UK, Peninsula

Email

---add: jordandi505@gmail.com, griffithd2002@gmail.com

---forward complaints to: debateoprf@gmail.com

---email title should include relevant information, such as the tournaments, teams, and round.

TLDR

---this is the only section that matters.

---I will flow and decide the debate accordingly. Any preferences can be overridden by technical execution and judge instruction. If I am left to my own devices on particular arguments, I am usually tempted to arrive at the most “reasonable” conclusion.

---as I am flowing and I don’t enjoy suffering, I will flow straight down. While I am a good flow, I am prone to miss things. Debate is a communicative activity and it’s on debaters to make themselves more comprehensible. That doesn’t necessarily mean you must slow down. Rather, there are several other things to do to be more clear: separate analytics with carded arguments, use numbers, differentiate using tone, and frontload argument labels.

---I am incredibly malleable. That means judge instruction and “framing” are important to how I make decisions. This also means debaters should utilize this early and often to hash out my rubric for deciding. The range of possibilities are vast but include anything from impact calculus to inserting a re-highlighting to the direction of presumption. I would much rather debaters hash these out rather than be left to my own rather weak defaults. I find myself diverging from other judges usually when I am given a set of arguments with little instruction for how to evaluate them. I assure you, extending argument #10 is less relevant than explaining the implications of #1-9. Debate becomes entirely untenable if I insert my own thoughts and opinions into certain arguments where debaters have explained it in a particular way. For example, if a team explains the link as “perception-based” and that premise is uncontested by the other team, I do not care if the aforementioned team’s evidence actually speaks to this frame or not.

---I don’t know what constitutes a “good” or “bad” argument. All I know is technical and warranted debating, usually with evidence to support it. That being said, I prefer you to read all the evidence.

---I will ask if I want a card doc, but you should assemble one under the presumption I will want one. Evidence should be formatted neatly, using verbatim, and organized coherently. This is true of both the card doc as well as every speech that features evidence.

---I want to adjudicate the round in front of me. Anything that affects my ballot is ideally confined to the start of the 1AC through the end of the 2AR. I have literally zero interest in anything extraneous to that.

---I got rid of the long section about evaluation mainly since it’s now entirely above for the most part.

Other Thoughts

---the topic: I have done quite a lot of topic research and have a better than average understanding of economics. T arguments generally seem bad, but I am quite open to an appeal to limits. What is with all this process garbage when you have the Econ DA. Like, I am pretty good for process stuff, but like the Econ DA exists.

---planless AFFs: specificity is preferable to vagueness, debate is a game could be more, but it certainly is that, AFF offense should hopefully be intrinsic to the process of debate, and K v. K debates are something I think about a lot. My familiarity with your arguments and/or literature is higher than what may be expected.

---DA: K of impacts is better than "probability first" and politics DA is good.

--CP: sufficiency framing is intuitive, judge kick good, condo good, most theory should be perm justifications, and am generally pretty NEG on most theoretical arguments. I am fine for CP competition debates, but prefer the distinction be drawn as early and clearly as possible.

---K: it should either be a DA or framing the AFF out of the debate, specificity is good, framework interps should be mutually exclusive or don't matter, I don't care fiat isn't real. Research about the K is incredibly interesting to me and I want to reward it. Demonstrating a commitment to researching topic- and AFF-specific literature and applying it as such is something that I enjoy.

---T: yes competing interps unless ridiculous, predictable limits are good, more cards are good, definitions of words are good, and internal link debating is good. A note for clarity is I can be pretty good for limits. I'm not as much in the camp of "small difference in predictability outweighs big limits DA" as people I think I am associated with.

---conditionality: since this is increasingly popular and because I've recently had to think about this a lot due to a lousy 2N I know making me answer condo, I decided to put some random thoughts here about it. These will be thoughts for the NEG just because I don't have many interesting thoughts for the AFF other than maybe that these will be the most important things for you to grapple with. Things I am good for the NEG about:

· Theory is usually "cowardice," as per the sentiment of said lousy 2N. I have yet to see a 1NC where I thought the 2A's job was so difficult that it would be impossible to substantively respond. For example, you don't NEED an 8 subpoint response with 5 cards to answer the Constitutional Convention CP. The flip side of this for the AFF is either establishing a clear and consistent violation from the 2AC onward or focusing on the "model" of debate to override my presumption that maybe this 1NC wasn't too bad.

· NEG flex is great. Two sets of arguments are persuasive to me here. First, side bias. 2AR is certainly easier than the 2NR. I am unsure about "infinite prep," but I am persuaded that AFFs typically can answer most NEG arguments thematically. For example, having a good "certainty key" or "binding key" warrant addresses a whole swath of potential CPs. Second, the topic. Teams that appeal to the nature of the topic (honestly for either side) are persuasive to me. For example, the idea that appeals to "specificity" allows the AFF to murder core generics is one I find persuasive.

· The diminishing utility of conditionality seems true to me. Appeals to "infinite condo" allowing the nth degree of advocacies is something I am presumptively skeptical about. There are only so many arguments in the NEG box that disagree with the 1AC in different ways. Take what I said about being able to answer arguments thematically to apply here. In addition, for the NEG to accomplish such a massive proliferation, arguments tend to be incomplete. Again, this was talked about above.

· "Dispo" is a bit ridiculous. The 2AC must define it (the NEG needs to implicate this still). After some tinkering, I unironically began searching for a definition of "dispo." Everything I found either defines it differently from each other or from the way it has been defined in most debates I have judged. Therefore, I can be easily convinced the phrase "dispo solves" by itself does not constitute a complete argument. The only other thought I have other than the "plank + process spam" stuff (which I like) is that I can be persuaded "dispo" would mostly only ever allow one advocacy. It now seems intuitive to me that absent 1NC construction that made sure every DA was a net benefit to every CP, the 2A could force the NEG to have to extend everything but since one links to the net benefit, it would be impossible to vote NEG.

· This is more of a random quibble that I think can be used to frame a defense of conditionality. It seems logical to me that the ability of the AFF to extend both conditionality and substance in the 1AR, forcing the 2NR to cover both in a manner to answer inevitable 2AR shenanigans (especially nowadays) is the same logic criticized by "condo bad" as the 2AR can pick and choose with no cost. It seems worse in this case given the NEG does not have a 3NR to refute the 2AR in this scenario. This is a firm view, but it seems much easier to me for the 2AR to answer the fourth mediocre CP in the 1NC (like uncooperative federalism lol) than for the 2NR to answer the 5-minute condo bad 2AR that stemmed from a 45-second 1AR.

---death good: a quick note since I have had to think about this recently. I won't vote for anything endorsing self-harm or violence against anyone in the debate. That is different than arguments like spark/wipeout, the "death k," death good, or some revolutionary praxis (for example, Huey Newton). I think the line is generally a difference between arguments about the people within the debate vs actual academic controversy.

---evidence ethics or anything else in a similar vein should typically be debated. That's what I prefer but if there is a clear violation consistent with tournament policy, the onus is on the debaters to direct me to stop the round and address it.

---"Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone uses gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is entirely up to me." – Truf.

Updated for immigration - I found out the topic was about immigration 5 minutes before round 1 :eyes:
__________________

Ive debated for 4 years in highschool and a year in a half in college.

I only read policy arguments for my first three years, and only high theory for my last 3 years of debate

I dont care what arguments you make as long as you explain them well and explain why you should win the debate.

Conceding an argument means nothing if you dont explain why the argument is important and why their concession is important for the overall debate.

It seems like everyone is reading the K even if they dont know what it means... If you dont know what 2/3rds of the words in your evidence means... dont read the arguments or it'll be very obvious and your speaker points wont be as happy

The only argument im slightly biased on is "capitalism is bad", I dont think its bad in the abstract, but ive thought a lot about capitalism and theres one reason which has convinced me its evil. Thats up for you to figure out.

Ben Nottingham

Senior at Pace Academy

2A, but debated for 3 years as a 2N

Top-Level:

You do you. I’m not tied to any ideal style of debate or argumentation, and I’ll evaluate the debate based on the frameworks given to me by the debaters. I will vote on pretty much any argument that’s explained well, impacted out, and not clearly offensive.

Access Requests:

I strongly think that debate should be a safe space for everyone, so I take these very seriously and have very little sympathy for debaters who can’t respect simple requests. If someone discloses their pronouns, make sure are respecting those at all times during the debate round. If someone discloses a potential trigger/problem they have with the 1AC , make sure that part is removed/replaces. If any debater needs any sort of disability accommodations, make sure you do that in the manner that has been requested. The judge has a responsibility to protect the integrity of the debate and the tournament, I won’t tolerate any form of discrimination/micro-aggressions during the round.

CX:

I flow it, and use it to determine speaker points. Be persistent and aggressive when asking questions, but not rude or dismissive. Look at me during CX, I’m usually very expressive when I think the question/answer is incorrect or inapplicable. If your partner answers every single question about the speech you just gave, I’ll assume you probably don’t know what you’re talking about. Given disparities in privilege and access, I hold white & male-identifying debaters to a higher standard in terms of interrupting /cutting off other debaters in CX. You don’t have the right to silence or invalidate anyone else. Know your place, be respectful, let your partner talk.

Topicality:

I think neg teams tend to under-utilize topicality or extend it only as a backup option. I would argue that, especially on a huge topic like immigration, T is sometimes the best strategy against an affirmative. I’m relatively unpersuaded by most reasonability arguments and I usually resolve Topicality debates based on whether or not the aff meets the neg’s interp, and if not, whether their counter-interpretation is better for debate. I think that clash/ground is probably the best internal link into fairness + topic education, the most significant impacts to topicality.

Common Immigration T Debates:

- Refugees/Asylees: Probably topical

- Adjustment of status - Probably topical

- Temporary Affs - Probably not topical

K Affs/Planless Affs:

I will definitely vote for them, despite my considerable lack of expertise surrounding most critical literature. I think the best K affs have a cohesive impact-turn strategy to framework, as well as some discussion of the topic. I don’t think affirmatives necessarily need to be grounded in some sort of advocacy/strategy, but make sure you know how to answer presumption. I think identity-based K affs are more strategic, and aim sympathetic to the argument that certain bodies can’t access the resolution/state in a non-violent manner. If you’re reading a K Aff, make sure your impacts are unique to this round/your educational model.

Neg teams, make a push on case. Instead of just dumping your generic “state good” cards on the case debate, try to make responsive case arguments that reduce the aff’s ability to leverage portions of it as impact turns elsewhere in the debate. Don’t be afraid to make a presumption push vs High Theory/Baudrillard teams.

T USFG/Framework:

I tend to agree with Ms. Jordan that most framework arguments lack nuance and avoid engagement with the aff. The best framework teams listen, flow, and explain their arguments in terms of the affirmative. I think you’re probably wasting your time going for any other impact than procedural fairness, but make sure to explain your impacts and do impact comparison. TVA’s and solid case arguments are your best friend, use them to mitigate the affs impact turn to fairness.

Ill give a bonus .3 speaker points if you can give a 2NR on T USFG without using your computer. Ii think that neg teams that rely heavily on prewritten blocks/overviews often undercover/miss the key points of clash in the debate that will determine my ballot.

Theory:

I actually really enjoyed nuanced theory debates and I find myself if the middle of the ideological bias road when it comes to most theory arguments.

- Condo: Neg gets one conditional CP + K. Anything more than two condo is risky.

- Parole Theory: I think parole can be deployed extremely abusively. I can definitely see myself voting on Indefinite/Infinitely Renewed Parole is bad.

- Process CP’s: I’m pretty aff leaning when it comes to most CP competition debates, but neg teams that explain the CP clearly & in terms of the resolution are usually successful.

- Devolution Theory: If there’s one argument I absolutely hate, it’s the devolution CP. Devolution of authority to a different actor to do the plan in the same way isn’t functionally competitive or theoretically justified.

- ASPEC: If it’s explained, impacted out, and completely dropped, go for it. If all three of those things aren’t true, probably don’t.

Counterplans:

Counterplans can be extremely strategic, especially against soft left AFFs, and affs without a solid LPR key or US key warrant. Frame counterplan solvency in terms of sufficiency, and weigh your DA impacts in terms of the risk of a solvency deficit. Don’t be afraid to change the text of the counterplan during the 2NC in response to 2AC add-ons or solvency deficits. Don’t be shady by hiding internal net benefits/deleting them from the speech. Unless it’s obvious, make sure you have a clear violation of why the CP would avoid the net benefit, but the plan and the perm would not. Going for a CP in the 2NR doesn’t mean you don’t have to answer the case debate, and extending solvency deficits to the aff is always useful.

Immigration Topic DA’s:

I’m sorry, but neg ground is kinda nonexistent on this topic. I’m of the default opinion that your wages/overpopulation authors are probably writing under racist and xenophobic pretenses. Turns case arguments are important and useful, you should utilize them as a reason to justfiy weighing your DA, and to hedge back against affirmative framing arguments. I don’t think that reading most of these DA’s is a reason to reject the team or stop the debate, but I am willing to dismiss the argument if proven to have racist assumptions.

PTX DA:

I’m a big fan. I love in-depth uniqueness debates and quality evidence comparison in these rounds. When I was a 2N, the majority of my 2NR’s included some form of PTX DA. Aff- Specific link cards are almost necessary, given problems with link uniqueness. A card about why the plan is controversial is much better than a generic “plan saps floor time” link card. Update your uniqueness cards before every tournament and know how to extend them. An effective 1ar extension off the 2AC uniqueness evidence is more strategic than reading two more won’t pass cards that say the same thing. If the 1NR reads a new impact on the DA, impact turn it in the 1AR. Circumvention/Rollback arguments can become extremely easy ways to lose the round if handled incorrectly.

Ill give .3 points to anyone who reads, extends, and explains the Miller DA. I helped create the original file turned out by Pace, and I’m interested to see how other teams have been reading it.

K’s:

I honestly believe that these are the best negative strategy vs most affs in the immigration topic. I’ve got the most knowledge about settler colonialism, because that’s the majority of my partner’s 2NRs this year. I’m also pretty familiar with most common critiques like Neolib, Security, Agamben etc. Framework usually devolves into defensive arguments on both sides of the debate, you should use FW to limit the aff’s ability to weigh/fiat/solve for things. Specific link cards and analysis are huge for me, make sure you condense the link debate in the 2NR. If i think the negative wins a significant risk of any link, it becomes very hard for me to vote aff on the permutation. I’ve gone for a wide variety of antiblackness authors in my high school career, including: Warren, Sharpe, Moten, Sexton, Wilderson, etc. By no means am I any sort of expert in this field, but I should understand your arguments pretty well. If you’re knowledgeable about the literature that you’re reading and passionate about your arguments, I’ll want to vote for you even more.

Speaker Points:

I’d like to think I give really high speaks relative to a lot of the more experienced judges. Regardless of your experience, if you show a genuine interest in engaging in the debate and learning more about immigration policy, I’ll boost your speaker points. Some other possible ways to increase/decrease speaks:

Ways to Gain Speaks:

* + 0.2 if you make a joke about any of the following varsity debaters, if they’re on your team: Aden Barton, Atticus Glen, Chris Eckert, Chris Rascoe, Manav Daftari, Alan Ivackovic, Liam Lorenz, Julian Dazkal, Eli Couture, Josh Jeong, Rik Naga, Suraj Peramanu, Malachi Robinson, Alex Pinheiro, Ethan Muse, Samir Ratakonda.

* + 0.3 if you make a joke about Tyler Henderson. I’m always in the market for new roasts, so, give me your best.

* + 0.5 if you know/were in the lab of Whit Whitmore, Brian Klarman, or Louie Petit, and you can execute an impersonation of them in CX.

* + 0.3 if you can show me your flows after the round and they look complete/neat.

* + 0.3 if you can give the 2NR/2AR without using your computer

* + 0.4 if you’re from a small school on the Georgia circuit and can show me you have effectively used the wiki for disclosure

* + 0.3 if you execute a comprehensive case turn strategy

Ways to Lose Speaks:

* - 0.1 if you say an argument was conceded and it obviously was answered.

* - 0.2 if you actively steal prep before your speech

* - 0.2 if you consistently cut off your partner/opponents during CX

* - 0.2 if you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of a part of immigration policy that pertains to your aff

* - 0.5+ if i feel you’ve said something offensive or rude in the round.

* - 0.3 if you use any form of ableist language during your speeches.

* - 0.1 If you take more than five minutes to send your speech document, absent a serious tech issue.

Novice-Specific:

1) Clipping - If I notice it, I’ll warn you once after the speech and dock your speaker points. If either you or your partner clips again, I’ll stop the debate. If the other team makes a credible clipping violation on their own, I’ll stop the debate a determine my ballot based on whether or not I believe clipping occurred.

2) Novice Teams reading K affs - Although i usually enjoy critical affirmatives, I don’t think novice teams should be reading them, unless it’s the very end of the year. Novice Debate is ablut learning the rules of the game and practicing traditional argument styles. Most novices haven’t learned how to debate any of these affs yet, which makes the round aff-biased, unproductive, and uneducational. If you think you’ve mastered the basics and are ready to transgress the rules/norms of debate, you should move up to the JV/Varsity division for more of a challenge.

3) Be Humble and Respectful: Far too often I see novice debaters laughing or making faces at what they perceive to be a bad argument in their opponents speech. Don’t do that. You’re all novices, none of you have it figured out yet, no matter how many novice debates you’ve won this year.

Woodward '17

UGA '21

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: rishika.pandey21@gmail.com

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round or email me afterwards, I'm here to help!

When reading through these comments, just remember that they reflect my background and thoughts based on debates that I've had, watched, or judged so far - don't let them determine your neg strat or 2AR decisions. You do you. I can keep up.

General comments:

1. Be nice. There's a difference between confidence and rudeness, and I will dock speaker points if you are rude/offensive to anyone (yes, including me and your own partner) in the room at any point.

2. If I have to remind you to be clear, then you shouldn't expect above a 28. Use your words.

3. Prep-time: I'll stop the timer when you tell me the speech doc is done; however, if it takes you too long to email/flash the speech to everyone, I'll probably be suspicious and dock prep time.

4. I read evidence apposite to the nexus question of the debate.

5. Yes, absolute defense is possible.

6. Smart analytics over trash evidence.

7. Evidence - don't underhighlight, clip, or do any of that cheat-y stuff. You're not as cool or sneaky as you think you are.

Specific arguments:

T - Nuanced T debates are great. T over theory unless explained otherwise. Reasonability is fair if the neg interp is meta and non-specific to the aff. You need to explain what the topic would look like under your interp and provide clear case lists and DAs to the other team's interpretation.

DAs - GOOD aff-specific researched DAs are pretty much my favorite arguments. On the other hand, I'm fine listening to politics and other general topic DAs (although you'll have a harder time convincing me to vote for your generic budget or trade-off DA).

CPs - I get excited judging innovative CPs. Defend your CP against CP theory, especially if you think you have a great solvency advocate (though not all CPs need one). No, I won't "judge-kick" a CP for you - you need to make a decision and stick to it.

Theory - 1-2 conditional advocacies is fine; any more is probably excessive and/or abusive. Politics theory is fine as a time-skew, but I'm not likely to vote on it. Floating PIKs/PICs and process CPs are generally bad.

Ks - I'm good with most general/topic/identity/reps critiques, but not necessarily all of the high-theory Name Ks. The best Ks in front of me are contextualized to the aff (using aff evidence as links). Clear explanations and in-depth analysis will most likely help you win a K debate in front of me, not just evidence.

Affs/case - Affs should generally have a plan text/advocacy statement, but I'll listen to affs that don't. Also, case debates are AWESOME and way too undervalued - I love impact turns, alt causes, link turns, etc. Be innovative.

For extra clarity, if necessary, my debate ideology has been strongly influenced by Maggie Berthiaume - see her paradigm.

Chain: shenjeffery113@gmail.com

Debated at JCHS for 3 yrs, was not able to compete the 4th.

Stanford 24'

---

pls camera on if you can, it makes debating less of a bore

Stolen from my friend, Mr. Blake Deng:

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

my brain is not that big. I have experience with PTX DAs, Generic Ks, Generic CPs. If your aff is to regulate some small agency with an obscure acronym, please explain. Debate is about convincing the judge, not who can throw out the most off-case in 8 minutes.

---

General thoughts on debate:

- Tag teaming is fine; too much = slight speaks dock maybe

- Be nice, don't flex, be courteous; CX is already toxic enough.

- Please do not steal prep with virtual debate, do not clip cards, do not cheat in any way. It will be a quick decision.

- I was a 2A/1N years ago, so I do lean aff on some common topics: >3 conditional, and condo bad is lookin pretty good; if the 1NC is under highlighted 10 off, the 2A gets more leeway, as long as the 2A says something (can be one sentence, oh well) about it, an argument is not "conceded," but it makes the 2A's job much harder to defend. Given that, the 1NR should be the best speech in the round - I loved doing it because it was blocked out, and had copious amounts of prep for it.

- Send analytics if you want - I'd recommend it because then I definitely won't miss any arguments and it generally just makes the debate easier to follow for everyone, but I know some people are stingy about this. No speaker pts diff if you do either or, just know I will probably miss some of your arguments.

- Tech > Truth within reason. This means, yes, if you drop 50 State Fiat is a voter, you will lose. No, this does not mean if the other team drops Covid isn't real/some other just false statement that you will win.

---

Argument list ---

DAs:

Always good, basically the base of any neg strat. I don't know if 0 risk exists, but "so low where it's negligible" risk 100% exists. PTX DAs need to have updated ev (no-brainer). Straight-turning DAs is underused but is a good way to stop the neg from reading 4 crappy DAs and kicking them all in the block.

Ks:

I have a basic foundation in the more common ones (Cap, Neolib, Security, Afropess/Antiblackness EMPHASIS ON BASIC). I was more of a policy person, but I honestly think the topic are quite interesting and put spice into the bore of regular policy. Explain your args, and the name of an argument will never sway me away.

The alternative is critical. If the negative cannot explain how it works, solves, or even just makes sense, it doesn't matter if the aff is straight dropped all other points: you have no alternative. I think of it like a net benefit without a counterplan. The K becomes a linear DA at that point.

T:

Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I strongly dislike T unless the aff is clearly untopical/is obviously unfair. Reasonability is valid, the neg gets a litany of random off case to check the aff, and most teams that say the aff spikes out of links have 10 off-case in the 1NC. Don't mind my flashy school name: my brain is not that big, and debates over minute details in interpretations/counter-interps make me sad. If you go for T, please have specifics on why the aff is bad, case list (very underutilized), and not just "the aff does not line up with our merrian-webster 1996 definition."

CPs:

Yes, good as well. They must be competitive, both textually and functionally. It cannot just do the same thing as the aff, P do the CP will suffice. You need a net benefit. Saying "it solves 100% of the aff" is a buzz-phrase, but I can believe it if given enough ev. The CP does not need to solve 100% of the aff given the NB is extraordinarily large - debate it out in round.

CPs should have solvency advocates in the 1nc!!!! Why should they not? The 2ac needs to know what is going on there so they can hedge against it; it's like if the neg chose to just read all their links and uniqueness cards for the DAs in the block. What is a solvency advocate? A carded piece of evidence that proves why your CP solves the harms of the aff. Keep it simple; not having an advocate gives me a pretty good reason to reject the argument (maybe not the team, depends on abuse).

Non-Traditional Affs:

I will be extremely confused, and unsure how to vote. If you want to try, go ahead; I think I will find it very interesting to listen to, but I caution you that there are many more well-qualified people than me to judge you. I do not have much experience at all in this field.

Theory:

If it's not either straight dropped or close to it, it's probably not a good idea to go for it unless you really know what's going on. The two args I have a soft spot for are "condo bad" and "absolutely terrible CPs bad" (no solvency advocate, textually uncompetitive, PICS bad, etc). Other than that, I'd say theory is not very viable.

---

Extra stuff:

- Mandatory "if you make me laugh, you'll get bonus speaks"

- Be clear, speaks go down if you are a bad speaker.

- Be nice. I know firsthand how CX can have a toxic culture, and if I see it in round (to your partner, to others, etc) you are losing entire digits of speaks.

- I'm a nice person I swear, ask questions after the round if you want. No judgement.