Bill Batterman
Associate Director of Debate — Woodward Academy (2010-present)
Director of Debate — Marquette University High School (2006-2010)
Assistant Debate Coach — Marquette, Appleton East, Nicolet, etc. (2000-2006)
Last Updated 9/17/2021

Twitter version: Debate like an adult. Show me the evidence. Attend to the details. Don't dodge; clash. Great research and informed comparisons win debates.

My promise: I will pay close attention to every debate, carefully and completely scrutinize every argument, and provide honest feedback so that students are continuously challenged to improve as debaters.

Perspective: During the 2010s (my second full decade of judging/coaching debate), I coached and/or judged at 189 tournaments and taught slightly more than 16 months of summer debate institutes. I don't judge as many rounds as I used to — I took an extended sabbatical from judging during the 2020-2021 season — but I still enjoy it and I am looking forward to judging debates again. I am also still coaching as actively as ever. I know a lot about the water resources protection topic.

Pre-round: Please add billbatterman@gmail.com to the email chain. Respect your opponents by sending the same documents to the email chain that you use to deliver your speeches. If you create separate versions of your speech documents (typically by deleting headings and analytical arguments) before sharing them, I will assume that you do not respect your opponents. I like debaters that respect their opponents. I will have my camera on when judging; if it is off, confirm that I'm ready before beginning your speech.

1. I care most about clarity, clash, and argument comparison.

I will be more impressed by students that demonstrate topic knowledge, line-by-line organization skills (supported by careful flowing), and intelligent cross-examinations than by those that rely on superfast speaking, obfuscation, jargon, backfile recycling, and/or tricks. I've been doing this for 20 years, and I'm still not bored by strong fundamental skills and execution of basic, core-of-the-topic arguments.

To impress me, invite clash and show off what you have learned this season. I will want to vote for the team that (a) is more prepared and more knowledgeable about the assigned topic and that (b) better invites clash and provides their opponents with a productive opportunity for an in-depth debate.

Aff cases that lack solvency advocates and claim multiple contrived advantages do not invite a productive debate. Neither do whipsaw/scattershot 1NCs chock-full of incomplete, contradictory, and contrived off-case positions. Debates are best when the aff reads a plan with a high-quality solvency advocate and one or two well-supported advantages and the neg responds with a limited number of complete, consistent, and well-supported positions (including, usually, thorough case answers).

I would unapologetically prefer not to judge debates between students that do not want to invite a productive, clash-heavy debate.

2. I'm a critic of argument, not a blank slate.

My most important "judge preference" is that I value debating: "a direct and sustained confrontation of rival positions through the dialectic of assertion, critique, response and counter-critique" (Gutting 2013). I make decisions based on "the essential quality of debate: upon the strength of arguments" (Balthrop 1989).

Philosophically, I value "debate as argument-judgment" more than "debate as information production" (Cram 2012). That means that I want to hear debates between students that are invested in debating scholarly arguments based on rigorous preparation, expert evidence, deep content knowledge, and strategic thinking. While I will do my best to maintain fidelity to the debate that has taken place when forming my decision, I am more comfortable than most judges with evaluating and scrutinizing students' arguments. I care much more about evidence and argument quality and am far less tolerant of trickery and obfuscation than the median judge. This has two primary implications for students seeking to adapt to my judging:

a. What a card "says" is not as important as what a card proves. When deciding debates, I spend more time on questions like "what argument does this expert make and is the argument right?" than on questions like "what words has this debate team highlighted in this card and have these words been dropped by the other team?." As a critic of argument, I place "greater emphasis upon evaluating quality of argument" and assume "an active role in the debate process on the basis of [my] expertise, or knowledge of practices and standards within the community." Because I emphasize "the giving of reasons as the essential quality of argument, evidence which provides those reasons in support of claims will inevitably receive greater credibility than a number of pieces of evidence, each presenting only the conclusion of someone's reasoning process. It is, in crudest terms, a preference for quality of evidence over quantity" (Balthrop 1989).

b. The burden of proof precedes the burden of rejoinder. As presented, the risk of many advantages and disadvantages is zero because of missing internal links or a lack of grounding for important claims. "I know this argument doesn't make sense, but they dropped it!" will not convince me; reasons will.

When I disagree with other judges about the outcome of a debate, my most common criticism of their decision is that it gives too much credit to bad arguments or arguments that don't make sense. Their most common criticism of my decision is that it is "too interventionist" and that while they agree with my assessment of the arguments/evidence, they think that something else that happened in the debate (often a "technical concession") should be more determinative. I respect many judges that disagree with me in these situations; I'm glad there are both "tech-leaning" and "truth-leaning" judges in our activity. In the vast majority of debates, we come to the same conclusion. But at the margins, this is the major point of disagreement between us — it's much more important than any particular argument or theory preference.

3. I am most persuaded by arguments about the assigned topic.

One of the primary reasons I continue to love coaching debate is that "being a coach is to be enrolled in a continuing graduate course in public policy" (Fleissner 1995). Learning about a new topic area each year enriches my life in profound ways. After 20 years in "The Academy of Debate" (Fleissner 1995), I have developed a deep and enduring belief in the importance of public policy. It matters. This has two practical implications for how I tend to judge debates:

a. Kritiks that demonstrate concern for good policymaking can be very persuasive, but kritiks that ignore the topic or disavow policy analysis entirely will be tough to win. My self-perception is that I am much more receptive to well-developed kritiks than many "policy" judges, but I am as unpersuaded (if not more so) by kritiks that rely on tricks, obfuscation, and conditionality as I am by those styles of policy arguments.

b. I almost always find kritiks of topicality unpersuasive. An unlimited topic would not facilitate the in-depth clash over core-of-the-topic arguments that I most value about debate. The combination of "topical version of the aff" and "argue this kritik on the neg" is difficult to defeat when coupled with a fairness or topic education impact. Topical kritik affirmatives are much more likely to persuade me than kritiks of topicality.

Works Cited
Balthrop 1989 = V. William Balthrop, "The Debate Judge as 'Critic of Argument'," Advanced Debate: Readings in Theory Practice & Teaching (Third Edition).
Cram 2012 = http://cedadebate.org/CAD/index.php/CAD/article/view/295/259
Gutting 2013 = http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/a-great-debate/
Fleissner 1995 = https://the3nr.com/2010/05/20/chain-reaction-the-1995-barkley-forum-coaches-luncheon-keynote-speech/

Maggie Berthiaume Woodward Academy

Current Coach — Woodward Academy (2011-present)
Former Coach — Lexington High School (2006-2008), Chattahoochee High School (2008-2011)
College Debater — Dartmouth College (2001-2005)
High School Debater — Blake (1997-2001)
maggiekb@gmail.com for email chains, please.

Meta Comments

1. Please be nice. If you don't want to be kind to others (the other team, your partner, me, the novice flowing the debate in the back of the room), please don’t prefer me.

2. I'm a high school teacher and believe that debates should be something I could enthusiastically show to my students, their families, or my principal. What does that mean? If your high school teachers would find your presentation inappropriate, I am likely to as well.

3. Please be clear. I will call "clear" if I can't understand you, but debate is primarily a communication activity. Do your best to connect on meaningful arguments.

4. Conduct your own CX as much as possible. CX is an important time for judge impression formation, and if one partner does all asking and answering for the team, it is very difficult to evaluate both debaters. Certainly the partner not involved in CX can get involved in an emergency, but that should be brief and rare if both debaters want good points.

5. If you like to be trolly with your speech docs (read on paper to prevent sharing, remove analyticals, etc.), please don't. See "speech documents" below for a longer justification and explanation.

6. I am not willing or able to adjudicate issues that happened outside of the bounds of the debate itself — ex. previous debates, social media issues, etc.

7. In debates involving minors, I am a mandated reporter — as are all judges of debates involving minors!

8. I’ve coached and judged for a long time now, and the reason I keep doing it is that I think debate is valuable. Students who demonstrate that they appreciate the opportunity to debate and are passionate and excited about the issues they are discussing are a joy to watch — they give judges a reason to listen even when we’re sick or tired or judging the 5th debate of the day on the 4th weekend that month. Be that student!

9. "Maggie" (or "Ms. B." if you prefer), not "judge."

What does a good debate look like?

Everyone wants to judge “good debates.” To me, that means two excellently-prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues related to the policy presented by the affirmative. The best debates allow four students to demonstrate that they have researched a topic and know a lot about it — they are debates over issues that experts in the field would understand and appreciate. The worst debates involve obfuscation and tangents. Good debates usually come down to a small number of issues that are well-explained by both sides. The best final rebuttals have clearly explained ballot and a response to the best reason to vote for the opposing team.

I have not decided to implement the Shunta Jordan "no more than 5 off" rule, but I understand why she has it, and I agree with the sentiment. I'm not establishing a specific number, but I would like to encourage negative teams to read fully developed positions in the 1NC (with internal links and solvency advocates as needed). (Here's what she says: "There is no world where the Negative needs to read more than 5 off case arguments. SO if you say 6+, I'm only flowing 5 and you get to choose which you want me to flow.") If you're thinking "nbd, we'll just read the other four DAs on the case," I think you're missing the point. :) It's not about the specific number, it's about the depth of argument.

Do you read evidence?

Yes, in nearly every debate. I will certainly read evidence that is contested by both sides to resolve who is correct in their characterizations. The more you explain your evidence, the more likely I am to read it. For me, the team that tells the better story that seems to incorporate both sets of evidence will almost always win. This means that instead of reading yet another card, you should take the time to explain why the context of the evidence means that your position is better than that of the other team. This is particularly true in close uniqueness and case debates.

Please read rehighlightings out loud rather than inserting them.

Do I have to be topical?

Yes. Affirmatives are certainly welcome to defend the resolution in interesting and creative ways, but that defense should be tied to a topical plan to ensure that both sides have the opportunity to prepare for a topic that is announced in advance. Affirmatives certainly do not need to “role play” or “pretend to be the USFG” to suggest that the USFG should change a policy, however.

I enjoy topicality debates more than the average judge as long as they are detailed and well-researched. Examples of this include “intelligence gathering” on Surveillance, “health care” on Social Services, and “economic engagement” on Latin America. Debaters who do a good job of describing what debates would look like under their interpretation (aff or neg) are likely to win. I've judged several "substantial" debates in recent years that I've greatly enjoyed.

Can I read [X ridiculous counterplan]?

If you have a solvency advocate, by all means. If not, consider a little longer. See: “what does as good debate look like?” above. Affs should not be afraid to go for theory against contrived counterplans that lack a solvency advocate. On the flip side, if the aff is reading non-intrinsic advantages, the "logical" counterplan or one that uses aff solvency evidence for the CP is much appreciated.

What about my generic kritik?

Topic or plan specific critiques are absolutely an important component of “excellently prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues.” Kritiks that can be read in every debate, regardless of the topic or affirmative plan, are usually not.

Given that the aff usually has specific solvency evidence, I think the neg needs to win that the aff makes things worse (not just “doesn’t solve” or “is a mask for X”). Neg – Please spend the time to make specific links to the aff — the best links are often not more evidence but examples from the 1AC or aff evidence.

What about offense/defense?

I do believe there is absolute defense and vote for it often.

Do you take prep for emailing/flashing?

Once the doc is saved, your prep time ends.

I have some questions about speech documents...

One speech document per speech (before the speech). Any additional cards added to the end of the speech should be sent out as soon as feasible.

Teams that remove analytical arguments like permutation texts, counter-interpretations, etc. from their speech documents before sending to the other team should be aware that they are also removing them from the version I will read at the end of the debate — this means that I will be unable to verify the wording of their arguments and will have to rely on the short-hand version on my flow. This rarely if ever benefits the team making those arguments.

Speech documents should be provided to the other team as the speech begins. The only exception to this is a team who debates entirely off paper. Teams should not use paper to circumvent norms of argument-sharing.

I will not consider any evidence that did not include a tag in the document provided to the other team.

LD Addendum

I don't judge LD as much as I used to (I coached it, once upon a time), but I think most of the above applies. If you are going to make reference to norms (theory, side bias, etc.), please explain them. Otherwise, just debate!

PF Addendum

This is very similar to the LD addendum with the caveat that I strongly prefer evidence be presented as cards rather than paraphrasing. I find it incredibly difficult to evaluate the quality of evidence when I have to locate the original source for every issue, and as a result, I am likely to discount that evidence compared to evidence where I can clearly view the surrounding sentence/paragraph/context.

Ayush Bhansali

LASA ‘18

UTD '22

Speaker position: 1A/2N.

Last updated: 4/2018

Debate is, at heart, a speaking activity. Make the arguments you want to make in a way which is persuasive and not just technically sufficient, and use evidence to support your claims.

Top Level:

• I will read evidence during the debate if I am told— please put me on the email chain: ayushabhansali@gmail.com.

• I’m probably more “tech” over “truth” — I evaluate arguments the way they are told to me, which means I will read evidence, but only if I'm asked to. Simply saying "Their Tonneson evidence concludes the other way" isn't enough, say "Read the Tonneson evidence, it concludes the other way."

• I am not a good judge for arguments that do not defend policy action. — I’m probably fairly unwilling to vote on these arguments on the outset, but only because I don't want to be in a position where I don't know what you're talking about. The reading of these arguments is often done with jargon and signifiers that have broader significance unknown to me. Being in a position where I'm listening to something and I don't know what you mean is one where you won't get the ballot. I also feel that my ballot has 0 effect on subjectivity nor do any of the arguments made in the debate space and will be skeptical to those arguments. "K-tricks" are not smart in front of me.
• Cross-x is a speech and I will flow it.
• Disadvantage and Counterplan debates are where I am the best for you. Specifically politics disads in which evidence is well explained and there is ample contextual link work.
• Debate is supposed to be fun. Be lighthearted and don't get too worked up.

Ethics Issues:

• Clipping: Clipping, to me, is reading so unclearly that I cannot make out every single word that is highlighted or otherwise indicated as the words you are going to read in the debate. This is because absolute clarity is the only way I can fairly adjudicate whether or not something is or is not clipping. Feel free to make an accusation supported by an audio recording if you believe that evidence is being clipped.

Topicality/Theory:

To win topicality in front of me, prove that the way they have interpreted the topic is bad in both the context of the resolution and debatability. First, you need to tell my why the education your interpretation of the topic provides is the best type of education in the context of the topic. Tell me why your interpretation of the topic provides better education in the same realm or subject area as the intent of the resolution originally aimed to provide. Next, tell me why the way you have interpreted the topic is better in the context of debate. Tell me why your interpretation of the resolution provide for better debates than theirs, and what the larger significance of that is. Functional limits arguments are very persuasive to me if explained at length, as are similar arguments that are supported by caselists or topical versions of the affirmative.

Theory arguments that tell me to wholly throw out any type of argument are going to make me very skeptical. Instead, tailor this argument specific to the debate and tell me why I should weigh the argument less in the context of the entire debate.

Framework makes the game work, and topical versions of the affirmative are very persuasive to me.

Disadvantages/Advantages:

• I am best for disadvantage debates as long as they are organized. Please make sure to separate uniqueness, link, and the impact.
• Please keep the overview to the story of the disad only. I do not want impact work done here, that's for the impact section of the disad proper. This means that you should not start your disad flow with "DISAD OUTWEIGHS AND TURNS CASE!!!!11!1!!!"
• Creative turns case arguments are good, and should be answered in a line-by-line format
• I really like good link spin and will give credence to a politics link that is spun a certain way in the block. I think that unless link evidence or link spin is really persuasive, uniqueness probably controls the direction of the link
• Presumption/zero risk — I default to 1% risk of any disad and go up from there in a debate. Tell me why disad's should have 0% risk if you want.

Counterplans:

• Solvency advocates don't matter that much to me. I enjoy counterplan competition debates, and will be skeptical of any "reject the cp because there's no solvency advocate" claim.
• I love counterplan competition debates and enjoy counterplan competition analysis.
• States CP:
  
• Narrowly tailor your counterplan text to solve the affirmative. Counterplan texts that are written based on a solvency advocate and solve for all of the aff are persuasive.
• I'm skeptical about theory -- if you're going to go for it, spend 5 minutes on it.
• Permutations can't be intrinsic or severance, I'll be very skeptical of intrinsic/severance perms good. Timeframe perms may be a different story.
• My default is to judge kick

Speaker points:

• Things that help you: Disclosure, Clash, Clever Negative Strategy, Nuance within your arguments, Case Specific Counterplans. The opposite things hurt you. If you do all of the good things, you will get somewhere around a 29.7. If you do some bad things, and some good things, you'll probably get somewhere around a 28.7

Associate Director of Debate @ KU

Last Updated: Pre-GSU 2016

Quick pre-round notes:

I would prefer speech docs while I judge. Please email them to bricker312@gmail.com.

The affirmative should read and defend a topical example of the resolution and the negative should negate the affirmative's example.

I reward teams that demonstrate a robust knowledge of the topic and literature concerning the topic.

More info:

1. The word "interpretation" matters more to me than some. You must counterdefine words, or you will likely lose. You must meet your theory interpretation, or you will likely lose.
2. The words "voting issue" matter more to me than some. I am not searching for cheap shots, nor do I especially enjoy theory debates. However, I feel that I would be intervening if I applied "reject the argument not the team" to arguments that debaters did not explicitly apply the impact takeout to. That said, proliferation of empty voting issues will not only hurt your speaker points, but can be grouped and pretty easily disposed of by opponents.
3. "Turns the case" matters more to me than some. Is it offense? Does the link to the advantage/fiat outweigh or prevent turning the case? Does it mean the aff doesn't solve? Questions that should be answered by the 1ar.

I believe that debaters work hard, and I will work hard for them. The more debaters can show they have worked hard: good case debates, specific strategies, etc. the more likely it is I will reward debaters with speaker points and higher effort. In the same vain, debaters who make clear that they don’t work outside of debates won’t receive high speaker points.

Argument issues:

Topicality – It is a voting issue and not a reverse voting issue. I have not yet been persuaded by arguments in favor of reasonability; however, the reason for this usually lies with the fact that affirmatives fail to question the conventional wisdom that limits are good.

Kritiks – It will be difficult to convince me that I should completely disregard my conceptions of rationality, pragmatism and my aversion to unnecessary death. As a general rule, I think of Kritiks like a counterplan with net-benefits. The more aff specific the better.

Counterplans – I am up in the air about textual vs. functional competition – they both have their time and place, and are probably not universal rules. The cross-ex answer “for your DAs but not your counterplans” has always made negative sense to me. I understand that there are MANDATES of the plan and EFFECTS of the plan; I find this distinction more understandable than the usual c-x answer.

Rundown of general thoughts about counterplans:

Conditionality – it's feeling like a little bit much at the moment
PICs – Good, especially if they PIC out of a part of the plan
Consult/Condition – Up in the air and context specific. Solvency advocates, aff stances, etc. can change my feelings.
Delay – Aff leaning, but might be more competitive based on the structure of the affirmative, or a cross-ex answer. For example, if the affirmative has an advantage that takes the position the advantage can only be solved if it happens before "X" date, then the counterplan to do it after that date seems competitive.
Word PICs – Aff leaning
Alternate non-USFG actors – Aff leaning


Demeanor issues:

Be respectful of your opponent, partner and judge. All types of discrimination are prohibited. Don’t clip cards, don’t cut cards out of context, etc. Don't misclose.

Finally, our community relies on host tournaments with classroom space - don't steal, defame or destroy it.

Any questions, ask.

updated march ‘22

pronouns: they/them

put me on the email chain: lizclayton6@gmail.com

experience: debated 7 years in middle/high school policy for crossings in oklahoma city

tl;dr-

1. be nice

2. have fun

3. do what you want, just do it well

Tech---------X-------------------------------- Truth

online debate

i’m okay with speed, however, i can’t hear as well over a speaker, so either slow down a little bit or make sure to enunciate- i don’t want to miss anything!

preferences

none of my preferences affect my decision. the categories below reflect what i am most experienced in/what arguments i would be best at evaluating.

K- Dislike -----------------------------------------X Like

CP- Dislike -------------------------------------X—-- Like

DA- Dislike -------------------------------------X--- Like

T- Dislike ------------------------------X----------- Like

FW- Dislike ------------------------------------X----- Like

Theory- Dislike -----------------------X------------------ Like

Case Neg- Dislike ---------------------------------X-------- Like

specifics

K

mostly ran antiblackness, settler colonialism, and deleuze/guattari, sometimes baudrillard, psychoanalysis, and cap.

i will look at the framework debate first. keep your arguments consistent and clear. i feel like it often gets muddled because both sides forget that they must impact out and do comparative analysis with their standards. if there's not a role of the judge i will default to... a judge at a debate tournament. (if you want me to be a policymaker you gotta tell me) the aff gets to weigh itself against the alternative. i default to choosing the best option (util if no impact framing)- how i frame the ballot is up to y’all. lots of clash on the flow is appreciated.

love a good link debate. be specific! if you have more than one, it helps my flow if you number them. evidence indicts are cool. i have high standards for any k link, generic "you talk about/don't talk about X so you're guilty of X" is not particularly convincing unless it's dropped or severely undercovered.

the impact debate is so important! probability matters. have a decent timeframe for terminal impacts. anything long-term not very convincing, especially if the aff wins timeframe arguments for their impact. use ptm. (probability, timeframe, magnitude)

tell the story of how the alternative functions, and pls explain how each perm is a worse option than the alt. idk how i feel about utopian alt arguments because technically the aff is also guilty of utopianism. most of the time nobody really sits on it anyway, so do what you will with that information.

DA

i’m not really picky about them except don’t read more than one with the same impact. pls have solid uniqueness evidence, i will read it if there's unresolved uq stuff. high standard for the link debate, there must be a reasonable way for the aff to cause the impacts.

CP

can’t go wrong with a solid advantage cp. have a clear net benefit (i default to best option) and explain mutual exclusivity.

T

t is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. impact comparison is super important. having da's on it is cool. engage the opponent's arguments.

Theory

i see it mishandled often. there has to be a tangible risk of abuse, a reasonable interpretation, and supporting examples for me to want to vote on it.

Aff

policy affs should have solid internal link chains, explain what the aff actually does, who does it, who it affects, etc. explain why your solution is the best solution.

k affs should have an advocacy statement. the aff position shouldn't change mid-round. i have very high expectations for the internal link and solvency. explain who the aff is good for, why its a good idea, etc. same as before, explain why your solution is the best solution.

Alumni of Liberty University - Debated 2 years in college - qualified to NDT (2019-2020 season)

Email: jareddemunbrun75@gmail.com

tech>truth

I debated 4 years in high school and 2 years in college.

Top Level Things

Debate to your strengths. My role as a judge is to create an environment where participants feel valued and heard. I believe in the power of well-prepared arguments and encourage debaters to engage in discussions on topics they genuinely understand.

I am most familiar with policy arguments, and I like to see good strategy and evidence quality in these debates (Strategy + Quality Evidence = good speaker points).

"K/Non-Traditional" Teams - While I may not be the most adept at adjudicating method versus method debates due to a less comprehensive familiarity with the literature in these discussions, my inclination leans towards non-traditional affirmative positions in clash debates. Approximately 60% of my votes go to non-traditional affirmatives, reflecting a discerning standard for evaluating framework arguments against most K affs. It's important to note that when policy teams thoroughly warrant their arguments in these debates, my predisposition towards voting for framework strengthens. However, it's worth acknowledging that a majority of teams tend to fall short in providing the necessary depth of argumentation in this regard.

Specific Arguments

T - I tend to default to competing interpretations but will buy reasonability if it is explained well with reasons, it should be preferred over competing interpretations. I love a good T debate as long as there are clear standards in the end of the debate and reasons I should vote for a team on topicality.

Framework - I am a 2n in college and think that framework is a very viable option. There should be clear impacts in the rebuttals and treat the impacts just as you treat them on a DA.

DA - I like a good DA debate. At the end of the debate, there should be good link analysis and good impact calculus so that I don't have to insert myself into the debate. I think that all DA debates should have a focus on the IL to impacts of the affirmative – this means make arguments like we access, or we turn their impact.

CP - Love a good CP debate - the more specific the better - good CP's should have a good net-benefit. I tend to lean more towards the negative side when it comes to theory (conditionality). With that said if the neg reads 4 conditional advocacies I will lean towards the affirmative side as long as the standards are flushed out and explained.

K - I am well versed in most forms of K literature. I debated the K as a freshman and sophomore (psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, Settler Colonialism) and am a 2A so I know most K's. I also love a classic Cap K or security K as long as the links are contextualized to the aff. Debate like you know how!

Debated for Jesuit for 4 years

TL;DR – I’m cool with anything as long as it's explained well, please call me Gio and put me on the email chain using gioferrerfalto777@gmail.com, I haven’t judged many debates on this topic so clear explanations are super important

General thoughts –

- Just be nice to each other, snark costs speaker points

- Don’t read stuff like Death Good and suicide arguments, you know what I mean

- Clarity and Clash = Money

- I’m pretty expressive in debates, you’ll be able to see what I think about your argument easily

- Evidence Quality really matters, point garbage evidence out and highlight your actual good cards

- Specificity > Generic 100% of the time

- Please don’t just do 9-off, fully develop your 1NC’s

Case Args –

- Please make use of it on the aff instead of just case outweighs, leverage internal links and uniqueness tricks

- Murder it on the neg, it’s usually pretty easy with some time investment and then the aff’s got no game

- Smart Analytics kill affs too

Theory –

- Slow down please

- Making one specific theory arg > 5 generic theory args (Multiplank Condo PIC’s with No Solvency Advocates are probably worse than just condo)

- Don’t read new affs bad or no neg fiat and stuff like that, waste of time

Topicality/Framework –

- Specific internal link and impact work is super important, buzzwords are lame

- Caselists, TVA’s, Switch Side, and other ways to access education are great args

- Please emphasize predictability when discussing interps, even though interpretations may inevitably be arbitrary, there are certainly some that are just contrived and make the topic undebatable

- I think Fairness/Competitive Equity is an impact and an internal link to things like clash and education. Same with education.

- Debate is a game first and foremost to me but discussing the nature and goal of that game is still significant. Defend your vision of this game.

- Default to Competing Interps

Disadvantages –

- Usually contrived nowadays, especially politics, please exploit that on the aff. Don’t be caught lacking on the Neg.

- Zero Risk of a DA is a thing

- Turns Case analysis should be aff specific, don’t just read your overview

- Apply framing args to DA’s specifically, don’t just assume I’ll crossapply everything perfectly

Counterplans –

- Solvency advocates should definitely be a thing unless their evidence is the solvency advocate, if so tell me which card and possibly send a rehighlighting

- Solvency Deficits need actual impacts that outweigh the net benefit

- Sufficiency framing is dope

- CP’s with internal net benefits that aren’t DA’s to the aff get permed hard

Kritiks –

- Framework usually doesn’t matter, make it matter by impacting it out while putting defense on theirs

- C l a r i t y i s k e y

- Articulating link narratives and internal links without relying on clunky jargon is crucial, don’t be lazy with simple overviews.

- Examples are super helpful, feel free to drop them.

- Fully explain the world of the alt, nuance here is particularly helpful since the alt’s usually weak and boosting it helps deal with tons of args. Same with the perm, helps deal with links and “DA’s” that they drop.

*Updated for 2024*
Bryan Gaston
Director of Debate
Heritage Hall School
1800 Northwest 122nd St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120-9598
bgaston@heritagehall.com

I view judging as a responsibility and one I take very seriously. I have decided to try and give you as much information about my tendencies to assist with MPJ and adaptation.

**NEW NOTE, I may be old but I'm 100% right on this trend: Under-highlighting of evidence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL, some teams are reading cards with such few things highlighted it is amazing they actually got away with claiming the evidence as tagged. When I evaluate evidence, I will ONLY EVALUATE the words in that evidence that were read in the round. If you didn't read it in a speech I will not read the unhighlighted sections and give you the full weight of the evidence--you get credit for what you actually say in the speech, and what you actually read in the round. Debaters, highlight better. When you see garbage highlighting point it out, and make an argument about it---if the highlighting is really bad I will likely agree and won't give the card much credit. This does not mean you can't have good, efficient highlighting, but you must have a claim, data, and warrant(s) on each card.**

Quick Version:

1. Debate is a competitive game.

2. I will vote on framework and topicality-Affs should be topical. But, you can still beat framework with good offense or a crafty counter-interpretation.

3. DA's and Aff advantages can have zero risk.

4. Neg conditionality is mostly good.

5. Counterplans and PICs --good (better to have a solvency advocate than not), process CPs a bit different. It is a very debatable thing for me but topic-specific justifications go a long way with me.

6. K's that link to the Aff plan/advocacy/advantages/reps are good.

7. I will not decide the round over something X team did in another round, at another tournament, or a team's judge prefs.

8. Email Chain access please: bgaston@heritagehall.com

9. The debate should be a fun and competitive activity, be kind to each other and try your best.

My Golden Rule: When you have the option to choose a more specific strategy vs a more generic strategy, always choose the more specific strategy if you are equally capable of executing both strategies. But I get it, sometimes you have to run a process CP or a more generic K.

Things not to do: Don't run T is an RVI, don't hide evidence from the other team to sabotage their prep, don't lie about your source qualifications, don't text or talk to coaches to get "in round coaching" after the round has started, please stay and listen to RFD's I am typically brief, and don't deliberately spy on the other teams pre-round coaching. I am a high school teacher and coach, who is responsible for high school-age students. Please, don't read things overtly sexual if you have a performance aff--since there are minors in the room I think that is inappropriate.

Pro-tip: FLOW---don't stop flowing just because you have a speech doc.

"Clipping" in debate: Clipping in the debate is a serious issue and one of the things I will be doing to deter clipping in my rounds is requesting a copy of all speech docs before the debaters start speaking and while flowing I read along to check from time to time.

CX: This is the only time you have “face time” with the judge. Please look at the judge not at each other. Your speaker points will be rewarded for a great CX and lowered for a bad one. Be smart in CX, assertive, but not rude.

Speaker Point Scale updated: Speed is fine, and clarity is important. If you are not clear I will yell out “Clear.” The average national circuit debate starts at 28.4, Good is 28.5-28.9 (many national circuit rounds end up in this range), and Excellent 29-29.9. Can I get a perfect 30? I have given 3 in 20 years if HS judging they all went on to win the NDT in college. I will punish your points if you are excessively rude to opponents or your partner during a round.

Long Version...

Affirmatives: I still at my heart of hearts prefer and Aff with a plan that's justifiably topical. But, I think it's not very hard for teams to win that if the Aff is germane to the topic that's good enough. I'm pretty sympathetic to the Neg if the Aff has very little to or nothing to do with the topic. If there is a topical version of the Aff I tend to think that takes away most of the Aff's offense in many of these T/FW debates vs no plan Affs--unless the Aff can explain why there is no topical version and they still need to speak about "X" on the Aff or why their offense on T still applies.

Disadvantages: I like them. I prefer specific link stories (or case-specific DA’s) to generic links, as I believe all judges do. But, if all you have is generic links go ahead and run them, I will evaluate them. The burden is on the Aff team to point out those weak link stories. I think Aff’s should have offense against DA’s it's just a smarter 2AC strategy, but if a DA clearly has zero link or zero chance of uniqueness you can win zero risk. I tend to think politics DA's are core negative ground--so it is hard for me to be convinced I should reject the politics DA because debating about it is bad for debate. My take: I often think the internal link chains of DA's are not challenged enough by the Aff, many Aff teams just spot the Neg the internal links---It's one of the worst effects of the prevalence of offense/defense paradigm judging over the past years...and it's normally one of the weaker parts of the DA.

Counterplans: I like them. I generally think most types of counterplans are legitimate as long as the Neg wins that they are competitive. I am also fine with multiple counterplans. On counterplan theory, I lean pretty hard that conditionality and PICs are ok. You can win theory debates over the issue of how far negatives can take conditionality (battle over the interps is key). Counterplans that are functionally and textually competitive are always your safest bet but, I am frequently persuaded that counterplans which are functionally competitive or textually competitive are legitimate. My Take: I do however think that the negative should have a solvency advocate or some basis in the literature for the counterplan. If you want to run a CP to solve terrorism you need at least some evidence supporting your mechanism. My default is that I reject the CP, not the team on Aff CP theory wins.

Case debates: I like it. Negative teams typically underutilize this. I believe well planned impacted case debate is essential to a great negative strategy. Takeouts and turns can go a long way in a round.

Critiques: I like them. In the past, I have voted for various types of critiques. I think they should have an alternative or they are just non-unique impacts. I think there should be a discussion of how the alternative interacts with the Aff advantages and solvency. Impact framing is important in these debates. The links to the Aff are very important---the more specific the better.

Big impact turn debates: I like them. Want to throw down in a big Hegemony Good/Bad debate, Dedev vs Growth Good, method vs method, it's all good.

Topicality/FW: I tend to think competing interpretations are good unless told otherwise...see the Aff section above for more related to T.

Theory: Theory sets up the rules for the debate game. I tend to evaluate theory debates in an offensive/defense paradigm, paying particular attention to each teams theory impacts and impact defense. The interpretation debate is very important to evaluating theory for me. For a team to drop the round on theory you must impact this debate well and have clear answers to the other side's defense.

Impact framing-- it's pretty important, especially in a round where you have a soft-left Aff with a big framing page vs a typical neg util based framing strat.

Have fun debating!

Jack Griffiths

Assistant Coach and Alumni Service Corps at Jesuit Dallas

jack9riff at gmail dot com

Updated Before TFA State

About Me:
- Debated at Jesuit from 2015-2019 (2A)
- Have experience with all sorts of arguments, from mostly big-stick arguments my first few years to mostly K-oriented strategies my senior year
- Judged, coached, and cut cards part-time for Jesuit during the pandemic years
- Have been serving as assistant coach during my ASC year at Jesuit (2023-2024) and judging at local, regional, and national tournaments (about 40 rounds total so far this year)

**I have made some updates throughout the paradigm to give a better sense of how I have decided these different kinds of debates during this season.

I believe that my responsibility as a judge is to adapt to the debaters' arguments rather than the other way around. There are arguments I'm more familiar with than others, but as long as your explanations are well-warranted and digestible, you should feel free running what you want to run (with the exception of arguments that are discriminatory or advocate for self-harm).

For me, doing proper clash and line-by-line is absolutely essential. Debates become the most enjoyable when they feature lots of organized back-and-forth and detailed comparisons between arguments. The most crucial elements of line by line include keeping an accurate flow, proper signposting (“2AC 1—they say x, we say y”), and using your own voice to initiate comparisons (rather than simply reading walls of cards). To elaborate more on that last item, I find myself more persuaded by debaters who acknowledge the areas where they’re behind and explain why they still win (i.e. “even if they win x, we still win because y”) than by debaters who assert that they’re winning on absolutely every level (which is almost never true).

Note: to incentivize clash, if you show me your flows after the debate, and I believe that your flows truly served as the basis of your argumentation during your speeches, I will give you +0.2 speaker points.

Because of everything stated above, I find myself disappointed by debates in which teams either don’t directly clash or in which teams intentionally avoid the need to clash by throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. This isn’t to say that you can’t initiate a high volume of arguments in front of me, but if it comes at the expense of direct engagement with the other team’s arguments, I’m less likely to enjoy the round.

Things that increase speaker points: active flowing, direct clashing, strategic use of CX, effective use of framing moments in the final rebuttals

Things that limit speaker points: not flowing (and struggling to do effective line-by-line as a result), being overly aggressive/snarky, over-reliance on tag-team CX

Theory

Although I've generally unlikely to reject the team, I have pulled the trigger in the past. More often, theory is best used to give yourself more leeway when answering a sketchy argument. Conditionality is generally good but can become less good with multiple conditional contradictory worlds, an absence of solvency advocates, an abundance of conditional CP planks, etc. SPEC arguments are usually uncompelling to me. News affs are good—I wouldn’t burn 10 seconds in the 1NC by reading your shell.

Be sure to slow down a bit when reading all your compressed analytics. Finding in-round examples of abuse isn't intrinsically necessary but does help you out quite a bit.

Topicality

Topic-specific thoughts: While many debaters have asserted that tax-and-transfer is intrinsically the core of the topic, I'm not quite as convinced, as it often seems like affs with taxes sideline discussions of the 3 areas in favor of whole advantages predicated off of whatever taxes they choose to defend. I also am likely to be more skeptical of tax-and-transfer affs that don't have a solvency advocate that advocates for both the tax AND the transfer as a complete package. I can definitely still vote for such affs, but I’m open to listen to teams that can speak to the trends I've been witnessing, and teams that are in favor of tax-and-transfer as their view of the topic should have a more warranted explanation for why that view is good.

General thoughts:When deciding these rounds, I first decide whether to evaluate the debate through competing interpretations or reasonability (based on which framework I have been persuaded is best based on the debating) before looking deeper into the flow. I default to competing interpretations if not given an alternative (which generally means I end up deciding the debate based on the comparative risks of the two team's standards). I personally find reasonability at its most compelling/least arbitrary when contextualized to a counter-interpretation (i.e. as long as our counter-interpretation is reasonable enough, you should vote affirmative) rather than when presented in an aff-specific way (i.e. we’re a camp aff so we’re topical). If after the debate I decide to evaluate the round through the lens of reasonability, that usually means I should vote aff unless their interp is evidently bad for debate.

I think debaters tend to spend too much time reading cards in these debates that could instead be spent on giving concrete examples for their standards to help me visualize the limits explosion, loss in ground, etc. Teams also should be doing a better job at explaining the terminal impact to these standards (i.e. what does "precision" actually mean and how much does it matter?). Not articulating your impacts will force me to intervene more than I'm usually comfortable with.

K Aff vs T/Framework

I’ve judged a few of these, and my decisions in them have generally come down to which side gives me a better sense of what their model of debate produces relative to the other team’s. Negative teams are most compelling when they articulate how iterative debates with a resolutional focus produce research skills, engagement through clashing perspectives, and topic-specific knowledge. Affirmative teams are persuasive when they successfully point out limitations of the negative’s model of debate and/or when they argue that the values the negative espouses will be used for detrimental ends absent the affirmative’s method. “Procedural fairness” could be an impact but most teams that have centralized their strategy around it have sounded too tautological to me, so if going for it is your preference then make sure to articulate why fairness is important beyond just saying “debate is a game so fairness must be important.” A K Aff should still have some connection to the resolution/topic area as well as a clearly-signposted advocacy statement. Affirmatives also need to have robust answers to TVAs and switch side debate.

K vs. K

Although I’ve never judged this form of debate, I had a few rounds like these as a debater from the negative side. I think it’s an open discussion whether the affirmative should be able to have a permutation in these debates—the more vague the affirmative’s method is, the more likely I am to defer negative.

Policy Aff vs K

I have three asks for affirmative teams. First, leverage the 1AC, whether in the form of “case outweighs” argument, a disad to the alt, or as an example of why whatever thing the negative criticizes can be good. Second, choose a strategy that synergizes well with the type of affirmative you’re reading. If your 1AC is 8 minutes of heg good, impact turn. If you’re a soft-left aff, link turn by explaining how the solvency of the aff can challenge structures of oppression. Third, prioritize offensive arguments. I’ve seen too many debates where the 2AR spends almost all their time going for the “perm double bind” and overly defensive strategies. Instead, center the debate about why your method is good and makes things better and why the alternative makes things worse.

Negatives should be able to explain their kritiks without heavily reliance on jargon, especially when reading high theory (given my relative unfamiliarity with it). I like it when negatives present detailed link narratives that are specific to the aff, explain how the alternative addresses the proximate causes of the affirmative impacts, and leverage on-case arguments to supplement the kritiks. I like it less when negatives rely on “tricks” (e.g. framework landmines, ontology without impacting it out) or enthymemes (i.e. establishing only part of an argument/dropping a buzzword while expecting me to fill in the blanks for you simply because prevalent K teams make the same argument).

A note on framework: I am personally uncomfortable voting on overly-exclusionary framework interpretations (e.g. "no Ks allowed" or "aff doesn't get to weigh the plan) unless one team is dropping the ball, and so I'm more compelled by nuanced interpretations that leave some room for the other side (e.g. "the aff can weigh their plan but we should still be able to problematize their assumptions"). For similar reasons, I'm not the biggest fan of pure fiat Ks (but if you win them then you do you, I suppose).

Counterplan Debates

I've progressively grown more and more frustrated by the proliferation of random, old process CPs that steal the aff this year. Not to say you can't read them, but I'll be more sympathetic to smart aff permutation arguments, and you should make sure your theory defenses are sufficient.

Counterplans should have solvency advocates—and if you manage to find a hyper-specific solvency advocate related to the aff, that can make me more open to counterplans that I might otherwise deem sketchy (process, conditions, etc.). Topic/aff-specific PICs are valuable because they reward targeted research, but word/language-related PICs are likely less legitimate unless you have a very compelling reason why they make sense in a given debate. I’m ambivalent about multiplank counterplans, but if you claim planks are independently conditional and/or you lack a unified solvency advocate for all the planks, I’m more likely to side with the aff. I won’t judge kick unless you tell me in the 2NR.

Disadvantage Debates

Disad debates are fun as long as they’re presented with qualified evidence that can reduce the need for too much “spin.” Controlling uniqueness is important. Turns case is most valuable when contextualized specifically to the aff scenarios and when it isn’t reliant on the negative winning full risk of their terminal impact. Risk can be reduced to zero with smart defensive arguments and if the quality of the disad is just that bad, but generally you’ll be in a better spot if you find a source of offense (which can be even something as simple as “case outweighs”).

Case

Although case answers are (sadly) generally underutilized by the negative, they have influenced quite a few of my recent decisions, so negative teams should feel compelled to make case debating a more crucial part of their strategy in front of me. Internal link and solvency takeouts (both evidenced and analytical) are much more persuasive to me than reading generic impact defense.

David Heidt

Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart

davidheidt@gmail.com

Some thoughts about the fiscal redistribution topic:

Having only judged practice debates so far, I like the topic. But it seems harder to be Aff than in a typical year. All three affirmative areas are pretty controversial, and there's deep literature engaging each area on both sides.

All of the thoughts I've posted below are my preferences, not rules that I'll enforce in the debate. Everything is debatable. But my preferences reflect the types of arguments that I find more persuasive.

1. I am unlikely to view multiple conditional worlds favorably. I think the past few years have demonstrated an inverse relationship between the number of CPs in the 1nc and the quality of the debate. The proliferation of terrible process CPs would not have been possible without unlimited negative conditionality. I was more sympathetic to negative strategy concerns last year where there was very little direct clash in the literature. But this topic is a lot different. I don't see a problem with one conditional option. I can maybe be convinced about two, but I like Tim Mahoney's rule that you should only get one. More than two will certainly make the debate worse. The fact that the negative won substantially more debates last year with with no literature support whatsoever suggests there is a serious problem with multiple conditional options.

Does that mean the neg auto-loses if they read three conditional options? No, debating matters - but I'll likely find affirmative impact arguments on theory a lot more persuasive if there is more than one (or maybe two) CPs in the debate.

2. I am not sympathetic about affirmative plan vagueness. Debate is at it's best with two prepared teams, and vagueness is a way to avoid clash and discourage preparation. If your plan is just the resolution, that tells me very little and I will be looking for more details. I am likely to interpret your plan based upon the plan text, highlighted portions of your solvency evidence that say what the plan does, and clarifications in cx. That means both what you say and the highlighted portions of your evidence are fair game for arguments about CP competition, DA links, and topicality. This is within reason - the plan text is still important, and I'm not going to hold the affirmative responsible for a word PIC that's based on a piece of solvency evidence or an offhand remark. And if cx or evidence is ambiguous because the negative team didn't ask the right questions or didn't ask follow up questions, I'm not going to automatically err towards the negative's interpretation either. But if the only way to determine the scope of the plan's mandates is by looking to solvency evidence or listening to clarification in CX, then a CP that PICs out of those clarified mandates is competitive, and a topicality violation that says those clarified mandates aren't topical can't be beaten with "we meet - plan in a vacuum".

How might this play out on this topic? Well, if the negative team asks in CX, "do you mandate a tax increase?", and the affirmative response is "we don't specify", then I think that means the affirmative does not, in fact, mandate a tax increase under any possible interpretation of the plan, that they cannot read addons based on increasing taxes, or say "no link - we increase taxes" to a disadvantage that says the affirmative causes a spending tradeoff. If the affirmative doesn't want to mandate a specific funding mechanism, that might be ok, but that means evidence about normal means of passing bills is relevant for links, and the affirmative can't avoid that evidence by saying the plan fiats out of it. There can be a reasonable debate over what might constitute 'normal means' for funding legislation, but I'm confident that normal means in a GOP-controlled House is not increasing taxes.

On the other hand, if they say "we don't specify our funding mechanism in the plan," but they've highlighted "wealth tax key" warrants in their solvency evidence, then I think this is performative cowardice and honestly I'll believe whatever the negative wants me to believe in that case. Would a wealth tax PIC be competitive in that scenario? Yes, without question. Alternatively, could the negative say "you can't access your solvency evidence because you don't fiat a wealth tax?" Also, yes. As I said, I am unsympathetic to affirmative vagueness, and you can easily avoid this situation just by defending your plan.

Does this apply to the plan's agent? I think this can be an exception - in other words, the affirmative could reasonably say "we're the USFG" if they don't have an agent-based advantage or solvency evidence that explicitly requires one agent. I think there are strong reasons why agent debates are unique. Agent debates in a competitive setting with unlimited fiat grossly misrepresent agent debates in the literature, and requiring the affirmative to specify beyond what their solvency evidence requires puts them in an untenable position. But if the affirmative has an agent-based advantage, then it's unlikely (though empirically not impossible) that I'll think it's ok for them to not defend that agent against an agent CP.

3. I believe that any negative strategy that revolves around "it's hard to be neg so therefore we need to do the 1ac" is not a real strategy. A CP that results in the possibility of doing the entire mandate of the plan is neither legitimate nor competitive. Immediacy and certainty are not the basis of counterplan competition, no matter how many terrible cards are read to assert otherwise. If you think "should" means "immediate" then you'd likely have more success with a 2nr that was "t - should" in front of me than you would with a CP competition argument based on that word. Permutations are tests of competition, and as such, do not have to be topical. "Perms can be extra topical but not nontopical" has no basis in anything. Perms can be any combination of all of the plan and part or all of the CP. But even if they did have to be topical, reading a card that says "increase" = "net increase" is not a competition argument, it's a topicality argument. A single affirmative card defining the "increase" as "doesn't have to be a net increase" beats this CP in its entirety. Even if the negative interpretation of "net increase" is better for debate it does not change what the plan does, and if the aff says they do not fiat a net increase, then they do not fiat a net increase. If you think you have an argument, you need to go for T, not the CP. A topicality argument premised on "you've killed our offsets CP ground" probably isn't a winner, however. The only world I could ever see the offsets CP be competitive in is if the plan began with "without offsetting fiscal redistribution in any manner, the USFG should..."

I was surprised by the number of process CPs turned out at camps this year. This topic has a lot of well-supported ways to directly engage each of the three areas. And most of the camp affs are genuinely bad ideas with a ridiculous amount of negative ground. Even a 1nc that is exclusively an economy DA and case defense is probably capable of winning most debates. I know we just had a year where there were almost no case debates, but NATO was a bad topic with low-quality negative strategies, and I think it's time to step up. This topic is different. And affs are so weak they have to resort to reading dedevelopment as their advantage. I am FAR more likely to vote aff on "it's already hard to be aff, and your theory of competition makes it impossible" on this topic than any other.

This doesn't mean I'm opposed to PICs, or even most counterplans. And high quality evidence can help sway my views about both the legitimacy and competitiveness of any CP. But if you're coming to the first tournament banking on the offsets CP or "do the plan if prediction markets say it's good CP", you should probably rethink that choice.

But maybe I'm wrong! Maybe the first set of tournaments will see lots of teams reading small, unpredictable affs that run as far to the margins of the topic as possible. I hope not. The less representative the affirmative is of the topic literature, the more likely it is that I'll find process CPs to be an acceptable response. If you're trying to discourage meaningful clash through your choice of affirmative, then maybe strategies premised on 'clash is bad' are more reasonable.

4. I'm ambivalent on the question of whether fiscal redistribution requires both taxes and transfers. The cards on both sides of this are okay. I'm not convinced by the affirmative that it's too hard to defend a tax, but I'm also not convinced by the negative that taxes are the most important part of negative ground.

5. I'm skeptical of the camp affirmatives that suggest either that Medicare is part of Social Security, or that putting Medicare under Social Security constitutes "expanding" Social Security. I'll approach any debate about this with an open mind, because I've certainly been wrong before. But I am curious about what the 2ac looks like. I can see some opportunity for the aff on the definition of "expanding," but I don't think it's great. Aff cards that confuse Social Security with the Social Security Act or Social Security Administration or international definitions of lower case "social security" miss the mark entirely.

6. Critiques on this topic seem ok. I like critiques that have topic-specific links and show why doing the affirmative is undesirable. I dislike critiques that are dependent on framework for the same reason I dislike process counterplans. Both strategies are cop-outs - they both try to win without actually debating the merits of the affirmative. I find framework arguments that question the truth value of specific affirmative claims far more persuasive than framework arguments that assert that policy-making is the wrong forum.

7. There's a LOT of literature defending policy change from a critical perspective on this topic. I've always been skeptical of planless affirmatives, but they seem especially unwarranted this year. I think debate doesn't function if one side doesn't debate the assigned topic. Debating the topic requires debating the entire topic, including defending a policy change from the federal government. Merely talking about fiscal redistribution in some way doesn't even come close. It's possible to defend policy change from a variety of perspectives on this topic, including some that would critique ways in which the negative traditionally responds to policy proposals.

Having said that, if you're running a planless affirmative and find yourself stuck with me in the back of the room, I still do my best to evaluate all arguments as fairly as a I can. It's a debate round, and not a forum for me to just insert my preferences over the arguments of the debaters themselves. But some arguments will resonate more than others.

Old thoughts

Some thoughts about the NATO topic:

1. Defending the status quo seems very difficult. The topic seems aff-biased without a clear controversy in the literature, without many unique disadvantages, and without even credible impact defense against some arguments. The water topic was more balanced (and it was not balanced at all).

This means I'm more sympathetic to multiple conditional options than I might otherwise would be. I'm also very skeptical of plan vagueness and I'm unlikely to be very receptive towards any aff argument that relies on it.

Having said that, some of the 1ncs I've seen that include 6 conditional options are absurd and I'd be pretty receptive to conditionality in that context, or in a context where the neg says something like hegemony good and the security K in the same debate.

And an aff-biased topic is not a justification for CPs that compete off of certainty. The argument that "it's hard to be negative so therefore we get to do your aff" is pretty silly. I haven't voted on process CP theory very often, but at the same time, it's pretty rare for a 2a to go for it in the 2ar. The neg can win this debate in front of me, but I lean aff on this.

There are also parts of this topic that make it difficult to be aff, especially the consensus requirement of the NAC. So while the status quo is probably difficult to defend, I think the aff is at a disadvantage against strategies that test the consensus requirement.

2. Topicality Article 5 is not an argument. I could be convinced otherwise if someone reads a card that supports the interpretation. I have yet to see a card that comes even close. I think it is confusing that 1ncs waste time on this because a sufficient 2ac is "there is no violation because you have not read evidence that actually supports your interpretation." The minimum threshold would be for the negative to have a card defining "cooperation with NATO" as "requires changing Article 5". That card does not exist, because no one actually believes that.

3. Topicality on this topic seems very weak as a 2nr choice, as long as the affirmative meets basic requirements such as using the DOD and working directly with NATO as opposed to member states. It's not unwinnable because debating matters, but the negative seems to be on the wrong side of just about every argument.

4. Country PICs do not make very much sense to me on this topic. No affirmative cooperates directly with member states, they cooperate with the organization, given that the resolution uses the word 'organization' and not 'member states'. Excluding a country means the NAC would say no, given that the excluded country gets to vote in the NAC. If the country PIC is described as a bilateral CP with each member state, that makes more sense, but then it obviously does not go through NATO and is a completely separate action, not a PIC.

5. Is midterms a winnable disadvantage on the NATO topic? I am very surprised to see negative teams read it, let alone go for it. I can't imagine that there's a single person in the United States that would change their vote or their decision to turn out as a result of the plan. The domestic focus link argument seems completely untenable in light of the fact that our government acts in the area of foreign policy multiple times a day. But I have yet to see a midterms debate, so maybe there's special evidence teams are reading that is somehow omitted from speech docs. It's hard for me to imagine what a persuasive midterms speech on a NATO topic looks like though.

What should you do if you're neg? I think there are some good CPs, some good critiques, and maybe impact turns? NATO bad is likely Russian propaganda, but it's probably a winnable argument.

******

Generally I try to evaluate arguments fairly and based upon the debaters' explanations of arguments, rather than injecting my own opinions. What follows are my opinions regarding several bad practices currently in debate, but just agreeing with me isn't sufficient to win a debate - you actually have to win the arguments relative to what your opponents said. There are some things I'll intervene about - death good, behavior meant to intimidate or harass your opponents, or any other practice that I think is harmful for a high school student classroom setting - but just use some common sense.

Thoughts about critical affs and critiques:

Good debates require two prepared teams. Allowing the affirmative team to not advocate the resolution creates bad debates. There's a disconnect in a frighteningly large number of judging philosophies I've read where judges say their favorite debates are when the negative has a specific strategy against an affirmative, and yet they don't think the affirmative has to defend a plan. This does not seem very well thought out, and the consequence is that the quality of debates in the last few years has declined greatly as judges increasingly reward teams for not engaging the topic.

Fairness is the most important impact. Other judging philosophies that say it's just an internal link are poorly reasoned. In a competitive activity involving two teams, assuring fairness is one of the primary roles of the judge. The fundamental expectation is that judges evaluate the debate fairly; asking them to ignore fairness in that evaluation eliminates the condition that makes debate possible. If every debate came down to whoever the judge liked better, there would be no value to participating in this activity. The ballot doesn't do much other than create a win or a loss, but it can definitely remedy the harms of a fairness violation. The vast majority of other impacts in debate are by definition less important because they never depend upon the ballot to remedy the harm.

Fairness is also an internal link - but it's an internal link to establishing every other impact. Saying fairness is an internal link to other values is like saying nuclear war is an internal link to death impacts. A loss of fairness implies a significant, negative impact on the activity and judges that require a more formal elaboration of the impact are being pedantic.

Arguments along the lines of 'but policy debate is valueless' are a complete nonstarter in a voluntary activity, especially given the existence of multiple alternative forms of speech and debate. Policy debate is valuable to some people, even if you don't personally share those values. If your expectation is that you need a platform to talk about whatever personally matters to you rather than the assigned topic, I encourage you to try out a more effective form of speech activity, such as original oratory. Debate is probably not the right activity for you if the condition of your participation is that you need to avoid debating a prepared opponent.

The phrase "fiat double-bind" demonstrates a complete ignorance about the meaning of fiat, which, unfortunately, appears to be shared by some judges. Fiat is merely the statement that the government should do something, not that they would. The affirmative burden of proof in a debate is solely to demonstrate the government should take a topical action at a particular time. That the government would not actually take that action is not relevant to any judge's decision.

Framework arguments typically made by the negative for critiques are clash-avoidance devices, and therefore are counterproductive to education. There is no merit whatsoever in arguing that the affirmative does not get to weigh their plan. Critiques of representations can be relevant, but only in relation to evaluating the desirability of a policy action. Representations cannot be separated from the plan - the plan is also a part of the affirmative's representations. For example, the argument that apocalyptic representations of insecurity are used to justify militaristic solutions is asinine if the plan includes a representation of a non-militaristic solution. The plan determines the context of representations included to justify it.

Thoughts about topicality:

Limited topics make for better topics. Enormous topics mean that it's much harder to be prepared, and that creates lower quality debates. The best debates are those that involve extensive topic research and preparation from both sides. Large topics undermine preparation and discourage cultivating expertise. Aff creativity and topic innovation are just appeals to avoid genuine debate.

Thoughts about evidence:

Evidence quality matters. A lot of evidence read by teams this year is underlined in such a way that it's out of context, and a lot of evidence is either badly mistagged or very unqualified. On the one hand, I want the other team to say this when it's true. On the other hand, if I'm genuinely shocked at how bad your evidence is, I will probably discount it.

I am a current student at the University of Texas at Austin. I am a Economics major and business minor. During my time in college I have taken two debate classes, where I have had the opportunity to judge two debates. I have experience in Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Policy Debates.

Updated for 2018-2019 Season

Hi, my name is Ethan Jackson. I have debated at Jesuit College Prep for 3 years as a 2A/1N. I am currently a senior and a 2N/1A; I have debated 18 rounds on this topic, so it is very likely I know what you're talking about a good amount of the time. However, explaining things is still key to winning debates.

Add me on the email chain at 19166@jcpstudents.org

General Notes/Comments

Truth vs. Tech - I think that tech > truth in most instances, but view this distinction more as an impetus to base your arguments in logic and current events rather than to try to get away with something sketchy.

Read any aff you want - big impacts, structural violence, K affs, advocacy statements, no plan text or advocacy statements are all fine - be able to defend them though, because I can be persuaded by impacted T or framework arguments.

Speaker points - I'm not going to claim to start my scale anywhere specific, but if you want good speaks, you should do the following to get good speaks: be kind to me and the other team, ask good cx questions, make strategic decisions/talk to your partner, be clear if you're going to be spreading, make me laugh, or indicate in your speeches that you understand my paradigm.

Be nice and have fun - that's pretty important - one of the reasons I love debate is because of the positive interactions I have with fellow debaters, coaches, and judges. Let's keep it that way. Please don't be discriminatory in your language OR arguments. Advocating for the death of people, whether worldwide or of specific groups, is a no-no. It pretty much goes without saying that there are some certain toxic arguments that aren't acceptable in debate.

T/Theory

T is good, T curriculum is useless - it's the end of the year, so I will be more willing to vote on reasonability. With that said, I will still default to competing interpretations unless reasonability is a debate that is had. You should read a case-list and distinguish your impacts in the block, especially if you want me to vote on it. T is most persuasive in the 2nr if it is 4-5 minutes.

Theory is lit, but I think that the aff typically under-utilizes it. If the neg has a sketchy CP or K alt, they should be called out on it and the aff needs to distinguish why the neg's use of the CP is bad for debate. I don't really have a bias in these debates because I honestly think that these are debates to be had. I will vote on most theory arguments if they are debated well, and I won't vote on these arguments if the neg is sufficiently able to defend that they aren't dirty cheaters. Things I will be looking for on the aff for theory (and the neg should neutralize these aspects) include: a reason why the specific neg argument is an example of the theory violation, an interpretation, and impacted out warrants as to why this argument is unjustifiable/makes it extremely difficult for the aff to debate. Also, saying that there's an aff bias on this topic isn't an argument, but making a well-warranted claim for why your CP or K is core neg ground that is key to check the aff is.

CP

CP's are good, and they're even better with a net benefit. I think that lots of good CPs can be creative and aff-specific, and these CP debates are enjoyable to watch, especially PICs. However, if the neg wants to go for a sketchy CP, they need to be prepared for the theory debate. If you want me to vote on your CP, you need a net benefit, a warranted answer to the permutation, and the ability to capture aff offense. It would also be better for you if you had a quality solvency advocate. Against CPs that don't compete or have no net benefit, I will be persuaded easily by the permutation unless you can give a really good reason why the world of the perm would be especially bad.

DA

DA's are also good. I will vote on unique DA's that can articulate a specific link, internal link chain, and an impact that outweighs and/or turns the case. Don't be afraid to go all in on the DA in the 2nr without a CP because you can win that the DA neutralizes all of their offense by itself. If you are spinning the link as a generic link to education reform, it makes it more difficult for me to vote for you if it comes down to evidence, but even if you don't have the evidence to specifically link to the aff, you should be making and going for analytic link arguments, which ARE persuasive.

Aff - if you are going to win a link turn, you should be winning reasons why the link turn outweighs a risk of the link. Similar with impact turns - you should win that the turn outweighs their impact, including reading impact defense vs. their terminal impact. Straight turns are fun debates, and you should take advantage of this in the 2ac especially if they read 7+ off. However, you should keep in mind the amount of damage the neg block can do to your offense. If you are going for a straight turn in the 2ar don't be afraid to go all in.

There is such thing as winning no risk of the DA - don't be afraid to weigh complete defense vs. the DA. This year, winning no risk is a particularly persuasive vs. less specific DAs like politics and federalism. That being said, the neg should still read federalism and politics, but should be wary about the gaps in the internal link chains.

Ks

Read your K, any K. I genuinely enjoy the structure of a K debate, and 1 off debates are fine too. However, given that I am still only a 3rd year debater, you should be able to explain your argument to me so I don't have issues with voting neg. Links should be tailored to the aff as well as the status quo, and there should be multiple links to the aff articulated in the block. I view these debates like a combination of a DA + CP except for in content, so you should read your link/impact turns, permutations, and solvency deficits/offense to the alt. Framework should lay out how I as a judge should view the debate, for both teams. For the aff I need something more specific than "we get to weigh our impacts" or you'd better have a good strategic reason why that's how I should view the debate.

Multiple unconditional Ks are probably bad, but the aff needs to contest this strategy with warrants.

Affiliation - Dallas Jesuit '19

2A/1N

-Email chains > flash drives - add me - Limkogan@gmail.com

Update Thing

I hate incomplete off case shells. E.g. If your kritik doesn't have a framework argument or a reason to prefer it, it's a non-unique DA. If your DA doesn't have an internal link, uniqueness, link, or impact, it's not a complete argument. Highlighting an argument in a card without a warrant makes it an incomplete argument. A CP without a net benefit is usually not a complete argument unless there's a justification - i.e. delay, consult, etc. In case there is something like this, say something like "this doesn't have ..., we'll answer when they make a complete argument" and move on. At that point, the neg must/should fully explain every part of the argument or else it gets pretty abusive.

General Topics

-If you have questions ask

-I'll prob be keeping track of prep

-Line by line = fun. 6 minutes of an overview and saying "onto the line by line" isn't. I will prob stop flowing an overview after 2 minutes and you will see me doing something else

-Tech>truth unless an arg is dumb

-Turns = good unless morally offensive

-Clipping/cheating = Bad. Don't.

-I'm pretty expressive

-Spin is usually good until someone points out it's not warranted

-Warrants = good. I won't vote for stuff I don't understand/think there's enough explanation even if I have background information (k debates)

-Passionate = fine. Mean = no

-Clarity > Speed. Efficiency = good. I'll say clear until I think you're ignoring me

-Talking to your partner = prep

-Taking out analytics = prep

-Emailing isn't prep unless it gets ridiculous

-If you're reading straight blocks don't expect above a 28.3 w/o line by line

Theory

-Fine

-Generally neg sided on condo except 7 contradictory, conditional worlds or something abusive. Everything else is viable

-Dropped theory usually = ballot

-If an arg doesn't link I'm not gonna vote on it even if it's unanswered

Topicality

-Yes

-Treat it like a DA

-T.VA's and case lists are really cool

-Ev comparison on interpretations is kinda important

-Reasonability - Make it a substance crowdout and a reason why the counter-interpretation is good enough even if it's not as good as the interp

-Limits can be a standalone but should prob just be an internal link

Case

-It's important

-Case in the block for some time is kinda hard to answer in the 1AR and makes life hell

-Do Ross Extensions b/c they sound cool - https://vimeo.com/5464508

-Circumvention = good

-I have a lower threshold for presumption but it should be an emergency scenario

DA

-Dropped DA's are usually true DA's unless they were incomplete in the 1nc

-Incomplete DA's are not worth taking full time to answer in the 2AC(they don't have X, this isn't a complete arg - we get new answers when they make a complete one)

-Defense doesn't usually take out 100% risk of DA

-Specific links are good - generics not so much but tech and spin is good

-Turns case/DA and solves case/DA is really good

-Impact calc isn't time frame is now, probability 100%, and magnitude is extinction - it's comparitive

-Cross applying stuff usually saves time and is cool

-Convoluted internal link chains are not my favorite and probably not true but go ahead

CP

-They're cool

-They usually access a lot of the case

-Sufficiency framing is kinda good except when it is morally bad from the aff

-Should always have a net benefit

-Process CP's are very abusive

-PICs are generally fine when they have a solvency advocate but are kinda abusive

-Block CP's are kinda abusive but you do you

-I'm not gonna judge kick unless you tell me to but even then I'm aff bias esp on perms

K Affs

-I get it's strategic but don't read overviews

-Framework makes the game work

-K v. K debates are fine but clash please for the love of all that is good

-Debate is a game that has pedagogical benefits/disadvantages that can be about

-You need an offensive reason you don't defend the res

-Not reading T-USFG and instead going for T-(the topic) is a good strat most of the time

-Being shifty on permutation debates probably prove loss of ground

-T.VA's are really good and any solvency deficits prove debatability

-The resolution is a stasis point which everyone should probably follow

-Reasonability/we meet generally isn't the A strat

*Special Note for K's of the debate space - I get that it's strategic but I'm prob not your judge. Debate is a voluntary activity that you are willingly go into. If your only reason why the debate space is key is the ballot is an endorsement, that's definitely not enough. The only time I've seen it go well is with North Broward increase participation. I honestly don't see why a book club or creating another debate space like communities of care external to debate doesn't solve all your offensive. Also these usually don't have a tie to the topic and topic education usually outweighs any education in my opinion but that's debatable. I also just don't see why the debate space is uniquely good or is necessary for change.

K

-You'll have to explain well. I don't connect the dots/do fill in the blanks (that means having a terminal impact and/or extending an impact is important)

-Empirics and examples are really good to have in a K debate

-Somehow everything becomes a link without evidence and that's probably not ok

-Alt explanation is really good - think reddit.com/r/ELI5

-I think you kinda need an alt b/c a question of method v. method to solve. I understand the strategic use of if link, vote neg, but it's real abusive especially if the impact is inevitable. I can be persuaded otherwise though.

-Links of omission aren't persuasive

-Re-characterizing the aff is a good idea

-Pointing to specific lines/advantages/instances is really good and serves as evidence

-FIAT isn't real is dumb unless it's impacted

-Specific links are really cool

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

General Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Clarity > speed

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

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

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

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

-- Be yourself and we will all be great

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

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

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

Theory

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

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

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

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

DAs

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

Ks

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

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

CPs

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

T

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

Other stuff:

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

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

Speaker Point Scale

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

Short Version:

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

Hey I did speech and policy in high school. Started off with the straight-up style but got to college and saw the rest. I'm better suited for K-style feedback but go with your heart on w.e you want.

I'll evaluate every argument. The debate room can be a fun place so feel free to throw some humor into your speeches. Videos and dank memes are cool.
On an unrelated note, bringing granola bars or some snackage would be appreciated. I don't care much for soft drinks though. In other words please feed me nice food because in-round picnics make everyone's day. <--

What you care about:
Please don't make judges do the work for you on the flow. If you don't do the line-by-line or clearly address an argument, don't get upset if I reach an unfavorable conclusion. Reading me cards without providing sufficient analysis leaves the purpose a bit unclear.

T
Aff- reasonabilty probably has my vote but I can be persuaded to vote for creative and convincing non-topic-related cases.

Neg- Get some substance on the flow. T should not be a go-to-argument. I hate arguments dealing with "should", "USFG", etc and you should too. Impact out the violation. Simply stating that the team is non-topical and attaching some poorly explained standards will not fly or garner support. On K affs remember you can always go further left as an option.

Theory- Typically a pretty boring discussion but if it's creative I'll approve. If you notice yourself thinking "I wish I were reading something else" then it's a clear sign I wish you were too. Remember to slow down on those analytics though- hands cramp.

Case
Aff
Being able to cite authors and point to specific cards = speaks. (same for neg)

Neg
Throw some case defense at the end of your 1nc after you do your off-case arguments. Aff has to answer them but you already know that. Reading through aff evidence and showing power tags or misuse is great.

Da
Aff- if you can turn this in some way then you'll be fine. Point out flaws in the Link story when you can. Figuring out a solid internal link story might be a good idea.

Neg
Internal links will only help you. Let's avoid generic stuff.

CP
Aff
You need to show that it's noncompetitive and you can perm or that their argument just sucks.

Neg
Show a net benefit and how you solve the impacts. Furthermore show how your cp is awesome.

K
Aff
Explain: how case doesn't link, perm, or alt doesn't solve or do anything. Weigh your impacts if appropriate. If the neg is misinterpreting an author and you sufficiently illustrate his/her message, then you'll be doing well in the round.

Neg
I like K's a lot. Hopefully will know what's up. Just explain your story clearly (seriously). Stunt on em.

Side note for everyone: In round actions are easy performative solvency to weigh btw

Performance
Aff
It's going to come down to how well you can explain the impact you are addressing with your performance and the solvency story under framework.

Neg
I suppose you can do framework or T if you have nothing else but try and interact because the aff team will be prepared. Or if you want to go down this route it's cool. Swayed by creativity though.

Debated @ UNT 2009-2014

Coach @ St Marks since 2017

Coach @ UTDallas since 2018

If you have questions, feel free to email me at mccullough.hunter@gmail.com

For me, the idea that the judge should remain impartial is very important. I've had long discussions about the general acceptability/desirability of specific debate arguments and practices (as has everybody, I'm sure), but I've found that those rarely influence my decisions. I've probably voted for teams without plans in framework debates more often than I've voted neg, and I've voted for the worst arguments I can imagine, even in close debates, if I thought framing arguments were won. While nobody can claim to be completely unbiased, I try very hard to let good debating speak for itself. That being said, I do have some general predispositions, which are listed below.

T-Theory

-I tend to err aff on T and neg on most theory arguments. By that, I mean that I think that the neg should win a good standard on T in order to win that the aff should lose, and I also believe that theory is usually a reason to reject the argument and not the team.

- Conditional advocacies are good, but making contradictory truth claims is different. However, I generally think these claims are less damaging to the aff than the "they made us debate against ourselves" claim would make it seem. The best 2ACs will find ways of exploiting bad 1NC strategy, which will undoubtedly yield better speaker points than a theory debate, even if the aff wins.

- I kind of feel like "reasonability" and "competing interpretations" have become meaningless terms that, while everybody knows how they conceptualize it, there are wildly different understandings. In my mind, the negative should have to prove that the affirmative interpretation is bad, not simply that the negative has a superior interpretation. I also don't think that's a very high standard for the negative to be held to, as many interpretations (especially on this space topic) will be hot fiery garbage.

- My view of debates outside of/critical of the resolution is also complicated. While my philosophy has always been very pro-plan reading in the past, I've found that aff teams are often better at explaining their impact turns than the neg is at winning an impact that makes sense. That being said, I think that it's hard for the aff to win these debates if the neg can either win that there is a topical version of the affirmative that minimizes the risk of the aff's impact turns, or a compelling reason why the aff is better read as a kritik on the negative. Obviously there are arguments that are solved by neither, and those are likely the best 2AC impact turns to read in front of me.

- "The aff was unpredictable so we couldn't prepare for it so you should assume it's false" isn't a good argument for framework and I don't think I've ever voted for it.

CPs

- I'm certainly a better judge for CP/DA debates than K v K debates. I particularly like strategic PICs and good 1NC strategies with a lot of options. I'd be willing to vote on consult/conditions, but I find permutation arguments about immediacy/plan-plus persuasive.

- I think the neg gets away with terrible CP solvency all the time. Affs should do a better job establishing what counts as a solvency card, or at least a solvency warrant. This is more difficult, however, when your aff's solvency evidence is really bad. - Absent a debate about what I should do, I will kick a counterplan for the neg and evaluate the aff v. the squo if the CP is bad/not competitive

- I don't think the 2NC needs to explain why severence/intrinsicness are bad, just win a link. They're bad.

- I don't think perms are ever a reason to reject the aff.

- I don't think illegitimate CPs are a reason to vote aff.

Disads

- Run them. Win them. There's not a whole lot to say.

- I'd probably vote on some sort of "fiat solves" argument on politics, but only if it was explained well.

- Teams that invest time in good, comparative impact calculus will be rewarded with more speaker points, and likely, will win the debate. "Disad/Case outweighs" isn't a warrant. Talk about your impacts, but also make sure you talk about your opponents impacts. "Economic collapse is real bad" isn't as persuasive as "economic collapse is faster and controls uniqueness for the aff's heg advantage".

Ks

- My general line has always been that "I get the K but am not well read in every literature". I've started to realize that that statement is A) true for just about everybody and B) entirely useless. It turns out that I've read, coached, and voted for Ks too often for me to say that. What I will say, however, is that I certainly focus my research and personal reading more on the policy side, but will generally make it pretty obvious if I have no idea what you're saying.

- Make sure you're doing link analysis to the plan. I find "their ev is about the status quo" arguments pretty persuasive with a permutation.

- Don't think that just because your impacts "occur on a different level" means you don't need to do impact calculus. A good way to get traction here is case defense. Most advantages are pretty silly and false, point that out with specific arguments about their internal links. It will always make the 2NR easier if you win that the aff is lying/wrong.

- I think the alt is the weakest part of the K, so make sure to answer solvency arguments and perms very well.

- If you're aff, and read a policy aff, don't mistake this as a sign that I'm just going to vote for you because I read mostly policy arguments. If you lose on the K, I'll vote neg. Remember, I already said I think your advantage is a lie. Prove me wrong.

Case

-Don't ignore it. Conceding an advantage on the neg is no different than conceding a disad on the aff. You should go to case in the 1NC, even if you just play defense. It will make the rest of the debate so much easier.

- If you plan to extend a K in the 2NR and use that to answer the case, be sure you're winning either a compelling epistemology argument or some sort of different ethical calculus. General indicts will lose to specific explanations of the aff absent either good 2NR analysis or extensions of case defense.

- 2As... I've become increasingly annoyed with 2ACs that pay lip service to the case without responding to specific arguments or extending evidence/warrants. Just reexplaining the advantage and moving on isn't sufficient to answer multiple levels of neg argumentation.

Paperless debate

I don't think you need to take prep time to flash your speech to your opponent, but it's also pretty obvious when you're stealing prep, so don't do it. If you want to use viewing computers, that's fine, but only having one is unacceptable. The neg needs to be able to split up your evidence for the block. It's especially bad if you want to view their speeches on your viewing computer too. Seriously, people need access to your evidence.

Clipping

I've decided enough debates on clipping in the last couple of years that I think it's worth putting a notice in my philosophy. If a tournament has reliable internet, I will insist on an email chain and will want to be on that email chain. I will, at times, follow along with the speech document and, as a result, am likely to catch clipping if it occurs. I'm a pretty non-confrontational person, so I'm unlikely to say anything about a missed short word at some point, but if I am confident that clipping has occurred, I will absolutely stop the debate and decide on it. I'll always give debaters the benefit of the doubt, and provide an opportunity to say where a card was marked, but I'm pretty confident of my ability to distinguish forgetting to say "mark the card" and clipping. I know that there is some difference of opinion on who's responsibility it is to bring about a clipping challenge, but I strongly feel that, if I know for certain that debaters are not reading all of their evidence, I have not only the ability but an obligation to call it out.

Other notes

- Really generic backfile arguments (Ashtar, wipeout, etc) won't lose you the round, but don't expect great speaks. I just think those arguments are really terrible, (I can't describe how much I hate wipeout debates) and bad for debate.

- Impact turn debates are awesome, but can get very messy. If you make the debate impossible to flow, I will not like you. Don't just read cards in the block, make comparisons about evidence quality and uniqueness claims. Impact turn debates are almost always won by the team that controls uniqueness and framing arguments, and that's a debate that should start in the 2AC.

Finally, here is a short list of general biases.

• The status quo should always be an option in the 2NR (Which doesn't necessarily mean that the neg get's infinite flex. If they read 3 contradictory positions, I can be persuaded that it was bad despite my predisposition towards conditionality. It does mean that I will, absent arguments against it, judge kick a counterplan and evaluate the case v the squo if the aff wins the cp is bad/not competitive)
• Warming is real and science is good (same argument, really)
• The aff gets to defend the implementation of the plan as offense against the K, and the neg gets to read the K
• Timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude 
• Predictable limits are key to both fairness and education
• Consult counterplans aren't competitive. Conditions is arguable.
• Rider DA links are not intrinsic
• Utilitarianism is a good way to evaluate impacts
• The aff should defend a topical plan
• Death and extinction are bad
• Uncooperative federalism is one of the worst counterplans I've ever seen

General Thoughts

- I'd like to be on the email chain, here's my email: 18229@jcpstudents.org

- Cross-x is open

- Flashing is not prep

- If it is not said in the debate then it is not in the debate (this means you shouldn't pic out of quals or read a kritik of quals if the other team did not say them)

- Be kind to each other, being sassy is cool but there is a difference between being sassy and being a jerk.

- Clarity and Clash are key, I can't evaluate an argument if I don't understand it and how it interacts with anything else. I'm pretty emotive during debates, so if you are paying attention to my facial expression (as you probably should be) you will be able to tell if I don't understand something or am not really persuaded by what you are saying.

- Evidence quality matters. I won't read every card after the debate but on particularly important issues I'll look over cards. Calling other people's horrible evidence out (quals, highlighting, etc.) and pushing yours is an easy way to beat a bad DA, CP, Advantage, etc. Y'all need to make these arguments though, even if the other teams evidence is garbage, if you don't call it out I'm not intervening. Also if I have to compare the warrants between evidence I will only use the warrants that are highlighted.

- Specificity will be rewarded. I know that the topic isn't great for the neg but a tailored strategy will probably win more than your generic Cap K or States and Politics debate. Both teams should always call out generic answers in front of me since I'll err to specifics 99% of the time as long as it makes sense, speaker points may also be raised if you go for a really specific strategy on the neg.

- If you read a K aff it should be related to the topic, otherwise you will have a hard time getting me to believe that you should be able to read it.

Case Arguments

- Both sides don't use this to their advantage enough, a robust case debate on the neg makes most anything easier - if an advantage has no defense at the end of the debate it will probably be harder for me to vote neg

- If an advantage is pretty contrived the neg only needs a couple of smart analytics and cards to beat it, I can probably tell it's silly so exploit that.

- If you run a framing contention don't expect that'll nullify a DA, apply it to the DA scenario to show why that war won't happen or why their util calc there is flawed.

Theory

- Please slow down. No really, I'm serious. You can't win a theory debate if I didn't catch your offense.

- I am not a fan of the states CP. If you do not have a specific solvency advocate I would NOT read it in front of me. That being said if the aff wants to win that 50 states is bad they have to have reasons how the neg will deal with small squirly affs.

- Probably ok: Condo, PIC's, Multiplank, Multiple Conditional Worlds

- Probably not so ok: Conditions, Process, Multiple Contradictory Worlds, Consult, Floating PIK, Word PIC's

Topicality/Framework

- Debate T like a DA, make specific links as to why the aff's bad for the topic and be concrete in your impacts, don't just say they "explode limits" or that they "hurt topic education," show why they do and give some examples. Affs, if y'all are impact turning framework make sure the link's pretty clear, don't just say framework is microfascist or antiblack and think you can get away with that.

- To help with the impact debate, I think caselists, TVA's, SSD, and places where they can access their education and stuff are really, really, REALLY helpful. Framework debates shouldn't be the only places where these are things and can go a long way for the neg, and the aff focusing on why that vision of the topic is bad with specific impacts can clench close debates.

- I think that predictability should be heavily emphasized in these debates, if one sides interp is pretty contrived and doesn't create great debates because of the literature base's focus that makes me lean towards the other easily. That also means that if it comes down to the precision of a definition vs. the debatability of a topic with that definition, debatability wins most times.

- Fairness/Competitive Equity is an impact and an internal link into things like clash and education since fair debates create the conditions for deep education and dialogue. Education's also an impact in itself, and both sides should be very clear on which should come first (if they're only going for one, that is.)

- I think that debate is fundamentally a game, however what the goal of that game is is up for debate. What I mean is that more critical affs can say that debate is a training ground for advocacy or testing methods which, for me, means that the aff is a net benefit to their counter-interp and can be weighed against Framework (since their counter-interp allows for this new methodology while the neg's doesn't)... or it can't, since Framework's a procedural argument and comes before the aff's content. IDK, I'm just saying there's a debate there and I'm fine judging it.

- I usually default to competing interpretations instead of reasonability, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Disads

- I think that while there's usually a risk of a DA, I definitely think there's zero risk of a DA and on bad politics DA's, among others, it will be pretty easy for me to be convinced that way.

- I'm not a fan of ptx DA's this year, so aff teams should take advantage of that and poke tons of holes in them with smart analytics; that being said, you do you, just make sure your story's clear and don't just read your uniqueness wall at me.

- Turns case analysis is super useful, even better is explaining how and why the DA impacts interact with the case (ex: don't just say "econ collapse = bad," say "econ collapse happens faster than the aff, controls the uniqueness for the aff and shortcircuits their solvency," that's worlds more persuasive).

Counterplans

- Should have solvency advocates, though not always (ex: if the aff proves solvency for the CP with their ev), highlight that for me so I don't think you made it up.

- Impacting solvency deficits out is important, even if you win the CP results in states losing resources or funding getting lost, unless I know why that's a reason the CP should be rejected or why that's substantially worse than the aff IDK why it matters. Similarly, I think the neg should make use of sufficiency framing coupled with a risk of a net benefit outweighing the impact to the solvency deficit to help out in these debates.

- CP's with internal net benefits that aren't DA's to the aff mean I give the aff more leeway on otherwise objectionable perms.

Kritiks

- Framework usually doesn't end up mattering much in these debates, the aff can usually weigh their impacts and the neg gets K's. To make it matter, comparative clash and impacts to your framework are key (ex: weighing the aff and it's use of institutions is good for competitive equity for XYZ reason and institutions are good for XYZ, don't weigh the aff because XYZ and that matters because XYZ, etc.). Defense to their framework is also helpful, and make sure to call out frameworks if their super self-serving, those usually won't win in front of me (ex: the ROJ is to reject capitalism, our interp is no K's allowed, etc.)

- Clear link narratives and internal link/alt explanations are key, I like K debates a lot but I will not understand all the nuances of your specific high theory author's view on whatever their talking about and how that relates to the aff. I hate jargon and that's just lazy, just like a 2 minute overview, which will dock your speaker points and muddle the debate up. Good K debates should involve clear explanations about what the aff specifically does which causes your impacts, what the alt does to remedy that, and examples of how the alt would look like for me to wrap my head around it. Getting quotes from the aff and reading super specific links is also super dope and will be rewarded.

- no but actually. Your overview should not be more than 30 seconds.

Jack Moore

Affiliation: 4 years at Jesuit Dallas, currently at Trinity University

2N Life

Email: mojack221.goo@gmail.com

Updated: 3/5/24

Round Procedure

- Send out the 1ac before start time, not after. The debate starts at start time.

- Send cards in a doc - not the body of the email

- Prep stops when docs are saved. Deleting Analytics is Prep. Don't send cards in the body of the email. If you do, I will make you take prep to put it in a document and send it.

- Respect your opponents and be nice to each other.

- Inserting Evidence: I'm conditionally fine with it. If it from a different part of the article that the other team hasn't cut, you must read it. If it's highlighting parts of the card that they just didn't underline or highlight, you don't have to read it IF you paraphrase or do the work to explain why the re-highlighting matters. BUT, if it's so important, you may as well read it because that's powerful

- Disclosure: new affs are good. Disclosure ought to happen, but it does not need to happen. Mis-disclosure is the only type of disclosure theory I will vote on and for that to happen I either need to have seen the mis-disclosure, which I probably won't OR both teams need to agree on what happened during CX or something.

- While I won't punish the lack of disclosure, I think generally keeping an updated wiki is good, so tell me if you have one and if you update it before my decision, I'll add a few points. If the wiki is down or some uncontrollable happens where that's not possible, I'll assume good faith.

Online Debates:

- if my camera is not on, I'm not ready

- please slow down.

- I'd encourage cameras to be on the whole debate, but obviously understand that's not always possible

- please get confirmation everyone is ready.

How I Go About Judging Debates

- I take judging very seriously and recognize the hard work you all put into it. Debate is not easy and sometimes it is very difficult to even show up to a tournament, much less debate your best every round. I do my best to keep a positive attitude and facilitate learning. You get my full attention during the debate and in the post round. I appreciated the judges and coaches who helped me grow as a debater by not just deciding the round, but also gave extensive feedback on how to improve. I strive to do the same.

- I'm not very expressive unless you say something absurd. I'm not really grumpy, that's just my face.

- Flowing:

- a) medium: I flow on paper 99% of the time. For me, that means I flow the debate and track it by the line by line. Even if you just speak "straight down" in overview fashion, I will still try to line things up to where I think that goes on the flow. It would benefit you to tell me either directly where you are going on the line by line OR tell me a different way to flow and give me plenty of pen/organization time.

- b) instrument: I prefer pen. G2 .38 or .5. I write a lot so slowing down is good

- Reading Evidence: I don't read evidence during the debate. I do not have the speech docs open during your speeches. I look at cards during prep if they are being disputed.

- Speed: Go for it. Clarity, Organization, and Pen Time are all essential to effective speed.

- Evidence quality > quantity. Part of this includes highlighting sentences/making your cards comprehensible. If I look at cards, I only look at the highlighting you read.

- Decisions: I start with important frames and judge instructions given by the 2nr/ar. I think through different ballots that could be given, exploring all possible victories for each team. I pick the one I think is most supported by the round.

- Trolls: If you've done the work to cut a lot of cards that at least have the illusion of quality and demonstrate how your argument interacts with the other teams in significant ways, I'm fine for you. If it's a terrible back file check or something that anyone could prep in 30 minutes, I'm not your judge and your points will suffer. It also helps if your argument has an impact instead of only trying to trigger presumption.

Fiscal Redistribution Thoughts

-This topic is great and you're lucky you get to debate it.

- single payer not topical

- When all things lead to the economy, differentiation, comparison, and interaction of the internal links is super helpful. Inflation pressures o/w government spending because XYZ warrants for example

- In terms of argument and evidence quality, the capitalism good-bad debate is one sided. If evenly debated, I’m probably going with cap bad.

The rest of the philosophy is mostly me rambling and heavily influenced by the explanation in any given round.

Case:

- It's underutilized - specific internal link and solvency arguments go a long way in front of me. Strategically, a good case press in the block and 2nr makes all substantive arguments better

- Impact turns are fantastic

Topicality:

- I evaluate Topicality like a CP and DA. You ought to do impact calc and have offense and defense to the other team’s stuff.

DA:

- I will vote on defense against a DA. There's probably always a risk, but that doesn't mean I care about such risk

- ev comparison or judge instruction about micro moments in the debate goes a long way for winning individual parts of a DA.

- I like good evidence that contains arguments. You should keep that in mind before going for politics.

- Most politics DAs end up sounding more like the political capital K to me, meaning they lack any specific internal link from an unpopular plan to an agenda item. I really hope the economic inequality topic fixes this issue, but I doubt it.

CP:

- For questionably competitive CPs, clarity on the difference between the aff and the cp, what words if any are being defined, and an organized presentation of why your standard is better are crucial. It would also be helpful to slow down on texts, perms, theory, the usual stuff. Blippy cards and analytics mixed with speed are the enemy of the flow.

- Solvency advocates that compare the CP to topic or plan mechanisms greatly help in winning competition and theory

- I don't judge kick unless instructed to in the 2nr. Debate to me is about choices and persuasion. So unless your choice in the 2nr explicitly includes the fail safe of judge kick, I'm not going to do it for you.

Theory:

- I don't think I lean heavily aff or neg.

- Conditionality is debatable. Quantitative interps don’t make sense to me. Condo is good or bad. Fun fact, dispositionality was originally used because it was in a thesaurus under the word conditionality. This is to say, if your interp is anything under than condo bad, I'm going to need you to unpack the terms for me.

- My default is to reject the argument for all things except conditionality. This shouldn't deter you from going for theory given rejecting a CP usually means the neg has little defense left in a debate.

K:

- Good K debating is good case debating. A good critique would explain why a core component of the 1ac is wrong or bad.

- The link is the most important part of the debate. Be specific, pull 1AC lines, say what you are disagreeing with, give examples, etc. Explain why winning the thesis takes out specific parts of the solvency or internal link chain. More link debating is my number one comment to teams going for the K.

- Framework needs a purpose and that purpose should be communicated to me. Affirmatives often go for arguments about links to the plan or weighing the impact, when the neg agrees. Make sure you explain how your fw arguments explain how I evaluate the link, impact, alt, solvency, whatever. It should be explicit how winning framework changes the debate. I’m more persuaded when framework is explained as impact prioritization.

- Defend things. The neg should have a clear disagreement with the aff. The aff should defend the core assumptions of the aff. If you're reading an aff that defends US hegemony, going for super specific internal literature indicts against a settler colonialism K won't help you. A defense of IR scholarship, realism, impact prioritization, and alt indicts might.

- I don't care for alts.

- Perms against pessimism Ks, absent some specific perm card, have generally been unpersuasive to me.

K affs:

- Go for it. They should have some connection to the topic and some statement of advocacy. If you can read your aff on every topic without changing cards or tags, I’ll enjoy the debate less, but it's your debate, not mine.

- Role of the ballot means nothing to me and often a substitute for judge instruction

- Presumption questions are usually just questions of framework and the value the aff's model provides. Neg teams spend way too much time asking questions about ballot spill up or the debate round changing the world. We all agree fiat illusory is a bad argument in a policy prescription model of debate. Why is it all of the sudden good now? Your time is much better served explaining how the aff's model of debate is counterproductive to its benefits. In other words, answer the should not would question.

- Aff teams should critique presumption in favor of the status quo.

Framework/T USFG

- Framework debates are important because they force us to question fundamental assumptions and norms of the activity. It's about models of debate. Convince me yours is good and theirs is bad.

- I'm open to most impacts to framework. I judge them like most debates where I compare the aff's offense to the neg's offense, defense, and framing arguments from 2nr and 2ar. I have voted for and against all the common impacts for T-USFG/traditional FW (procedural fairness, clash, topic mechanism education, agonistic democracy, advocacy skills, etc).

- I'm not the biggest fan of aff strategy's vs T that exclusively rely on the impact turn. It's a really hard sell that the idea of a topic for debate shouldn't be a thing. I think the impact turns are more persuasive if the neg is exclusively going for fairness or it's a game with no other value. However, if the neg has a coherent defense of clash, negation, or research over a limited topic plus defense against the impact turn, I'm likely to be persuaded by the T strategy.

- The inverse of this is that when the aff has a counter interpretation that defines resolution words in creative ways, I find it very hard for the negative to win much offense. I'm much more persuaded by an argument that says singular interpretation of the topic as mandating simulated federal government policy are unpredictable and bad than I am by the argument we should throw away the topic because it can be read in a singular way.

Speaker Points:

- a bit arbitrary, but I'll start at 28.5 and go up and down based on the round

- factors I consider: smart arguments, strategic choice, and organization are the biggest factors in determining speaker points

Email: oliviapanchal@gmail.com
High School Debate: Heritage Hall School (OK)
College Debate: University of Southern California (2017)

The following are just MY thoughts on policy debate. In general, you should do what you are comfortable with– this will make the debate better for both of us.

T/Theory:
–you must have a counter-interpretation
–you must have terminal impacts like you would for any DA (your standards are not your impacts, they are internal links to greater skills that are integral to debate)
–I will typically default to competing interpretations over reasonability

Disads:
–case-specific links will only help you
–strong/creative DA turns case/case turns DA arguments are most convincing to me
–impact calculus is very important, but it's more than just magnitude and probability. I am much more convinced by arguments that prove how the DA impacts interact with the case (see above point)

Counterplans:
–I will kick the cp for you if told to do so
–you must have a solvency advocate
–CP's that compete off the mandate of the plan and use the same actor are legitimate
–I am not opposed to questionably legitimate CP's, in fact, I kind of like them. However, the aff can easily beat them with a WELL-DEVELOPED AND IMPACTED theory argument

K's:
–I am not the best person to read high-theory, obscure K's in front of. I am not well versed in the literature and you'll have to do an exceptional job explaining your argument. However, that does not mean I will never vote on the K.
–The K does need a specific link to the aff and more importantly, the neg needs to talk about the aff in terms of the K. THIS IS SO IMPORTANT.

Other thoughts:
–dropped arguments are true arguments
–I don't take prep for flashing
–the last 2 rebuttals should not be a reiteration of the debate so far, but rather you should be telling me what you need to win to win this round and CLOSING DOORS. too often the final rebuttals are just two ships passing in the night, which means I have to resolve things on my own. this will not make you or me happy
–over everything... have fun, be nice, and learn stuff

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. Fight on!

This is my twenty sixth year as an active member of the policy debate community. After debating in both high school and college I immediately jumped into coaching high school policy debate. I have been an argument coach, full time debate instructor, program director, and argument coach again for Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart in Miami, FL for the past seventeen years.

I become more convinced every year that the switch side nature of policy debate represents one of the most valuable tools to inoculate young people against dogmatism. I also believe the skills developed in policy debate – formulating positions using in depth research that privileges consensus, expertise, and data and the testing of those positions via multiple iterations—enhance students’ ability to think critically.

I am particularly fond of policy debate as the competitive aspect incentivizes students to keep abreast of current events and use that information to formulate opinions regarding how various levels of government should respond to societal needs.

Equipping students with the skills to meaningfully engage political institutions has been incredibly valuable for me. Many of my debate students have been Latina/Latinx. Witnessing them develop an expert ability to navigate institutions, that were by design obfuscated to ensure their exclusion, continues to be one of the most rewarding experiences of my life and I am constantly grateful for that privilege.

I am deeply concerned by the ongoing trend toward clash avoidance. This practice makes debate seem more trivial each year and continues to denigrate our efforts in the eyes of the academics we depend on for funding and support.

Affirmatives continue to lean into vague plan writing and vague explanations of what they will defend. This makes for late breaking and poorly developed debates. I understand why students engage in these practices (the competitive incentive I lauded above) I wish instructors and coaches understood how much more meaningful their contributions would be if they empowered students to embrace clash over gimmicks.

I will be less persuaded by your delivery if you choose to engage in clash avoidance. Actions such as deleting analytics, refusal to specify plans, cps, and K alts, allowing your wiki to atrophy, and proliferating stale competition style and Intrinsicness arguments will result in my awarding fewer speaker points.

Remember your friends’ hot takes and even your young coaches/lab leaders’ hot takes are just that – they are likely not the debates most of your critics want to adjudicate.

If you are not flowing during the debate, it will be difficult to persuade me that you were the most skilled debater in the room.

Be “on deck.” By that I mean be warmed up and ready for your turn at bat. Have your table tote set up, the email thread ready, you pens/paper/timer out, your laptop charged, go to the restroom before the round, fill up your water bottle, etc. I don’t say all this to sound like a mean teacher – in fact I think it would be incredibly ableist to really harp on these things or refuse to let students use the facilities mid-round – but being ready helps the round proceed on time and keeps you in the zone which helps your ability to project a confident winning persona. It also demonstrates a consideration for me, your opponents, your coaches and teammates and the tournament staffs’ time.

Be kind and generous to everyone.

You can likely deduce most of this from the discussion of clash avoidance and why I value debate above.

I would prefer to see a debate wherein the affirmative defends the USFG should increase security cooperation with the NATO over AI, Biotech, and/or cybersecurity.

I would like to see the negative rejoin with hypothetical disadvantages to enacting the plan as well as introducing competing proposals for resolving the harms outlined by the affirmative.

One of the more depressing impacts to enrolling in graduate school has been the constant reminder that in truth impact d is >>> than impact ev. A few years ago, I was increasingly frustrated by teams only extending a DA and impact defense vs. the case – I thought this was responsible for a trend of fewer and fewer affirmatives with intrinsic advantages. I made a big push for spending at least 50% of the time on each case flow vs the internal link of the advantage. My opinion on this point is changing. Getting good at impact defense is tremendously valuable – you are likely examining peer reviewed highly qualified publications and their debunking of well…less than qualified publications.

I find Climate to be one of the most strategic and persuasive impacts in debate (life really). That said, most mechanisms to resolve climate presented in debates are woefully inadequate.

I am not averse to any genre of argument. Every genre has highs and lows. For example, not all kritiks are generic or have cheating alternatives, not all process counterplans are unrelated to the topic, and not all politics disadvantages are missing fundamental components but sometimes they are and you should work to avoid those deficiencies.

The folks with whom I see debate similarly:

Maggie Berthiaume

Dr. Brett Bricker

Anna Dimitrijevic

David Heidt

Fran Swanson

General:

Tech>Truth

Be clear, don't go fast if you're not fast

I debate for St. Mark's so I'm quite policy

Read a plan

Attempt some form of line by line

T

Go for T if you want, fine with me

I default to reasonability

Disads

Love disad debates, this is the debate I prefer to be judging

Impact calc wins debates

If you're not going for a CP you probably should spend some time on framing

CP's

2 condo/less is fine, any more and you're probably pushing the boundary

I won't judge kick until told to do so

Have a clear net benefit

I love multiplank CP's

I default neg on most theory questions, but I will vote aff if something is either egregious or explained well

K's

Not familiar with the K lit

Explain arguments well

Do specific link work

Woodward 19’

Email chain: 19malrobinson@woodward.edu

General:

Respect your opponents. Passion and enthusiastic argumentation do not require aggression or insult.

Strategies dependent on confusion or evasion are much less persuasive than those that engage with and defeat the other team’s arguments. That said, don't drop arguments. If you do early on, explain why those concessions don't matter

There is frequently zero risk of both advantages and disadvantages.

T: I am a pretty big fan of T on this topic, especially T substantial. If you want to win my ballot, paint a picture of what your vision of the topic is and what happens in debates on it, which matters much more to me than conceeded generic blips and buzzwords.

CPs: Almost all are legitimate if there is a solvency advocate as specific as the affirmative’s. Evidence-Based PICs are good. Conditionality is good absent contradictions. If the affirmative is new, i'm much more lenient when evaluating neg schenanigans

FW: I believe that the affirmative should defend a topical plan. The most important question for me in these debates is the role of the negative and neg ground. Therefore, some anti-topical affirmatives that don’t permute defenses of the resolution are potentially persuasive.

Ks: Well impacted case-specific link analysis always beats broad claims or tricks. Going for less is more. Defend an alternative unless you can either win the plan is worse than the status quo or actually does not solve, and I mean with case defense. I am most familiar with critiques of capitalism and settler colonialism, but also understand most other generic Ks decently, escpecially critiques of anti-blackness. I do not like high theory. If you read deleuze you will likely lose.

Updated: 10/3/23

I debated for the University of Oklahoma for a year, and I have been involved in the activity (to a lesser extent recently) for a total of 7 years now.

=

=

One of my biggest things is being flexible ideologically, so I actively suppress any pre-existing bias toward or against K Affs or Affs with Plans. I like both formats and have used both formats. Do what you do, and do it well.

Add me to the email chain please: (drcaddodebate@gmail.com). Feel free to email me with questions after the round.

-

-

-

TL:DR - I'll vote on any argument whether it's five minutes of heg bad (or good) in the 1NR or a well executed framing argument in the last ten seconds of the 2AR. Write the ballot for me and explain what you think the nexus question of the debate is, and why you best answer that question. My default role is tabula rosa, followed by adjudicator. If you believe I should also be an educator or policymaker, etc., explain why.

-

My own reservations concerning specific arguments:

Framework:I think that every team should have some position on framework whether they have a plan or not. Fundamentally, it is a "debate about debate"; and since you're a part of the activity, you should have several ideas about what it means to affirm a resolution.

K's: I read the K in college, so I am familiar with a lot of the literature. Framework is very important.

CP's: Well-thought out counterplan strategies are awesome.

DA's: Well-structured, contextual disads are great. I find the link debate to be most important.

T: T is T. Don't drop it. I am new to the topic, so I probably won’t have any bias to follow the community consensus on topicality.

Theory: Once upon a time, I read A-Spec.

Condo: I like condo debates.

I would like to be on the email chain: dsavill@snu.edu

Director of Debate for Southern Nazarene University since 2021 and former coach of Crossings Christian School from 2011 to 2023.

Things you need to know for prefs:

Kritiks: Very familiar with kritiks and non-topical affs. I like kritiks and K affs and can vote for them.

Policy: I am familiar with policy debates and can judge those. My squad is designed to be flex so I am good with either.

Speed: I can handle any kind of speed as long as you are clear.

Theory/FW/T: I am not a fan of FW-only debates so if you are neg and hit a non-topical aff I will entertain FW but that shouldn't be your only off-case. Contesting theory of power is a good strat for me.

Performance/non-traditional debate: Despite what some would think coming from a Christian school, I actually like these kinds of debates and have voted up many teams.

I try to be a tab judge but I know I tend to vote on more technical prowess. I believe debate should be a fun and respectful activity and I try to have a good time judging the round. I think debaters are among the smartest students in the nation and I always find it a privilege to judge a round and give feedback.

Wheeler Sears

St. Mark's '19

Last updated 5/3/2019

Email chain: wheelersears@gmail.com

Two minutes before the debate:

- tech > truth

- read a plan

- evidence + pre-prepared strategies win debates

- be clear

- prefer policy debates but K's are fine I guess (specifics down below)

- theory questions are all down below

Immigration Specific:

- parole + nonenforcement are awesome, utilize them

- I won't vote aff on "this disad is racist so you should reject it"--just beat the disad

Disads:

- The more specific the better

- Evidence quality matters

- UQ can control the link and vice versa, it depends on the debating

- Smart turns case arguments are good--this is more along the lines of "our internal link turns theirs" rather than "our impact means we can't do their impact"--the latter typically requires winning a large risk of the disad as well as a large risk of your impact

- 2AR's that sit on one or two issues are typically much better than the the 2AR's that try to win every issue and spend less time on each

- politics is good

Counterplans:

- A well-researched counterplan with a clear net benefit is awesome and typically where I can tell you've done research and will reward you with better speaks

- 2AR deficits should consist of two things--1. what the aff does that the counterplan doesn't and 2. why that matters--#2 seems like the argument that many 2AR's seem to forget

- won't judge kick unless told otherwise

Theory:

All of the below theory preferences are purely preferences and can change depending on debating or the quality of evidence but they are preferences nonetheless that effect how I will evaluate a debate

Condo is the only reason to reject the team

- Counterplans that compete off of immediacy/certainty and/or could result in the plan (process, consult, conditions etc.) are probably bad

- States theory is 50/50--I probably lean neg but it's really up for debate

- Multi actor fiat is fine unless you fiat multiple levels of government (ie fiatting multiple government agencies is legit but fiatting a government agency + the states is abusive)

- Lack of solvency advocate is a question of solvency, not theory

- international fiat is fine

- PICs are good

- New 2NC CP's and CP Amendments are typically fine

- Aff leaning on condo but it's close--honestly probably would like to see one of these debates more than most judges

Kritiks:

- I'm familiar with the "policy" K's like neolib/security but beyond that you're going to need to explain your arguments a good amount--If I don't understand your argument, I will vote aff

- link specificity matters--links that are highly contextualized to the aff are much better than buzzwords that don't mean anything

- I'm much more likely to be receptive to K's that clash with the substance of the 1AC

- F/W is a non-starter

- Overall I'm probably just terrible for the K so you'd be better off going for something else

K affs:

I will vote neg—you’re cheating

Topicality:

- if possible, don't go for T--it's boring

- Reasonability = yes

Speaks:

If you make smart arguments and have a well prepared strategy with good evidence you should be fine

Being unclear will definitely hurt your speaks

General Tips

- I will vote on almost anything if you debate it well enough. Read what you feel comfortable with.

- A dropped argument is a true argument, but you still need to explain why that argument is important.

- Clarity comes first. If I can't understand what you're saying, I won't write it down. If my pen stops moving during your speech it's a bad sign.

- Everything results in extinction anyways, so make sure you're doing good impact comparison probability-wise.

- Please be polite and professional. I will dock speaks for rudeness and disorganization.

- Good evidence is good, but spin is more fun :) Just don't flat-out lie because I will catch you.

- Humor gets you points for style but won't affect my decision.

Case

Underrated imo. Debate the case like you would any other flow. That means making good arguments and responding to your opponents. A well-debate case can swing the round either way. The aff will usually have better solvency evidence but the neg can beat it with smart analytics. Take out the weakest internal links!

I don't care much for philosophical framing debates. Just tell me why structural violence should outweigh a small chance of a disad or why extinction comes first.

T/Theory

Good as a tool for taking down tricky, borderline-topical affs. Bad as an A-strat. That said, reasonability will not always save you.

K Affs- Debate 👏 is 👏 a 👏 game. I think deliberately avoiding the topic is unfair. That's not a free win for the negative, though. Both sides need to fully explain the value of their position.

DA

My personal favorite part of debate.

Every disad is different so I can't say much other than UQ, L, I. You're gonna want to win all three. In the end, the 2nr will have to tell a story, so specificity and coherence tend to beat sweeping aff args.

CP

My second favorite part of debate. A clever counterplan that solves the case will win my ballot. The affirmative will need to win that the risk of a solvency deficit outweighs the risk of the net benefit to beat any counterplan.

Solvency advocate theory's a loser, but not having evidence makes solvency deficits more enticing.

50 state fiat theory's not great. I will allow it but whether the negative gets uniformity is up for debate.

I will judge kick if you tell me to.

Good: smart and creative PICs

Bad: Multi-actor, future fiat, consult

PS- speak boost to whomever first compliments my Supreme sticker; gotta do your pre-round prep, kids.

K

I understand most kritics, but the negative should still slow down in the overview to explain the thesis. Random buzz words and K-tricks will not cut it.

Specific links will beat the perm. Co-option disads won't.

I will usually lean aff on framework. "Vote for whichever team best heuristically examines capitalistic epistemology" is not fair.

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

St. Mark’s '19 (Senior-2a)

Put me on the email chain: 19vallejod@gmail.com

General Comments

Tech>Truth

I will read evidence if a team asks me to after the round, but I will default to in-round explanation over my own interpretation of the evidence

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

Clarity is important -- I will yell "clear" if I cannot understand your speech

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

Things I will intervene on: death good, behavior meant to harass opponents, violation of tournament rules

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

Debating Planless Affs

I find myself very persuaded by topicality - whenever I debate a planless aff, my strategy is 1-off topicality.

Fairness is obviously an impact, and it is the most important impact.

The ballot doesn't do anything besides determine a winner and loser, but it can remedy the harms of a fairness violation

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

FYI: I find myself highly illiterate in high-theory kritiks

Topicality v affs that read a plan

I like these debates when they are grounded in evidence with intent to define.

A more limited topic isn't always the best thing ever.

Impact calculus is especially important in these debates - debate T like you would a disadvantage.

I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.

Disadvantages

Great. Turns case is helpful and wins debates. Zero risk is definitely a thing.

Politics disads - most are pretty weak this year, but I have gone for them pretty much every debate anyway.

I tend to think uniqueness controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded otherwise

Counterplans

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

PICs out of the plan are good, executive self-restraint is good, and most other stuff (consult, delay, word pics, and miscellaneous process stuff) is probably bad.

If the 2nc/1nr adds a plank or otherwise amends the counterplan in a way that drastically changes what the counterplan does, the 1ar gets new answers.

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

For this topic, a counterplan should almost always be in the 2nr if going for a policy strategy, especially vs. soft-left/inequality affs.

Ks

Specificity is a must.

The more you talk about the 1ac (and preferably the plan), the better. Links should prove the plan is bad, not that the plan is imperfect. I think that the aff team should get to weigh their impacts.

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

FYI: I find myself highly illiterate in high-theory kritiks.

Debating the Case

Many negative teams forget to debate the aff's advantages. This makes the debate much harder to win.

Please do not insert more offcase at the expense of case defense. The best debates always have a large pushback on case.

Aff teams should be wary of using "framing" as a crutch

Other stuff

I'm a fan of "inserting" the opposing team's evidence into the debate, because it punishes teams for reading trash evidence. If you re-highlight a card and explain what that re-highlighting says, then that is enough for me (you don't have to explicitly re-read it).

There are impacts besides extinction that matter. That said, I would much rather you debate the specifics of a disad rather than use your framing contention as a crutch. I really don't like the Cohn card + the "insert your own skepticism about disads into the debate" framing. Think of framing as a way to enhance your no-link argument, not as a replacement for it.

Conditionality is good, to a point -- your odds of winning conditionality bad increase as the negative does more of the following: introducing contradictory arguments into the debate, making explicit cross-applications off of contradictory arguments, 3+ condo

I really, really don't like aff vagueness. At the very least, defend your stuff in CX.

CX is binding for both the affirmative and negative. If you say you fiat something in CX, I'll hold you to it, even if your plan or counterplan text doesn't explicitly say it.

I will not, under any circumstances, evaluate something that happened outside of the debate round when making my decision

If you intentionally interrupt your opponent's speech, I will tank your speaks the first time, and if you do it again you will lose

Zero tolerance for any attacks on your opponent's character, appearance, or anything else - I don't care who you are or what your argument is

Ethics challenge ends the debate - default to tournament rules for clipping, etc

I debated for Loyola High School for 4 years (policy), Wake Forest University for a semester (policy), and El Camino College for two years (parli). I now coach PF at the Harker School.

I've debated both traditional and nontraditional forms of debate. There really isn't an argument that I won't hear. I have a higher threshold for theory, and rarely vote on potential abuse. But beyond that I do not have any serious predisposition to any arguments you read. Or at least I shouldn't... Blatantly offensive arguments, like impact turning racism or etc, probably will lose you the round though. Just be smart.

Speaker point break down - I'm pretty fair about speaker points (though I don't think there will be a judge who will tell you they aren't fair about speaker points) but I'm quick to catch on to things on general impoliteness vs sass (love sass). Just be a good person and speak well etc etc. Y'all should be mature enough to know what that means.

PF -- "paraphrasing" your evidence is not evidence and will result in a loss.

Hey there, my name is Kat Wang and I am a policy debater from LASA HS in Austin, TX.

Please put me on email chain. My email is katewang08@gmail.com (katewang08 at gmail dot com).

I'm a high schooler - good luck. Don't be mean.

St. Mark’s '19

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

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

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

Clarity>everything else.

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

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

Debating Planless Affs

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

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

Fairness is obviously an impact.

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

Topicality v affs that read a plan

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

Disads

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

Counterplans

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

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

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

Ks

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

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

Background
I debated (policy) for four years in high school, for South Eugene High School in Eugene, OR and for a year at Harvard (NDT). But, all of this was close to 30 years ago. My daughter has now started debating, so I am just getting back into it. This has three relevant implications: (1) I’m not at typical parent/lay judge—I once knew what I was doing, and remember much of it, at least to some degree; (2) I’m rusty—I don’t (at least, for now) flow quite as fast as I use to, nor is my ear for spreading as good as it once was; (3) my debate knowledge is mostly from the 1980s—I know what a kritik is, but I’m not experienced with them, and there may be other terminology that has changed and I’m not aware of.
General Judging Philosophy
I try to be (what we use to call) tabula rasa as much as I can be. We all have biases in the way we interpret arguments, but I will do my best to listen to any argument you make and evaluate it solely on the merits of your arguments and the responses even if I think it is crazy (or obviously correct). So, you should feel free to make any argument and should not think you can simply call an argument stupid and win on that (to take what I understand to be an extreme example today, I am open to RVI arguments on T, but also to the claim that making an RVI argument should be a VI against as well).
While my objective is to be tabula rasa, I will say that I would prefer a policy focused debate to a kritik focused one. I will try not to let that influence my evaluation of the arguments as best I can, however. In some of the few recent debates I’ve seen, some kritiks (like cap) ended up looking (to me) very similar to some of the cps we ran in my day (like socialism or anarchy). That would constitute a policy debate in my book.
Tactical Considerations
Spreading—I have no bias against it (I was quite fast long ago). But since I am rusty, you want to make sure the argument gets on my flow. Remember not only am I a bit rusty, but I haven’t heard many of these cards or arguments before (or not for a long time), and that also makes it a little harder to flow. Some ways to make sure my flow has on it what you want on it:

• Be extra clear on the tag line and cite.
• If there is particularly important language in a card, emphasize it for me.
• Number all your arguments. That makes it really clear when a new argument that needs to flowed separately starts.
• When you refer to your opponent’s argument, don’t just give me the name and date of their card, I might not have gotten it down. Refer to it by substance
• Go a little slower on the analytics than on the cards. I can call for the card after the round, but not the analytic.

Evidence comparison—I’m very receptive to critiques of the sources, evidence in the card, or the interpretation of the card. This can often be a much faster way to defeat an argument than to read 5 more of your own cards. It is far from inconceivable that you could convince me that your one card (potentially even no cards, just analytics) are more compelling than their 5 or 10 cards.

Kritiks—If it is a more novel kritik (e.g., not cap) that might not be similar to anything that anyone ran 30 years ago, you will have to spend a little more time explaining it to me than someone who has been judging debates recently. I won’t know the jargon and won’t have heard the argument before. Make sure I understand it.

What makes a good debate for me
Explain to me why, despite all the cards and arguments your opponent read, your arguments should prevail. The more you can create a (convincing) story that takes into account what the opponent says and still suggests you should win, the better off you'll be. This is true for individual arguments and for the debate as a whole. For an individual argument, ways you might do this include (but are not limited to):

• Evidence quality comparison--some possible examples: (i) our evidence is from peer-reviewed journals or more respected scholars, theirs is from unreviewed blogs or unknown people; (ii) our evidence is based on well-done empirical studies or is historically validated, theirs is just unsupported opinion; (iii) our evidence is more recent and (this is the critical step) the conditions have changed in some important way since theirs was written; (iv) our evidence explains why its conclusions are true, theirs just asserts it.
• Evidence relevance comparison: (i) Their cards don't really say what the tag says; (ii) The unhighlighed part of the card suggests the a somewhat different claim; (iii) Their cards are referring to a somewhat different situation or set of conditions; (iv) their cards don't consider some aspect of our plan or counterplan that undermines the argument.
• Evidence aggregation: I just made this term up (I think). What it means to me is that you can tell a story that says even if their cards are right, you have an explanation for why you win this argument anyway because of some other factor that their cards don't properly take into account but that you show is very important. This could be a time frame argument, a different mechanism or actor deals with this issue argument, a probability argument.

For the whole debate, ways you might do this are:

• We are winning argument X, this trumps every other argument because of Y.
• The impacts on the arguments we are winning are bigger
• Our extinction scenario happens first
• We have many different extinction scenarios that are independent, even if each one is less likely than their one, the probability that none of them will occur is way smaller
• Our impacts are supported by stronger arguments/better evidence than theirs, so you should view them as more plausible

The main point of all this is to say, feed me the explanation that you want me to give after the debate when I say why I voted the way I did. I'm going to have to give a good reason for why I voted for you despite the fact that your opponents made a number of good arguments. Don't make me come up with that myself because I might not aggregate the issues and evidence the way you want me to unless you explain to me how to do it in a sensible way in your favor.

--- NDCA 2022 update: I haven't thought much about debate since high school ('18). The majority of the below will still hold true, but I'm guessing I'll probably think through debates a bit less through a purely technical lens (than I would have in HS) and a bit more through the lens of argument/evidence quality instead. I also haven't judged a debate in the Zoom era before, so pls be patient with me and make an extra effort to be clear :)

---

Put me on the email chain: 18wilsonh@gmail.com as well as smdebatedocs@gmail.com

Things you should know:

- Assume no topic knowledge -- I don't follow the HS topic; explain acronyms, don't depend on the "community opinion" of an argument, over-explain complex args and do good high-lvl framing

- Tech is top priority, but good evidence is right below that -- cards need to meet a basic threshold of quality for them to mean anything anyway

- Link/overall strategy specificity matters a lot, but is obviously difficult on every topic -- again, technical superiority almost always wins debates, but specific strategies lower the bar

I went to St. Mark's and primarily was a DA/CP debater. For better or worse, I believe the following are important: fairness, speech clarity, case debating, and explanation

Thoughts on specific arguments:

Counterplans: great, specificity is better, advantage/states are fine, process is yucky, condo is fine without ideological inconsistencies

Disads: link magnitude is mort important, good 2nr framing wins debates, turns case args are lovely

T and Theory: when it's clearly an issue / abusive, go for it; otherwise, I'm pretty lenient

Kritiks: Not my favorite -- please thoroughly explain link/impact arguments, minimize the use of sweeping assertions, explain alternatives, use good high-level framing

Framework: makes the game work. Not a great judge for non-topical affs