionality, multiple worlds, and perfcon are something I look into when it comes to rounds only if the argument is made by the team. I don't believe in disclosure theory unless you're going to run a super squirrelly aff. On FW with a K, see the above note on K's for that you need to explain it to me fairly well, and you should probably have a ROB.

Extra things: Drop a joke and make me laugh. I am fairly expressive in my facial reactions - whoops - when it comes to listening to things. Ignore that I probably won't make lots of eye contact with you, but I will look up every now and then. If I'm not flowing and you're saying something important or you're on a K/FW you're probably going too fast. I like Hamilton references.

I'm currently a Third Year law student. I debated for four years in high school. Did KDC and DCI but did Oration for national tournaments. I'm on my fourth year coaching for Blue Valley.

I'm not picky on the arguments you run I'll vote on whatever you win on the flow.

In electronic debate, I prefer people to be as efficient in transitions as possible to account for technical difficulties and so I usually count prep until teams have pressed send on their documents in exchanging speeches.

arriqs@gmail.com

Pronouns = they/them.

Framework is not always policing, but it can be weaponized. Focus on framing central ideas and offense. I am not a super technical judge.

High School

Speed is fine, but go only as fast as you can handle. Conditionality is generally okay. Everyone in the debate should be timing.

Explain Ks through history and current events. Examples are the easiest way to make a complex concept simple enough to evaluate in the short span of time we have.

I've evolved as a judge which has unfortunately been interpreted as I'm inconsistent or unpredictable. As an assistant coach I understand that creates frustration, which I want to avoid, so if there is anything below that is not 100% clear, please ask me prior to the round. I would much rather have a brief discussion and give you some sense of understanding my thought process than you walk away from the round thinking you don't know what you could have done to win my ballot. I assure you, there have been people who have asked and learned how I evaluate, and those individuals found me to be consistent even if it wasn't always in their favor (though it often was).

Let's start with the foundation. Once upon a time I would give myself the label of "games player" because I appreciated good strategy. I still evaluate if I think a team is being strategic or clever, but I am strongly TRUTH OVER TECH. If you tell me that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and your opposition does not respond, that DOES NOT mean I accept something that is not true. I think it is especially critical in an environment of "fake news" or "relative facts" that we champion the truth above spin. So you will find that if your argument is only theoretically plausible, it is going to be much less persuasive than if you stick to simple truths.

This leads me to two conclusions you should be able to draw about how I evaluate a round. 1st, magnitude does NOT overwhelm probability. In fact magnitude rarely plays any part in my decision. I have listened to the same authors for 25+ years predict the next war will be over water or food or that we're all going to starve or that terrorists are moments away from having nuclear weapons. Empirically all of these authors are wrong. The have no credibility with me. Which means I give zero weight to an impact that I have zero probability of believing it will happen. You hear judges say all the time that they are tired of nuke war impacts. You want to know why? Because I have lived my entire life with the doomsday clock at least 7 minutes to midnight. The "experts" have cried wolf for far to long to be believed. The only chance you have to win on magnitude is if you extend very detailed warrants about why this time is different and the facts your author has looked at to draw the conclusions. If you don't know what facts the author looked at, don't bother.

2nd, links and link stories matter much more than uniqueness. I believe students like to debate uniqueness because it is easy. It is eacy to try to find evidence about the current state of the world. What is hard is predicting the consequences of taking any action. This is why solvency and link turns on case are extremely effective as well as indicting internal links on a D.A. to make it go away. I will assign 0% solvency or 0% risk of a link so defense can make an entire flow seemingly go away. This is especially apparent on politics scenarios! Pundits who try to predict elections or votes on legislation are less accurate than the weatherman! I will not assume that just because the Affirmative plan is topical that it will lead to any consequence other than the ones that are by fiat. I have listened to debaters who were incredibly informed on specific congressional leaders and how certain pieces of legislation are being used as a political football, and those debaters were persuasive. If you just aren't that debater, there is no shame in that, but you will find your politics scenario just isn't persuasive.

Let's shift gears and talk a little about topicality. Here is my single belief: the affirmative team must affirm the resolution. When I write affirmative on the ballot that means the affirmative team has successfully convinced me the resolution is true. The affirmative plan is an example of the possible reasons the resolution is true. The affirmative doesn't have to prove all instances of the resolution are true, but at least the affirmative plan should be adopted and if the affirmative plan is an example what could be under the resolution, then the resolution is true. This view of the resolution is nearly non-negotiable (we'll talk about K's in a minute). This means the affirmative plan is a proof of the resolution or it isn't. Period. I don't evaluate if it is fair because that is subjective. There will be an interpretation that I either believe or don't believe, it is always all or nothing. When it comes to competing interpretations, I will walk into the round with an interpretation in my mind (no one is a blank slate) and that will be my default. I can be persuaded that there is a different interpretation, but the reason must be more compelling than an appeal to emotion and warranted in facts. I will admit, topicality is the one place that I will suspend the truth until it is argued. There are countless rounds in which the foundation of an affirmative plan hasn't been established, it isn't prima facia topical, and I don't get to pull the trigger because the negative is silent. That frustrates me because I don't get to vote on what I see is the truth. That doesn't mean run topicality no matter what, because you hurt your credibility by running the wrong violation or running it to run it. It's not a strategic time suck. Both the affirmative and negative need to ask themselves if they would vote on if the affirmative is topical and make their best case. It probably goes without saying, but I believe the plan text must be topical, not the solvency of the plan. I believe the plan text must be sufficient to justify the resolution. If you need to do something in addition to the resolution to show the plan should be adopted, then you have shown the resolution should not be affirmed because it is insufficient.

I said I'd talk about K's, so lets get it over with. For years I said I didn't like them or worst wouldn't even listen to them. I'm much more open minded now, but here is the truth. You have 26 minutes to convince me of some philosophical position that I might not agree with. That is ridiculously hard when I've studied most of these positions for entire semesters, or life long, and have true biases. Flat out, I believe in Capitalism. I've studied Marx, and I happily participate in a Capitalist society. I have voted on Cap Bad because the round called for it, but my default is Cap Good. I could go through several popular K's, but you get the point. You will either 1. have to get lucky and preach to the choir on something I already believe or 2. knock me off my preconceived notion about the world. That's either luck or quite difficult. And I will caveat all of this with one big factor. If you are making a social criticism, you better walk the walk. You cannot be a hypocrite. If you performatively contradict your position, your link to the K will be far stronger than anything you say for your opponents because you should have known better. For example if you say animal suffering is always immoral and you are wearing leather shoes, you better be able to prove the cow died of natural causes! I LOVE to vote against the team who presents a K and link back into it. Speaking of K links, I will not assume the K links, you need to have a story (see my take on D.A.'s). And your alt must actually solve (see my take on solvency).

From K's to their cousins the CP. I am old and still believe that a counterplan must be an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. We can't do the CP and the Aff (mutually exclusive) and the CP is better than the Aff (competitive) so we should do the CP instead of the affirmative. Futhermore the CP must be non-topical or else the affirmative gets to simply say the counterplan is one more example of why the resolution is true. See, the affirmative could present 2 or more plans to prove the resolution is a good idea. They don't do that because it puts them more at risk because they must advocate for everything they present, but they can just freely have the CP if the CP is topical. This is a strong belief of mine so theory to tell me otherwise is not persuasive. This isn't to say PIC's are off limits, it just means the PIC must be extra topical (see my take on why extra T doesn't justify the resolution). There are plenty of strategic CP's that work with this paradigm, but ultimately it needs to be an opportunity cost to the affirmative. CP's can be permed, thus they are not mutually exclusive and therefor not an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. A CP can link to a D.A. so it isn't competitive. I appreciate counterplans and their usage, but they need to be that opportunity cost to the resolution.

The rest of theory type stuff is a coin flip and situational. I've voted on condo good and bad. I'm willing to pull the trigger on something, but you need to explain it and warrant it. I don't fill in the gaps for blips.

To be clear, I don't fill in anything. Just saying a couple of key words like "perm do both" or "pull the impacts" may not be sufficient. If I understood what you said earlier, perhaps, but I'm not going to insert what I think you mean by shouting out debate jargon. This leads to the overused question of speed. This is a verbal activity. I almost never read cards because I want to evaluate what I heard. If I hear the warrants in a card, great. If I'm not able to process the warrants then all you've done is make a claim in your tag. Speed is very rarely the issue, it is a matter of clarity. And it is unusually pretty obvious if I've given up on flowing. The only time I usually ask for evidence is when I personally am questioning myself on what I heard and I think it is my fault I'm unsure. As far as I'm concerned the authors are there to lend credibility, you are making the arguments, so I'm not going to evaluate what your author said, I'm going to evaluate what you said. If you author lacks credibility, you might as well just say things in your own words. Which honestly is often not a bad thing. I think debaters are way too dependent on quoting an author and treating it like a fact. If your author makes a claim but doesn't warrant it, just because they are an author doesn't make it true. This is more common in K debates where quoting a philosopher is treated like an absolute truth, but it can happen anywhere in the debate. Again, I want the truth over tech, so facts with logical analysis will outweigh a card in most situations.

Finally, I am human. I am biased. I have emotions. Why is this relevant? Because my bias and my emotions can make somethings seem more persuasive than others. Your credibility matters. If you destroy your credibility, you might say you won on the flow, but I'm not believing you so what is on the flow carries no weight. Treating your opponents poorly lowers your credibility. "Put away your impact defense, my card beats them all" is insulting because it shows that you care more about what your opponents think about how cool you are than persuading me that your argument is actually sound. Tag team cross ex tells me through your actions that "I don't trust my partner. My partner is stupid so I'll speak out of turn. What I have to say is more important." That is pretty damning to your partners credibility and frankly makes you a jerk. Prompting arguments says the same thing. Prompting "slower" shows you are trying to assist with something they might not realize in the moment but giving an argument and having them parrot it word for word so it "counts" is about the worst ways to attempt to persuade me. If you cause logistical issues such as being late to the round because what your assistant coach had to say was more important than my time, or stealing prep time while you fiddle with your computer, or take significant time to pass evidence, all of these things I notice and leaves an impression on me. You might be shocked by this, but humans like to reward people they like and punish those they don't like. That isn't to say I'll immediately vote against you because you rearranged the entire room so you could plug in your laptop, but it makes your job harder if I'm rooting against you. Just don't give me a reason to want to vote against you and we'll be fine.

Oh, and I don't shake hands. I'm not as adverse as Howie Mandel, but I prefer not to physically touch strangers. I just don't see any reason to do it. I know you respect me as a human and I respect you as a human without our hands touching.

Mitch Wagenheim

4 years debated in HS, assistant coaching since 2015. Last updated September 2022

If we’re still doing email chains, I’d prefer to be on them: mwagenheim@outlook.com 

Overview: 

My basic paradigm is that I will vote on almost anything so long as you win the argument and demonstrate that argument is sufficient to win the round.  I used to be more of a policymaker judge but have become less attached to that framing. I firmly believe in tech over truth within the scope of the round. The only exceptions to this are arguments or types of discourse that seek to exclude people from the activity (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) If your arguments fall into the above categories, you will lose my ballot regardless of anything else on the flow. I am wiling to vote on almost anything. What follows are my general views on arguments and I can be convinced otherwise on any of them. 

Specifics: 

1. For theory arguments, you need to specify a compelling reason to reject the team. Saying “reject the team, not the argument” is not actually an argument. 
2. Topicality is often an underdeveloped argument in rounds I’ve seen. 
3. If you are running a K aff, it should have something to do with the resolution. It doesn’t need to be topical in the same way a policy aff does, but there should be a clear reason why it’s directly relevant to the topic. If you don’t want to engage the topic for whatever reason, you’ll need some strong framing why. 
4. I can generally follow the theory of your K, but make sure to clearly articulate your arguments and don’t just read blocks. Your alt needs to be supported by the literature base and somehow mutually exclusive with the affirmative. ROB/ROJ arguments are extremely helpful.
5. In terms of familiarity with critical arguments/authors I’m pretty conversant in Fem/Fem IR/Security/Foucault/Heidegger as well as the basic Cap/Imperialism/etc. arguments. Topics like Afropessimism/Queer IR or less common authors (Baudrillard for example) I can generally follow, but am less knowledgable about. 
6. DAs should have a clear link story and generic disads generally don’t hold much strategic value.
7. Smart analytics are just as valuable as cards. 
8. Clarity is substantially more important than speed. If you are unclear, I’ll give you a warning if you’re unclear but it’s up to you to make sure you are communicating. If I miss something because you’re unclear, that argument won’t be considered. 

Overall, do what you are comfortable with as best as you can. Don’t let my preferences discourage you from running your strategy.