No spreading. I prefer minimal framework/weighing mechanism debate. Please hit all opponent's points and refute with EVIDENCE. For PF, bring in new evidence in your rebuttal. Finish strong no matter what. Impacts, impacts, impacts. Speaks are key. No spreading!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! For Congress, a clear outline and organization is key. Without proper organization, speaks will suffer. No spreading.

Frequent Congressional Judge. Be unique with your content instead of repeating over and over again. Use crystallization in your speeches near the end of the bill.

Experience:

Public Forum & World Schools: 2015-2018.

College IPDA

General:

1. Signpost, weigh, voters.

2. Be as fast as you want, but if I stop flowing know you are unclear.

3. Don’t be homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in anyway. Be respectful to your opponent and judge.

4. If you have any questions feel free to email me at branchka2@gmail.com

Hey dudes I'm Jillian

I did debate for three years, 1 year was novice policy at Bentonville HS, and two years were at Bentonville West doing LD. I have won local tournaments, competed at national ones, and was 1st Alt for Nationals last year in LD. Also, I understand all formats so please don't try to trick me because I will know lol.

In terms of LD and PF, I am pretty laid back because I expect you to do the work for me. (aka a flow judge) I would like all arguments to be as flushed out as possible, and I will try my very hardest not to make assumptions or fill in any blanks in someones argument because I see that as unfair. However, you cannot just make unseemly claims and expect me to buy them, especially if they are in any way racist or sexist. (I will for sure vote you down if you are being intentional.)

On the flow, if you drop something, and the other person points out that a) you dropped it and b)why that matters, you will lose that argument. However, if they do not point it out and it goes uncontested, the last argument is the one I will consider at the end. Framework is important because for LD- it is based on values, and PF, it is critical in order to evaluate impacts, but honestly I like case debates so much better. That being said, you cannot win the round if you lose framework.

People should not get below 25 speaker points with me, unless you are extremely triggering or if you concede the round. Also, speed is cool with me because I definitely spoke too fast for most judges but just be as clear as possible, and if I need to I will just ask for evidence or clarification after the speech.

Good luck and have fun!!!!!

I debated in high school for three years and competed at National tournaments as well as NSDA Nationals last year. I mainly competed in Public Forum and Congress but I also did a year of policy so I like progressive arguments. I am however a flow judge so I vote off the arguments carried throughout the flow. I do like a good Framework debate in Public Forum but impact cal should be more emphasized. I am good with speed please don't spread in public forum and if you are unclear it will not make it on the flow. Voters are very important to me in the last speeches in Public Forum as well. Make sure you're cordial this is debate and its for fun please be nice because this effects your speaker points.

I hope it's a good debate!

Experience:

I debated four years in high school

I don't debate in College

Short Version:

I will vote for pretty much any type of argument should you go for it. It's your job to not only build your offense but to also frame it in a way that makes me feel compelled enough to vote for it. What I outline below is just my perceptions when it comes to different argument types

Non-traditional Affs:

I don't care what you read - my only requirement is that it relates to the topic.

Framework:

I find it really hard to vote for a framework interpretation that does not include the education that the affirmative provides. Things like "Topical Version of the Aff" goa long way in making me feel more inclined to vote for Framework.

I tend to vote on framework when teams do a good job of depicting the model of debate under their interpretation. Spend less time isolating specific arguments you weren't able to read and more time explaining why they are important enough to make your interpretation of debate preferable.

Role of the Ballot shouldn't be self-serving. Provide evidence as to why I should vote a certain way when analyzing your arguments.

Pet Peeve: I generally despise when framework debates get into a discussion of "which interpretation is better for small schools". Structural disparities will exist in debate regardless of how limited the resolution is. That being said, I will still analyze this argument but its not one that I feel great about deciding a debate on.

Topicality:

Most of the stuff written above on framework applies here.

Obviously show why your interpretation is not cohesive with the aff's. Similar with what I wrote on the framework stuff above, teams that create a big picture reason as to why their interpretation is better for debate have a better chance of winning rather than those who only point out the arguments they weren't able to read in round.

Theory:

Don't have your theory argument be a once sentence blip in the middle of a flow that you try to blow up in later speeches.

I generally don't tend to vote on theory unless there's a specific case of in-round abuse.

DAs:

Nothing major here - your research should influence how strong your uniqueness and link warrants are. The more specific the DA to the aff, the better.

Good impact work goes a long way. Having a CP that solves the DAs impacts helps, but I have no problem voting for a DA by itself.

CPs:

Permutation debate is what I look at first when deciding whether or not to vote neg.

Similar to DAs - the more specific a CP is in terms of being an alternative to the aff, the better.

Don't run Consult Counterplans if you want my ballot.

Ks:

While I have experience with these arguments - I've been out of the game for a while. I'm open to the arguments you read, but don't expect me to understand buzzwords or concepts that aren't articulated beyond rereading your evidence. Explain in your own words and contextualize your arguments to the affirmative.

The impact is usually what prevents me from voting neg - isolate a unique reason why voting aff contributes to your impacts in a way that makes me vote for the alt.

Speaking of the alt, explain how rejecting the aff relates. Otherwise I find it hard to not vote on the permutation

I have a soft spot for affirmative teams that double-down on the policy benefits of their affirmative when answering the K. If the neg is not able to do enough work framing why I should prefer the criticism then its hard for me to reject a policy that can win by simply being a good idea.

I am a former debater in the state of Arkansas. I did debate for three years and am familiar with all of the styles, however i most recently did public forum and world schools an am more accustomed to the nuances of those styles. That being said, i still know what is going on and personally i am okay with speed as long as i can understand you. I will flow and if they allow me i will give an RFD and decision at the end of the round. From a argumentation perspective: i will follow your argument and listen as long as you don't drop it. DROPS ARE MY BIGGEST PET PEEVE and don't just say that you talked about it and expect me to believe you, trust me i'm keeping track. Also i understand passion but aggression and rudeness don't belong here. ANYWAY debate well and have fun! my email is mylesndavid@gmail.com feel free to ask questions :)

I'll tell you in the round.

Background

First, and most importantly, I am a Black man. I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge. Summer '22 I chaired the Wording Committee for NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection; do with this information what you want.

Include me on all email chains, at bothcgdebate1906@gmail.comandlrchdebatedocs@gmail.com,please and thank you

Randoms

I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole

I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just run them.

I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim. I flow on a computer so I need typing time. Your speed will always outpace my ability to type; please be conscious of this.

Intentionally saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me. That being said, I’m sure most people would prefer to win straight up and not because a person was rhetorically problematic, in round.

Update for Online Debate

Asking "is anyone not ready" before an online speech an excise in futility; if someone's computer is glitching they have no way of telling you they aren’t ready. Wait for verbal/nonverbal confirmation that all individuals are ready before beginning your speech, please. If my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech. Online debate makes speed a problem for all of us. Anything above 75% of your top speed ensures I will miss something; govern yourselves accordingly.

Please make sure I can see your face/mouth when you are speaking if at all possible. I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I understand how invasive of an ask this is. If you CANNOT for reasons (tech, personal reasons, etc.) I am completely ok with going on with the camera off. Debate is inherently an exclusive activity, if the camera on is a problem I would rather not even broach the issue.

I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case someone's internet cuts out. When this issue arises, a local recording is a life saver. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent; that is a quick way to earn a one-way trip to L town sponsored by my ballot.

Lastly, if the round is scheduled to start at 2, don’t show up to the room asking for my email at 1:58. Be in the room by tech time (it’s there for a reason) so that you can take care of everything in preparation for the round. 2 o’clock start time means the 1ac is being read at 2, not the email chain being set up at 2. Timeliness, or lack thereof, is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves. Too often debaters are too cavalier with time. Two things to keep in mind: 1) it shortens my decision time and 2) it’s a quick way to short yourself on speaks (I’m real get-off-my-lawn about this).

Short Version

My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated, I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author(s) use.

I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.

T-USfg

Yes I coach primarily K teams but I have voted for T/framework quite often; win the argument and you have won my ballot. Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.

I am less and less persuaded by fairness arguments; I think fairness is more of an internal link to a more concrete impact (e.g., truth testing, argument refinement). Affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.

When aff teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they neglect to articulate why the claims they make in the 1ac implicate/inform the neg’s interp and impacts here. A lot of times they go for a poorly explained, barely extended impact turn without doing the necessary work of using the aff to implicate the neg’s standards.

When neg teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they don’t engage the aff. Often times, I find myself having a low bar for presumption when the aff is poorly explained (both in speeches and CX) yet neg teams rarely use this to their advantage. A good framework-centered 2NR versus most k affs involves some type of engagement on case (solvency deficit, presumption, case turn, etc.) and your framework claims; I think too often the neg gives the aff full risk of their aff and solvency which gives them more weight on impact turns than they should have. If you don’t answer the aff AT ALL in the 2NR I will have a hard time voting for you; 2AR’s would be smart to point this out and leverage this on the impact debate.

If you want toread a kritik of debate,I have no problems with that. While, in a vacuum, I think debate is an intrinsic good, we too often forget we exist in a bubble. We must be introspective (as an activity) about the part(s) we like and the part(s) we don't like; if that starts with this prelim round or elim debate then so be it. As structured, debate is super exclusionary if we don't allow internal criticism, we risk extinction in such a fragile world.

LD

If you don't read a "plan" then all the neg has to do is win a link to the resolution. For instance, if you read an aff that's 6 minutes of “whole rez” but you don't defend a specific action then the neg just needs to win a link based on the resolution OR your impact scenario(s). If you don't like it then write better affs that FORCE the neg to get more creative on the link debate.

If theory is your go-to strategy, on either side, please strike me. I am sick and tired debaters refusing to engage substance and only read frivolous theory arguments you barely understand. If you spend your time in the 1AR going for theory don’t you dare fix your lips to go for substance over theory and expect my ballot in the 2AR. LD, in its current state, is violent, racist, and upholds white supremacy; if you disagree do us both a favor and strike me (see above). Always expecting people to open source disclose is what is driving a lot of non-white people from the activity. I spend most of my time judging policy so an LD round that mimics a policy debate is what I would prefer to hear.

I’m sick of debaters not flowing then thinking they can ask what was read “before” CX starts. Once you start asking questions, THAT IS CX TIME. I have gotten to the point that I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS if you do this; I keep an exceptional flow and you should as well. If you go over time, I will stop you and your opponent will not be required to answer questions. You are eating into decision time but not only that it shows a blatant lack of respect for the "rules" of activity. If this happens and you go for some kind of "fairness good" claim I'm not voting for it; enjoy your Hot L (shoutout to Chris Randall and Shunta Jordan). Lastly, most of these philosophers y’all love quoting were violently racist to minorities. If you want me (a black man) to pick you up while you defend a racist you be better be very compelling and leave no room for misunderstandings.

Parting Thoughts

I came into this activity as a fierce competitor, at this juncture in my life I’m in it solely for the education of the debaters involved; I am less concerned with who I am judging and more concerned with the content of what I debate. I am an educator and a lover of learning things; what I say is how I view debate and not a roadmap to my ballot. Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.

Background

I am a student at the University of Arkansas Fayetteville and I study French, Political Science, Japanese, and English. I debated for three years in high school and have competed both regionally and nationally. I mainly have done Public Forum and Congressional debate; however, I have also competed in policy and Lincoln-Douglas and I am familiar with the styles. So you know, how I view the round is that I separate it into two parts, speaking and argumentation. SO, with that said...

Speaking

Rhetoric and speaking style are imperative to any debate round. How you say what you say is just as important as what you are saying. Remember, the point is to convince me what you say is correct and matters, so don't just spew information, persuade me. Also important, I can handle speed to a point: if you are either too fast or unclear for me I will make it very clear in the round. Look for the signs, my body language will indicate how I feel about your speaking, not your arguments. Also, be sure to provide a clear roadmap before every speech and signpost along the way. I need you to let me know where to flow things or they might not end up where you want and end up not being evaluated.

Argumentation

I expect complete arguments, that means claims, warrants, and impacts. If you lack any aspect of an argument, I will not evaluate it. I will not take shadow extensions, if you want an argument extended you better put some time and effort into it and let me know what it means and is, because, if it's important enough for me to keep flowing it's important enough for you to extend fully.

As for types of arguments, anything goes - theory, kritiks, topicality, framework, etc; bring it on, I love fresh, new, and varied arguments. Please try and avoid generics, generally the more unique and novel an argument is the more interesting and thus more convincing it is. I will do all I can to remove any personal preconceptions, biases, or external knowledge, so that what is said in the round I will for the most part take at face value. Furthermore, if a point goes uncontested and extended throughout the round I will assume it to be true (however if it is dropped, it falls off of my flow and I will not allow you to pick it up thereafter so don't forget to extend). In the end I vote off of the flow and what is on it, so, make sure I'm getting what you want me to get onto my flow.

Other Important Notes

Particularly those of you who care about speaker points, know that your evaluation begins the instant you enter the debate space. Keep your etiquette in mind in how you interact with your partner - if applicable - your opponent, and me. I'm rather traditional when it comes to formality so I would appreciate the usage of common courtesy - e.g. introductions when entering the space, shaking hands before and after round, etc. - so please do keep that in mind.

Have good recent evidence. I reserve the right to evaluate any card after the round I find questionable and heavily frown upon practices such as power tagging and card clipping. I also take evidence violations very seriously, make sure you have complete citations and you are not misrepresenting evidence.

Be polite. I know we're all passionate people with a strong desire to win, that's no excuse to be rude. Know the fine line between aggression and assertiveness as well as that between passion and arrogance/rudeness.

Don't violate the rules of each style and know what each one is about - e.g. public forum no plans and debate centered on the merits of the resolution, L.D. ought to center on value debate based on a framework, CX has some course of action taken under the umbrella of the resolution.

Timers, I want them going on both sides for every speech/questioning period. For prep, don't tell me how much you're using, just tell me when you start and stop. You and your opponent are responsible for keeping track of times. I'm good with flex prep.

Cross examination, do not look at your opponent, do not look down: look at the judge. As well, always stand in any questioning period - the only exception is grand cross fire for public forum.

I DO NOT want to be part of any email chain or flash exchange. Debate is about how well you oratorically persuade and argue. I do not want to read your case and points, I want to hear them.

Most importantly, have fun and try to learn!!! Never miss the chance to grow as a person and try to take something from each round.

I'm a former high school debater with three years of experience in both the state and national circuit. I spent most of my time doing Public Forum but have judged other styles as well. I don’t mind speed as long as I can understand you; if you see me put my pen down, that means I am not flowing and therefore not considering your argument. If it’s not on the flow, I will not vote on it. Don’t expect me to make assumptions about any sort of rhetoric; it is your job to convince me why it matters or ties into your case. I will vote you down if you are racist, sexist or homophobic. Have fun! Learn lots!

Public Forum

• I don’t mind aggressiveness in cross-examination if it helps you make a point. But always make sure to be assertive AND polite.

• Speak clearly, if I can’t understand you/hear you I can’t flow it.

• I don’t mind speed, but if it's borderline spreading I will tell you to slow down, this is not policy.

• Make sure to clearly tie your contentions to your framework if you have one.

• Framework is important but don't spend your entire speech only talking about it.

• Voters are key.

• PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make sure to use your warrants. If you cannot clearly articulate why what you’re saying is true/will happen I won’t be able to actually evaluate it.

I am super passionate about debate and I am extremely excited to be your judge. I hope this is a great learning experience for you guys!

***Include me in your email chain.*** callieham479@gmail.com

It would be beset for everyone if you kept your own time.

Public Forum

To be a true PF judge, I shouldn't have one of these...right? But see below...

Lincoln Douglas

LD debate should remain distinct from policy debate. While the passage of new policy may be deemed essential for AFF ground with some resolutions (i.e. Sept/Oct 2018), value debate should remain central to the round. I don't mind speed or progressive/policy-style arguments in an LD round as long as you provide analysis of those arguments and link them back to the value debate.

Policy - I haven't coached or judged CX since 2016...but just in case...

As a judge, I am open to all arguments and styles of policy debate. Your job as a debater is to convince me that what you have to say matters and should be preferred to your opponent. The way you go about that is entirely your choice (within reason…professionalism and decorum are key). If you have questions pre-round, please ask. Having said that, here are some specific likes/dislikes as a judge which you can choose to follow or completely ignore (because I will objectively evaluate whatever lands on my flow whether I really like it or not):

Case: I do love case debate. I find it hard to vote NEG when case goes relatively untouched and hard to vote AFF when rebuttals focus on off-case arguments. Rounds where case is essentially dropped by both sides are my worst nightmare.

K: Not my favorite, but I will evaluate K. I’m not really well-versed in kritikal literature, so if you choose to run kritikal arguments (AFF or NEG), please provide thorough explanation and analysis. Don’t expect me to know the ideals that Whoever promoted because, unless you tell me, I probably don’t.

T: I tend to be pretty lenient on the affirmative as far as T goes. In order to win on T, the negative must completely prove that the affirmative has totally harmed the fairness and education of the round.

CP/DA: Sure? Run them? Why not?

Theory/Framework: Don't love it, but sure. Whatevs. Just tell me how/where to flow it and why it matters in this round.

The Flow: Tell me how to flow the round. Roadmap. Sign post. Please slow down for clarity on tags and citations. If you insist on spreading tags and cites, please provide me with a copy of your speech. If your arguments don’t make it on my flow, they cannot be evaluated on my ballot. I also do very little (feel free to read that as “no”) evidence analysis following the round. It is your job as a debater to clearly articulate the argument/evidence/analysis during your allotted time.

Have fun! Be nice! (or at least reasonable)

I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central. Please put both on the email chain: jkieklak@gmail.com; lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com

General

You do you. Let it rip. Seriously. A judge does not exist without the debaters, and I view my role as a public servant necessary only to resolve arguments in a round to help empower young people to engage in meaningful discourse. I believe that it is important for me to be honest about the specific things I believe about common debate arguments, but also I find it more important to ensure I am prepared for debaters to persuade me away from those beliefs/biases. Specifically, I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am persuaded to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. It is unacceptable to do anything that is: ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.

I think debates have the lowest access to education when the judge must intervene. I can intervene as little as possible if you:

1) Weigh your impacts and your opponents' access to risk/impacts in the debate. One team probably is not most persuasive/ahead of the other team on every single argument. That needs to be viewed as a strength rather than a point of anxiety in the round. Do not be afraid to explain why you don't actually need to win certain arguments/impacts in lieu of "going for" the most persuasive arguments that resolve the most persuasive/riskiest impacts.

2) Actively listen and use your time wisely. Debaters miss each other when distracted/not flowing or listening. This seems to make these teams more prone to missing/mishandling arguments by saying things like, "'x' disad, they dropped it. Extend ____ it means ____;" yet, in reality, the other team actually answered the argument through embedded clash in the overview or answered it in a way that is unorthodox but also still responsive/persuasive.

3) Compare evidence and continuously cite/extend your warrants in your explanations/refutation/overall argumentation. Responses in cross that cite an individual warrant or interrogate their opponents' warrants are good ethos builders and are just in general more persuasive, same in speeches.

Policy Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway to solving a significant harm that is inherent to the status quo with some advantageous, topical plan action is entirely up to you. There are persuasive arguments about why it is good to discuss hypothetical plan implementation. I do not have specific preferences about this, but I am specifically not persuaded when a 2a pivot undercovers/drops the framework debate in an attempt to weigh case/extend portions of case that aren't relevant unless the aff wins framework. I have not noticed any specific thresholds about neg strats against policy affs.

Kritikal Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway/relationship to the resolution is entirely up to you. I think it’s important for any kritikal affirmative (including embedded critiques of debate) to wins its method and theory of power, and be able to defend that the method and advocacy ameliorates some impactful harm. I think it’s important for kritkal affirmatives (when asked) to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them; explain the role of the negative in the debate as it comes up, and, if applicable, win framework or a methods debate. I don't track any specific preferences. Note: Almost all time that I am using to write arguments and coach students is to prepare for heg/policy debates; I understand if you prefer someone in the back of the room that spends a majority of their time either writing kritikal arguments or coaching kritikal debate.

Framework

This is all up to how it develops in round. I figure that this often starts as a question of what is good for debate through considerations of education, fairness, and/or how a method leads to an acquisition/development of portable skills. It doesn't have to start or end in any particular place. The internal link and impact are up to you. If the framework debate becomes a question of fairness, then it's up to you to tell me what kind of fairness I should prioritize and why your method does or does not access it/preserve it/improve it. I vote for and against framework, and I haven't tracked any specific preferences or noticed anything in framework debate that particularly persuades me.

Off

Overall, I think that most neg strats benefit from quality over quantity. I find strategies that are specific to an aff are particularly persuasive (beyond just specific to the overall resolution, but also specific to the affirmative and specific cites/authors/ev). In general, I feel pretty middle of the road when it comes to thresholds. I value organization and utilization of turns, weighing impacts, and answering arguments effectively in overviews/l-b-l.

Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory

• Perms: Be ready to explain how the perm works (more than repeating "it's perm do 'X'"). Why does the perm resolve the impacts? Why doesn't the perm link to a disad?

• T: Normal threshold if the topicality impacts are about the implications for future debates/in-round standards. High threshold for affs being too specific and being bad for debate because neg doesn't have case debate. If I am in your LD pool and you read Nebel, then you're giving me time to answer my texts, update a list of luxury items I one day hope to acquire, or simply anything to remind myself that your bare plurals argument isn't 'prolific.'

• Case Debate: I am particularly persuaded by effective case debate so far this year on the redistribution topic. Case debate seems underutilized from an "find an easy way to the ballot" perspective.

• Disclosure is generally good, and also it's ok to break a new aff as long as the aff is straight up in doing so. There are right and wrong ways to break new. Debates about this persuade me most when located in questions about education.

• Limited conditionality feels right, but really I am most interested in how these theory arguments develop in round and who wins them based on the fairness/education debate and tech.

• Please do not drop condo or some other well-extended/warranted theory argument on either side of the debate. Also, choosing not to engage and rely on the ethos of extending the aff is not a persuasive way to handle 2NRs all in on theory.

TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)

General

Be your best self. My ranks reflect who I believe did the best debating in the round (and in all prelims when I parli).

The best debaters are the ones that offer a speech that is appropriately contextualized into the debate the body is having about a motion. For sponsors/first negs, this means the introduction of framing and appropriate impacts so that the aff/neg speakers can build/extend specific impact scenarios that outweigh the opposing side's impacts. Speeches 3-10 or 3-12 (depending on the round) should be focused on introducing/weighing impacts (based on where you are in the round and where your side is on impact weighing) and refutations (with use of framing) on a warrant/impact level. I value structured refutations like turns, disadvantages, presumption, PICs (amendments), no solvency/risk, etc. The final two speeches should crystallize the round by offering a clear picture as to why the aff/neg speakers have been most persuasive and why the motion should carry or fail.

The round should feel like a debate in that each speaker shall introduce, refute, and/or weigh the core of the affirmative and negative arguments to persuade all other speakers on how they should vote on a pending motion.

Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms

• Arguments are claim, warrant, impact/justification and data when necessary. Speeches with arguments lacking one or more of these will not ever be rewarded highly, no matter how eloquent the speech. It is always almost more persuasive to provide data to support a warrant.

• Impacts should be specific and never implied.

• Presiding officers should ensure as many speeches as possible. The best presiding officers are direct, succinct, courteous, organized, and transparent. Presiding officers shall always be considered for ranks, but ineffective presiding is the quickest way to a rank 9 (or lower).

• More floor debaters are experimenting with parliamentary procedure. Love it, but debaters will be penalized for misapplications of the tournament's bylaws and whichever parliamentary guide is the back up.

• Nothing is worse in floor debate than repetition, which is different than extending/weighing.

• Decorum should reflect effective communication. Effective communication in debate often includes an assertive tone, but read: folx should always treat each other with dignity and respect.

Arkansas Debate

Woo Pig. I am not here to force you to capitulate a paradigm that you find in someway oppressive to what your coach is teaching you to do. I will drop you for clipping/cheating, and I do not reward (and will rank low in congress) bad/no arguments even if they sound as rhetorically smooth as Terry Rose and Gary Klaff singing "Oh, Arkansas."

Last Updated 12/5/2021

Ishmael Kissinger
Experience: 3.5 yrs for The University of Central Oklahoma 02-05 (Nov/JV & Open)
14 yrs as Coach @ Moore High School, OK
Policy Rounds Judged: Local ~10
Policy National/Toc - 2
LD Rounds Judged Local: 0
LD National/TOC - 0

PFD - Local = 0

PFD Nat Circuit - 0

Email Chain: PLEASE ASK IN ROUND - I cannot access my personal email at school.

*Note: I do not follow along with the word doc. I just want to be on the chain so that I can see the evidence at the end of the round if necessary. I will only flow what I hear.

LD -

Just because I am primarily a policy judge does not mean that I think LD should be like 1 person policy. Small rant: I am tired of us making new debate events and then having them turn into policy... If you are constructing your case to be "Life & Util" and then a bunch of Dis-Ads you probably don't want me as your judge. If you are going for an RVI on T in the 1AR you probably don't want me as a judge. I don't think that LD affs should have plan texts. If I were to put this in policy terms: "You need to be (T)-Whole Res."

Affirmatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their Criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that affirm the whole resolution.

Negatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that negate the whole resolution.

CX

I tend to consider myself a flow oriented judge that tries to be as tab as any one person can be. Absent a framework argument made, I will default to a policy-maker/game-theorist judge. I view debate in an offense-defense paradigm, this means that even if you get a 100% risk of no solvency against the aff, but they are still able to win an advantage (or a turned DA) then you are probably going to lose. You MUST have offense to weight against case.

Generic Information:

Speed is not a problem *Edit for the digital age: Sometimes really fast debaters are harder for me to understand on these cheap computer speakers.

T & Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. As the debate season goes on I tend to err more toward reasonability than I do at the beginning of the year. This is usually because as the debate year goes on I expect Negative teams to be more prepared for less topical arguments. This is generally how much judges operate, they just don't say it. I typically don't vote on potential abuse, you should couch your impacts on potential abuse in very real-world examples.

Please make impact calculus earlier in the debate rather than just making it in the 2nr/2ar

Kritiks are not a problem, but I am not really deep into any one literature base. This may put you at a disadvantage if you assume I know/understand the nuances between two similar (from my point of view) authors. **If you are going for a K or an Alt in the 2NR but are unsure if the aff is going to win the Perm debate and you want me to "kick the alt" and just have me vote on some epistemic turn you're only explaining in the overview of the 2NR you are not going to enjoy the RFD. If you think it's good enough to win the debate on with only a :30 explanation in the overview, you should probably just make the decision to go for it in the 2nr and kick the alt yourself.

When addressing a kritikal aff/neg I will hold you to a higher threshold than just Util & Cede the political, I'll expect you to have specific literature that engages the K. If this is your strategy to answering K teams I am probably not your "1."

I don't have a problem with multiple conditional arguments, although I am more sympathetic to condo bad in a really close theory debate.

CPs are legit. Just like judges prefer specific links on a Dis-Ads I also prefer specific Counter-Plans. But I will evaluate generic states/int'l actor CPs as well.

Dispo = Means you can kick out of it unless you straight turn it, defensive arguments include Perms and theory. (My interp, but if you define it differently in a speech and they don't argue it, then your interp stands)

DAs are cool - the more specific the link the better, but I will still evaluate generic links.

Case args are sweet, especially on this year's (2019) topic.



Personal Preferences:

Really I have only one personal pref. If you are in a debate round - never be a jerk to the opposing team &/or your partner. I believe that our community has suffered enough at the hands of debating for the "win," and although I don't mind that in context of the argumentation you make in the round, I do not believe that it is necessary to demean or belittle your opponent. If you are in the position to be facing someone drastically less experienced than yourself; keep in mind that it should be a learning process for them, even if it is not one for you. It will NOT earn you speaker points to crush them into little pieces and destroy their experience in this activity. If you want to demonstrate to me that you are the "better debater(s)," and receive that glorious 29 or maybe even 30 it will most likely necessitate you: slowing down (a little), thoroughly explaining your impact calc, clearly extending a position, then sitting down without repeating yourself in 5 different ways. If you opt to crush them you will prob. win the round, but not many speaker points (or pol cap) with me.

I'm pretty unbiased. There aren't any big red flags in my paradigms; don't worry. Just make sure you:

A)  Make Sense. Consider me a lay judge. Explain everything thoroughly, in a way that I can understand. If I haven't been exposed to your argument before and you don't explain it in a way that I can understand, then I won't consider the argument.

II)  Are Respectful. Don't be excessively abusive, and don't disrespect your opponent (that goes for your partner, too). This includes Cross-X. Be nice; nobody likes a shouting match. Stay professional.

3.1)  Are Topical. I don't appreciate you going outside of the resolution. While my vote will be largely situational (depends on your execution of the argument), just know that you're less likely to win.

Speed is okay, but no spreading. If you are going too fast, or are incomprehensible, I will try to flow as best I can and tell you to slow down in your future speeches (I may not get all of your arguments down, though).

I like OnCase arguments; generally don't like Kritikal arguments. However, that won't be solely what I vote on. I'll evaluate them on a case-by-case basis.

Love,

G. McLaughlin, BHS Honorary President

General Debate Paradigm:

Experienced Coach and Flow Judge and 4 Year High School Debater, World History/Psychology/Sociology Teacher with previous career as a Community Corrections Officer (Probation and Parole).

In my experience, all forms of Debate are a synthesis of examples, evidence, and analysis. Competitors need to dive deep into the resolutions presented and wrestle with the ideas, evidence, philosophy, experiences, and impacts that stem from the resolution while tying back the original intention of the resolution. (Framer's Intent)

In my estimation all possible areas of inquiry are on the table, but be mindful that some styles of debate depend more on some mechanics then others. If you run inherency in a LD case, it feels off. If you try to solve for BQ, that's just wrong. Debate styles need to stay in their own lanes and crossover is risky if I'm judging your round. A note on Spreading: I am not a fan. Debate is about connections and persuasion and connection with your judge. Spreading harms or eliminates all of these. Don't. I will never vote down a debater for Spreading alone but you already have one huge strike against you out of the gate if you do.

I believe in the Burdens of Debate. Aff must prove the resolution's premise as true and correct via the Burden of Proof, regardless of the style. If not they lose. Neg must attack and uphold the Burden of Clash (Rejoinder) and if they do not they can not win.

A quick word on preferences for case presentation. Constructives need to be clear cut and purposeful, lay out all your arguments and evidence, simply open doors or you to walk through in the next speech. Extension evidence is always welcome to expand your points in support in 2nd speeches. Cross should allows be respectful and civil, I do take notes on cross but the points made there highlight your style and ability to think on the fly. Use of canned questions in any form are looked down on.

Rebuttals are fair game but you should always attack, rebuild and expand your arguments in this speech. Repeating points in Rebuttals doesn't increase the weight of the argument.

Consolidation Speeches are for crystalizing the main ideas and presenting voting issues in and overall persuasive and final presentation of your case through points. Please respect the format, arguments that extend well past the rebuttals do not carry more weight with me and are presented too late, make sure to do your job in each segment of the round.

A word about style within the round:

Using excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or use excessive points or stylistic tricks to try to disadvantage your opponent in a round will win you no style points with me. If you are speaking beyond my ability to flow or use excessive points within a case I will put my pen down and this signifies that I am no longer constructively in the round. This is to be avoided at all costs, keep your judge “in the round” and go slow, standard conversational pace.

A word on technology and style choice: I have noted in my time as a judge and a coach that reliance on your computer makes you sound robotic and read faster than running off paper. Although I won't ever vote someone down who reads off the computer, you need to make sure to get the message home to the judge with emphasis and good speaks to do well in the round. Having a flat monotone computer voice, spreading evidence, card slamming, and hyper-aggression will not win you any points with me and arguably makes your job harder.

Other Points:

• Case Points for case clarity are gladly accepted.

• Tie things back to framework to impress me and get me on your side. If you "set and forget" a framework or weighing device, its on my flow but not helping you win. This is true for Value Criteria, Weighing Mechs, and Frameworks generally.

• Full Disclosure: I am not a National Circuit judge. If its a new concept that they do it there, not a fan. Proud Traditionalist Debater and Coach here. Don't try to run Progressive theory before the resolution or run Disclosure Theory, won't hold water with me.

• Running Logical Fallacies are strongly encouraged. If you spot one, feel free to call an opponent out for it provided it is valid and you can explain the logical flaw clearly and directly (thus avoiding committing a fallacy of your own.)

• Unique arguments hold more weight then generic arguments, so look for a new angle to gain the upper hand. You have got to prove links to the resolution and prove topicality, if you can't then the claim is bound to fail.

• If you are Aff/Pro and doesn't rebuild and/or extend in later speeches, they lose. If you are Neg/Con attack doesn't attack, clash, and disprove, they lose.

• Observation is good, Observation + Analysis is better, Observation + Analysis+Evidence is best.

• In this world of "technological wonders", I am not on team AI, the expectation is that you write your own case, have your own thoughts, and defend your own ideas. If it is clear you didn't write it and don't know how to run it, I'm not likely to vote for it. Play with AI toys on your own time, not mine.

tl;dr put me on the email chain pls. rylieslone@gmail.com

Introduction:

I debated for three years at Bentonville High School in Arkansas in every style of debate. Graduated in 2017 -- I am very old. I did most of my national-level competition in LD, PF, and Congress, but there is a special place in my heart for CX. Currently a 2L at the University of Arkansas School of Law.

Generally, I am open to most styles + arguments. I consider myself to be a strict flow judge so keep track of the line-by-line. Signpost, signpost, signpost (I'll let you do it before you start time but do not abuse this). Tell me what you want me to do! BE ORGANIZED.

Disclaimer: I will listen to most anything. This is your debate. Talk about what you believe in. Be respectful. BUT DO NOT use homophobic, racist, sexist, ableist, transphobic, or xenophobic speech. I do not tolerate disrespect. Automatic loss and a swift report to tab if you cross that boundary. My preferences to specifics are listed below:

Speed

Be as fast as you want, but the second I stop flowing know you are unclear. If your spreading is ridiculously unclear, I'm gonna need a copy of the speech. I LOVE speed but am also totally cool without it. Generally speaking, be respectful of the usage of speed and be as clear as you can be.

Kritiks

I'd like to say that I know most of the commonly used Ks but DO NOT assume I know it without explaining it. It's been a little while. Be clear about your link and give me a really solid impact. Make sure the K alt interacts with the affirmative's solvency. (Shouldn't have to say this, but make sure the K isn't abhorrent - see disclaimer)

Topicality

Topicality debate isn't necessary (and imho is kinda boring) but it is procedurally important if it's brought up. Don't just go back and forth reading and rereading definitions. Give me good standards and voters. Tell me why you win it.

Framework

Framing is important. Your framework (or lack thereof) is what I will use to decide the round. If you don't give me a framework, I'll do a generic cost/benefit analysis. If you're utilizing it, the framework should be continued well into the last speech. Don't waste your time on it, but don't undercover it.

Case

I loveeee solid case debate. Don’t assume I will flow your 1AC throughout the round if you aren’t extending it (b/c newsflash: I won't!). Case debate is fundamental in my decision-making for policy-oriented rounds. That being said, please cover offcase positions as well. Just don’t kick your case to the curb in the process.

Evidence

Make sure your evidence is legitimate. I will call for any card that I (or your opponent) deem questionable and value the integrity of said pieces of evidence. Be cautious of this.

Also - I do not flow cross-ex.

All in all, good luck!

I'm going to assume you read this, but if you have any additional questions before the round email me at rylieslone@gmail.com.

Please don't hesitate to ask me any unanswered questions before the round begins.

Small Update January 2021: My paradigm is largely the same as previously, except that I should mention I haven't judged any rounds so far this year due to the pandemic. Remote judging may have some technical kinks to be worked out, we'll see.

Background

I debated three years policy and one year LD in high school for Watertown, SD. I graduated in 2012. Since that time, I’ve kept an eye on high school and college debate activities through online communities. Formerly, I volunteered as a remote assistant coach and occasional judge for Bentonville High School in NW Arkansas, and currently I am unaffiliated with any particular school.

General

My high school was in South Dakota, which has a fairly traditional judging pool. However, I always preferred a more progressive style. I like to think I’m something of a hybrid between two extremes.

I consider myself a games player who strives to have as little influence on the round as possible. I will vote on anything. However, I’m notably worse at interpreting spreading than average. Relatedly, I’m uncomfortable with teams who attempt to spread faster than they’re really capable of while expecting the judge to read their speech document in order to compensate for them. Go about 80% of what you'd normally do, and we'll adjust from there. Please note that my preference is to flow on paper.

I generally believe that the judge should avoid rereading cards except when there’s a dispute over something like card clipping or a small factual detail that might be important but has escaped their memory. This is not a strict rule, only an inclination. The alternative habit lets debaters get away with not understanding their evidence, and is interventionist in the sense that when reading my attention will be selectively guided to some ideas over others based on unpredictable background knowledge. Because of this, you should place much more emphasis on explaining the internal arguments of your cards when debating in front of me than you otherwise would.

Please avoid having your rebuttals sound like a bibliography. Extending the author’s name is much less important than extending the gist of what they’re saying. I shouldn’t have to stare at my flow of previous speeches in order to make sense of your current one. Very light references to the warrants of a particular card should be made whenever you reference or cross-apply it.

If an argument is sufficiently blippy or poorly explained, I reserve the right to ignore it. I probably will do very little work for you in fixing broken arguments unless the round is otherwise deadlocked. I want to see rounds in which I can outsource as much of my RFD to exact quotations from the debaters as possible.

Dropped arguments are ~95% true, but not 100% true. Making them 100% true can make judging indeterminate with the wrong combination of concessions from both teams, and incentivizes an overly technical approach to the round. Technical proficiency is good, but only to the extent it avoids trading off with substantive mastery.

Avoid abbreviations and acronyms where possible. Avoid assuming shared knowledge of "obvious" facts about the topic.

I'll vote on defense if it's really strong defense.

I don't like appeals to scientific studies if you're incapable of talking about their methodology. I struggle deciding how to weight appeals to expertise or claims of bias when no one is talking about the details of what a study gets wrong. If you're reading evidence discussing a correlation, you need to be advancing arguments about why that correlation is best interpreted as causal. Don't expect me to believe you just because there's a plausible causal interpretation of the data, do your best to actively rule out any non-causal possibilities.

Politically, I’m basically a centrist liberal, but one who defaults to skepticism about the likely benefits of government action – this skepticism can be overcome with solid empirical evidence or well-motivated theory. I think markets are good, when well-regulated. I think existential risks are highly important. I strongly dislike Trump, but am sometimes uncomfortable with hasty Trump-bashing, even when it might be justified. These are personal biases only, not positions I insist you conform to, although conforming to them might be strategically wise.

Speaker Points

Because I vote for whichever team should win the round regardless of their overall performance, speaker points are my only tool to reward or punish you for non round-critical decisions. Being a good speaker is sure to earn you additional points, but my scores will mainly reflect the overall quality of your argumentation. A good speaker who makes fallacious yet compelling arguments will earn only average points. Other priorities, to me, are things like research skills, creativity, kindness, and overall attitude.

Framework

Framework arguments are neither an automatic round winner nor an attack on non-traditional teams’ identity. In a framework debate that’s reasonably well-conducted by both sides, I expect the traditional, more restrictive interpretation will win, given my biases. This is not a foregone conclusion.

Despite ultimately thinking that debate should be plan-centered, I think that Kritikal teams and cases play an important role in the ecosystem of ideas that is debate. The intellectual freedom of policy debate is its best quality, even if that freedom requires limits. It’s often interesting to encounter divergent perspectives on the resolution, and sometimes Kritikal themes can serve as a source of reinvigoration to traditional positions. It’s also important, when a perspective is wrong, to be capable of identifying exactly where it goes wrong.

It’s unfortunate that teams often clump into separate policy-oriented and Kritik-oriented traditions. Teams making creative arguments that bridge this gap will impress me, and teams making arguments that seem likely to exacerbate the divide are likely to irritate me. Disagreement should absolutely never manifest in a way that resembles personal dislike or contempt.

Theory and Topicality

Please fully explain your arguments. Theory debate is generally bad because people don’t treat it like a real argument but instead as an obligation they’re forced to meet, resulting in blippy, underexplained ideas. I might not even bother flowing your points if you’re sufficiently lazy. “T is a voter for fairness” without any elaboration is something of a pet peeve.

I have a soft spot for older, probably incorrect theory arguments like hypotesting or counterwarrants. I also like audacious arguments like "advocacy skills are bad", when they're not being used as just a timesuck. Such arguments are usually wrong, but wrong in interesting ways that give insight into how debate works or should work today. Play with ideas a little and you'll find theory doesn't have to be the chore many believe it. Theory is very interesting when done right.

I tend to be affirmative biased on most theory questions, but negative biased on questions of topicality. I think that many generic counterplans like the States CP, the Consult CP, Agent CPs, and PICs are moderately abusive and make for uninteresting debate. I think that reading more than two conditional arguments risks severe time skew. And a lot of common Kritik tricks, like self-serving role of the ballot claims, make me wince.

However, I also think that many affirmative teams read plans concerning extremely minute changes to the status quo. Plausibly, it’s such insubstantial plans that are ultimately responsible for the proliferation of abusive negative tactics. Given such concerns, and that the 2018-2019 resolution seems affirmative biased, I expect I’m more willing to vote negative on T-substantial or T-immigration on this topic than many judges.

Provided that you’re willing to invest more time in theory arguments than the average team, you’ll find I’m highly willing to vote on them.

Kritiks

I don’t have much depth of knowledge when it comes to Kritiks, and will require thorough explanations if you’re reading anything more complicated than Nietzsche or Foucault. I’ve skimmed through some Baudrillard and Deleuze, but it’s safest to assume that I don’t remember any of it except in the sense that one remembers their fever dreams.

Because critical theory can be hard to understand, many people who read it end up working so hard to figure out what’s the author is saying that they forget to ask the key question of how we know whether the author is right. Some authors practice a kind of rhetorical sleight of hand in which they use complexity as a distraction to avoid providing evidence for their most important claims. Picking up a critical theory text at random, I generally find most of its claims to be inadequately explained and warranted. Please don't let your opponents get away with such failings. Particularly on the alt solvency debate.

I view debate as a contest of ideas, so it’s probably acceptable to challenge the affirmative from a couple different perspectives at once. The negative doesn’t necessarily have to worry about tension between the K and other arguments they make, unless the affirmative can actively exploit such tension through strategic concessions and cross applications to other flows.

In general, I am not a fan of "dirty word" Kritiks.

Affirmatives

Many affirmative teams read inexcusably low-quality evidence in order to make arguments that are superficially more strategic. Ultimately, though, the most strategically viable argument must be one you can win to be correct. As such, I’m more willing to vote for small-scale, humble affirmatives with only modest advantages than for affirmatives who promise the moon in the constructives and a try or die scenario in the final rebuttal.

I encourage negative teams to read and then press the affirmative on the quality of their evidence. In-depth case debates are fantastic; please give me more of them.

DAs

Most DAs are bad. Lots of low quality evidence and powertagging are far too common. The Politics DA might be theoretically illegitimate and bad for debate, if I'm in a bad mood for it. I understand you'll read it anyway. I prefer that you spend more time on Topicality and case arguments and less time on highly generic disadvantages, to the extent you can. Seven times out of ten, the specificity of a good affirmative's no-link arguments will overcome the volume of low-quality arguments you can bring to bear in the block.

The best way to make the generic DA viable is to contextualize it to the affirmative’s case and to the arguments you’re making against the case on the case flow. Without winning large portions of the case flow, you’re likely wasting your time in reading generic DAs. But in conjunction with other arguments, the generic DA can be very powerful.

Highly specific disadvantages are fantastic when done right, but I can’t even remember the last time I heard one that wasn't built from low-quality evidence.

Counterplans

See the theory section. Many procedural counterplans are probably abusive. You may be able to leverage arguments on the topicality flow to buy yourself leeway in what's permissible, although I'm not sure that's an ideal use of time.

Advantage counterplans are generally underutilized as a strategic tool. In the context of a solid counterplan that solves the case, I’m much more willing to listen to arguments about otherwise negligible risks.

Affirmatives who go the extra mile with counterplan specific disadvantages or solvency deficits will make me a very pleased judge.

LD Specific Advice

You should likely read most of the above, particularly the section on Kritiks.

I'm comfortable with LDers who adapt argument conventions from policy debate and I moderately dislike the traditional Value/Criterion case format, but I also think it's desirable for LD to retain a distinct identity so that students can preferentially sort into the event that best suits their needs. Some resolutions are vague enough that the only way to sensibly evaluate them is to let debaters read plans. However, in general, I prefer for LD to stay generic.

Ideally, arguments should be metaphysically grounded in some particular system of thought that explains what morality is and where it comes from and why we should care about it. I strongly dislike when debaters tell me that the value is freedom because freedom saves lives, or the value is happiness because it leads to human flourishing. Such arguments just push the debate back one level of regress without establishing anything meaningful. Look to deeper principles instead.

Given tight time constraints, I have a very low tolerance for blippy arguments or theory cheapshots. This extends to substantive arguments that are initially badly explained and later developed into gotchas. There should be zero gotchas in the entire debate. This sort of abuse is rampant in circuit LD, and so I reserve the right to choose not to vote on gotchas even if they go uncontested. I'm uncomfortable intervening like this, even though I think it's probably necessary in the most egregious cases, so please don't rely on the possibility of my intervention to save you. Do your best to not need it.

I like when LD debaters incorporate evidence from areas of academia other than philosophy departments. This doesn't mean emulating policy debaters or concentrating on empirical details, necessarily, although it perhaps can. A lot more goes on in journal articles than what debaters typically engage with. The middle ground between pure metaphysics and pure policymaking deserves more attention. Philosophical approaches to statecraft, governance, laws, sociology, etc. are really interesting and deserve to be explored more often.

I prefer analytic philosophy to continental. Hume is my favorite philosopher. Nietzsche gets the most style points. The intersection of those two authors is thinking that Kant is a dope. Take that how you will.

Again, if you have any additional questions or requests for clarification, please don't hesitate to ask.

I debated for four years at Little Rock Central High School from 2011-2015. I've been judging in Arkansas since then and also have some experience judging national tournaments. 

I had a judgephilosophies page, but it looks like that page is gone so I'll write up the important things. If something you're concerned about isn't on here, just assume I don't have a particularly unique view on it.

Basically, I look for the team that impacts out their internal links the best. This doesn't always mean your typical ends-with-nuke-war scenarios, but it can also be impacts of standards and fairness on Topicality and Framework debates. The team who does the best job doing this almost always wins my ballot.

As a note, I have a decently high threshold on Framework and Topicality debates since I think there's a lot of potential in them that debaters don't utilize. That being said, I hate nominal (we attempted to answer their stuff, this should be a wash or go in our favor) debates of this kind and also just ones where the team isn't actually ready to read the arguments.

I also have a relatively lower threshold on non-mainstream kritiks (security and cap come to my mind as what I consider "mainstream" off the top of my head -- hopefully you get the idea). What really helps your cause here is a specific link (this applies to any neg argument though) and good articulation on things like the world of the alt on the K and internal net benefits on the CP. Without these things, in closer debates, I usually give the aff the benefit of the doubt since they read a 1AC and (hopefully) are doing impact overviews, and I prefer to weigh that analysis against an alt that's not articulated well or CP internal links not articulated well.

Feel free to ask me questions in person any time or shoot me an email at rms197@gmail.com!

-Director of Debate at Little Rock Central High School
-Yes, email chain and sure, questions. Please put BOTH of these on chains: rosalia.n.valdez@gmail.com and lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com.

Virtual Debate Updates:

I am almost always using two computers so I can watch you speak and flow/look at docs. I would prefer that you debate with your camera on so that I can watch you speak, but PLEASE do feel free to turn it off if doing so stabilizes your audio.

Do NOT start at top speed. You should start a little slower anyway to allow judges to get acclimated to your speaking style, but I think this is especially important in virtual debate.

Do I understand why you don't want to flash theory/overviews/analytics? Of course. Do you have to do it? No. Will I be mad at you if you don't? Of course not. Would it help me flow better in many virtual debates? YES.

TL;DR

Do what you do and do it well. I will vote for who wins. Over-adaptation is exhausting and I can smell your soft-left add-ons a mile away. My voting record is a pretty clear indication that I judge a wide variety of debates. Who/what I coach(ed) are generally good indications of what I am about. Update: I've found myself recently in some seven off rounds. I really hate to say I am bad for any kind of debate, but I am bad for these rounds. Late-breaking debates make me tired and grumpy, and I find myself having to do way too much work in these debates to resolve them. If seven off is your thing, and I am your judge, do what you do I guess, but know this is probably the only explicit "don't pref me" in this whole paradigm.

Evidence/Argumentation/General

I care a lot about quality of evidence. I would much rather hear you read a few well-warranted cards than a wave of under-highlighted evidence. Same goes for redundant evidence; if you need six cards that “prove” your claim with the same words interchanged in the tag, your claim is probably pretty weak. Evidence does not (alone) a (winning) argument make.

I think I flow pretty throughly. I often flow in direct quotes. I do this for me, but I feel like it helps teams understand my decision as we talk after a round. I reward organized speakers and meaningful overviews. I am easily frustrated by a messy card doc.

I listen closely to cross-ex.

Ks

Neg teams lose when they don’t demonstrate how their arguments interact with the 1AC. Winning that the affirmative is “flawed” or “problematic” does not guarantee a neg ballot. In my mind, there are two ways to win the k versus a policy aff: either win that the effects of the plan make the world significantly worse OR win framework and go for epistemology/ontology links. Know when framework is important and when it’s not. Give analysis as to how your links implicate the world of the aff. This is where case mitigation and offense on why voting affirmative is undesirable is helpful. These debates are significantly lacking in impact calculus. Also - the alt needs to solve the links, not the aff - but if it does, great! If you win framework, this burden is lessened. Don’t spread through link explanations. I am seeing more debates where teams kick the alt and go for the links as disads to the aff. This is fine, but be wary of this strategy when the alt is what provides uniqueness to the link debate.

Conversely, affs typically lose these debates when there is little press on what the alternative does and little analysis of perm functions. However, some teams focus on the alt too much and leave much to be desired on the link debate (especially important for soft-left affs). Defend your reps. Your framework shell should also include a robust defense of policymaking, not just procedural fairness. The 1AR should actually answer the block’s framework answers. More impact turning rather than defensive, no-link arguments.

Also, running to the middle will not save you. Some Ks are going to get a link no matter what, and tacking on a structural impact to your otherwise straight policy aff will likely only supercharge the link. So. Read the aff you'd read in front of anybody in front of me. You're probably better at that version anyway.

K Affs vs. FW

For affs: I’m good for these although I do think that oftentimes the method is very poorly explained. Neg teams should really press on this and even consider going for presumption. Side note: I absolutely do not think that critical affs should have to win that the ballot is key for their method. Against framework, I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. The best aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good. I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than k tricks.

For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.

I feel similarly about theory debates in that they should focus on good/undesirable pedagogical practices. Arguments that explain the role of the ballot should not be self-serving and completely inaccessible by a particular team.

Topicality

Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my jam. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.

Arkansas Circuit

1. I’m not going to bump your speaks for thanking me and taking forever to start the round because you’re asking “opponent ready? judge ready? partner ready? observers ready?” for the first 20 minutes.
2. If you do not take notes during my RFD, I will leave.
3. Don’t clip. Why do debaters in Arkansas clip so much? Answer: Because I don’t judge very much in Arkansas.
4. Keep your own time.