Robbie Allison

updated june 2022

experience + background

University of Southern California 2022; BA Political Economy. Minor, Int'l Policy and Management 

Loyola High School, Assistant Coach LD - 2 years - present.

4 year policy debater @ USC (NDT-CEDA circuit),

4 years national circuit policy @ Park City HS, Utah

Park City High School, Assistant Coach Policy, 1 year.

put me on the email chain: robbie.allison63@gmail.com

TLDR:
Did a decent amount of topic research for Autonomous weapons. I’ll know the acronyms etc

NSDA 2022 PF: I know the topic area well from years of college-level research on the international politics of the indo-pacific region including American and Chinese foreign policy, international trade, and domestic politics. 

Go as fast as you want, please cite author names for evidence, and maintain consistent signposting and organization.

Do your impact analysis at the top of the speech. Overviews are not necessary after constructive speeches. 

All other preferences in this paradigm apply equally to PF as they do for other events.

LD specific things @ bottom.

Go for what you're good at. I am well-versed in most k and policy/ir/econ literature but that doesn't mean buzzwords are a good way to debate. Good evidence matters (i'll always read it) but good explanation, organization, and presentation is what wins the debate. The biases I do have I keep isolated from how I evaluate arguments. I make my decision by comparing what was said in the final speeches with respect to what I think the core framing issue / impact is of the round, I assume offense has higher risk / more innate power than defense and is at worst defense. Shadow extensions and evidence that isn't explained doesn't count. Risk is determined (usually) by either uniqueness or evidence quality, and risk of X impact getting solved / occuring is what most debates boil down to - it's in your interest to appeal to this in your speech.

embedded clash is good and if you do it I will do my best to put things together for you without intervening. I will vote on zero risk. these need to be consistent with previous speeches (obviously.)

Yes Tech over Truth. (racial slurs, racism good, marginalized people don't care about their rights, etc. are not tech and you'll probably lose for saying these things)

Specific Arguments

Clash of civs debates: fairness is whatever you want it to be and clash isn't always good (aff should impact turn it and neg should get u.q. with a TVA), you need to explain your wishes into existence and not simply announce them. Structural vs. procedural fairness is a legitimate distinction but easily susceptible to spin and tech tricks.

Politics DA: you better have a good one - I might be skeptical, doesn't mean you shouldn't read it if you believe if its the best strategy etc

Cheating CPs: I'll vote on theory but probably with higher burden on aff to prove abuse than other situations, read them. 2nc CPs and CPs without solvency advocates don't hold up well to good aff analytics.

Theory, T, etc: i default to reasonability and no RVIs. The burden of proof is on the non-violating team (neg in T debates) to prove competing interps are good or their interp is true / better for debate. Caselists, specific applications to the topic and deep discussions of evidence are best here. I don't want to hear 2 minutes of fairness good but rather real internal link analysis about the interp's effect on the topic.

Do more case debate, don't read overviews in front of me, and extend defense when going for the squo.

Indict evidence and compare it, don't just read blocks, and if you do then don't read them full speed. rebuttals should start with decision framing overviews and then quickly go to line by line, i don't need your 2 minute kritik overview.

rona notes:

I am debating on zoom this season as well. It's terrible for everybody involved but luckily we are still able to debate. Make sure you have a verbal confirmation from me before you start a speech or cross ex, I may or may not have my camera on. Keep your mic muted if your not speaking. I think many debaters would benefit from going a little bit slower given the above, especially in rebuttals. I don't want to miss things and mic / internet / audio quality varies. This being said, don't slow down too much that you sacrifice tech advantages. Don't worry too much about speed, I will be fine. Finally, cross-ex: try to give a pause after the other person finished to start speaking.

Specific rona speaker notes:

Watch your judge while you speak even on zoom. I'm moderately expressive and will nod, smile, laugh etc. depending on what u say. All of this however isn't necessarily representative of my overall thoughts on the round.

I flow on the computer, and the screen i flow on is different than the zoom one so if I'm not looking at you its probably because im flowing. if you're talking and I'm not typing you're probably doing something wrong

aggro/intense cross ex is fun, BUT it's VERY EASY to mess up in zoom debates - patience is a virtue. I already watched the first presidential debate and don't need a repeat.

i like history and empirical explanations - use it in your arguments

Speaker point scale is below, but I am on the inflation bandwagon.

ld and policy: general decision-making process, preferences

I value detailed, impactful, and thought through extensions/applications/comparisons of relevant evidence and arguments over anything else when deciding rounds and close clashes. If you want to win something, spend time on it. If you want to beat something, spend time on it.

I don’t have preconditions for what type of argument you should read. I believe judges that refuse to hear/vote on arguments based on certain ideological predispositions are, frankly, weak and dogmatic. The role of the judge is to evaluate the arguments in front of them as objectively as possible. Exposure to things that challenge our worldview and make us uncomfortable is where debate derives its educational, competitive, and interpersonal value. Do what you do best. Specific tech preferences are below. This doesn't mean that I will always vote for your performance aff but it also means I will not always vote for t-fw or traditional policy approaches.

With the above in mind, I find many framework args more and more repetitive, boring, and unpersuasive. Good TVA's, novel interps and evidence, and nuanced process and mechanism analysis that relate to the impacts of the aff will solve this problem for you. If you're going to read a basic ass FW shell and then feed me DanBan clash good lines the whole time without engaging the substance of the affirmative, the round will not go well for you.

I mostly read policy arguments but end up spending a lot of time researching k lit and debating these arguments, and I have a good grasp on them but keep in mind I may not know all of your author names or niche theoretical references and terminology.

speed is fine. stop going full speed through theory blocks and k overviews. Thanks

If an argument has been largely ignored by the other team and consistently impacted and extended by other, my standard of explanation for the former is very low.

If it's in the 2nr/2ar and wasn't in the previous speech, I won't evaluate it - if you're going to extend a piece offense for 3 mins in your rebuttal that's been relatively small the entire round, it's in your best interest to make the location of the ev for the argument apparent or remind me where its been extended etc. - this may seem standard/obvious to many - but ya'll would be surprised.

This is especially true for kritiks. If you have a theory of power, a link, an alt, etc. that's been unaddressed but wins you the round, you still need to explain what it is and why it matters in rebuttals - tagline extensions will never work for me

Please avoid overviews longer than 1 minute, or tell me beforehand so I can flow them somewherew

Embedded clash is cool, I will make those connections for u if they are logical

'insert this rehighlight' doesn't count - read your recut.

buzzwords - policy, econ, and IR buzzwords (academic, not debate-based) are cool with me and make the debate more efficient. K buzzwords are a different story, I will understand your language but if you don't explain the words unique to your theory of power it won't go well for you.

Condo is good (usually)

k, t-fw things

If you read a plan, impact framing and impact/scenario analysis is important to me.

If you don't read a plan, that's fine - Be ready to explain your alt clearly, and why its strategy or mechanism substantively engages whatever you are critiquing. Against T-FW, beat the TVA and tell me why your model is better for debate.

If you read T-FW, fairness is an impact but you should explain a (carded) TVA

Death is bad

‘fiat Is illusory’ and generic state links aren’t enough to win a kritik in front of me – apply your links specifically to the aff and you will have a much easier time

Also, identity arguments are good when deployed in a manner that provides a strategy or solution (alternative) to alleviate impacts for yourself and others like you. When they are deployed for/about you alone and against your opponents positionality, I will be very easily persuaded by the other team’s indict of your method, epistemology, and discourse.

Floating PIKs are cool if the 1ar doesn't have theory. Floating piks and ‘alt solves the aff’ are two different things. The theory is also two different things. One is theoretically questionable and the other is a root cause argument.

I love the perm debate on kritiks, impact or explain the chronology and mechanisms of the perm to win – if the k is a speech act, so is the aff.

fiat is usually legit and good

policy neg things

Counterplans need solvency advocates unless aff doesn't call u out - I really enjoy techy/cheater counterplan debates - obvi if you drop / lose theory ill still vote u down but this shouldn't discourage u from going for them

Case turns are underappreciated

Politics debates are the best or the worst - I value recent ev a lot more here. These debates are when uniqueness, specifically link uniqueness, is very important. Your predictive models for political outcomes need to be detailed and well warranted – I believe impact defense and well-thought out aff analytics are usually enough to beat an obscure, weakly carded politics disad. When packaged well, intrinsic arguments have an unrecognized truth and strategic benefit.

Bad evidence really is bad and having good cards is important - I will often break ties with evidence - whoever's argument more consistently aligns with the ev usually has more truth behind their overall thesis - and the quality of that ev matters. This being said, warranted extensions and applications of your evidence need to be made throughout the round. This also means I value good explanation and knowledge of this evidence, especially in rebuttals and cross-ex. Comparative arguments are your best tool to win evidence - if you win that your ev is better than theirs, you have a much higher chance of getting my ballot.

I default to 'yes judge kick' unless there is a debate about it. 'no judge kick' in the 1ar/2ar doesn't count unless its a cross app from a condo shell from the 2ac

speaks

I use the following scale:

Below 27 – you did something unsavory that I would probably mention during the rfd – severity determines scale.

27-27.9 – within this range, you likely behaved in a perceptually bad way, spoke unclearly, or had a below-average speaking/cx performance

28-28.7 – average speaking performance: clear, organized, small errors/quirks but no big deal.

28.8 – 29.5 – above average speaking performance. Varies relative to other team’s skill but exceeds regardless in speaking style, flourish, and organization

29.6 – 30 – exceptional performance. Impressive speaker.

LD things

I make decisions off of evidence comparisons often here because there's so little time for developed clash in round. This is to say good analytics are good, but good evidence is better.

time allocations are unbalanced in LD. I give the affirmative a little more leeway in the depth of their explanations given this. This does not mean I'll vote on your 2ac one-liner.

Please signpost...

for the love of god dontspreadfullspeedthroughyourdamnanalyticsandtheoryblocks its bad for you unless you know your'e crystal clear and trust me you aren't saving that much time.

Topicality in LD is odd in LD (my opinion). If you're going for T in front of me, make sure you can connect your interpretation to the aff (in either direction) and tell me why your interp is good for debate or why theirs is bad (or both). Topicality impacts in LD are odd bc your topic only lasts 2 months lol

Please include some decision framing in your rebuttal

A few things I stole from Ben Rosenthal that I also explain how I evaluate this debate:

1. I won't vote on an RVI

2. T- bare plurals / T subsets is hard to win in front of me, LAWs topic is one exception

3. I think asking your opponent what cards you read/didn't read counts as cross-ex or prep. you should be able to flow and listen to their speech - asking for a marked copy is what you can do without sucking prep, but if you ask about specific warrants etc. that's going to be your prep time.

4. Framing contentions don't substitute for impact explanations, and you can ditch your pre-scripted 2AC case overview

5. Theory needs to be more developed - pick and choose your arguments that you make better, because if the only word I can flow is "condo" then I won't vote for it, even if dropped.

6. if you're reading phil explain yourself - I don't know LD norms and buzzwords for these arguments

If you have more specific questions or accommodations feel free to ask

General Notes:

• Please include me in the email chain callielynne26@gmail.com

- Warrants are what make me vote on arguments- isolate the specific warrants you want me to remember because I won't remember every warrant from every card in the constructives

-Please slow down a little bit on your typed analytics, especially if they are most of or at the beginning of your speech. Argument tags will help me flow your analytics but no worries if you don't have them. Just know that I can't flow every word as fast as you can say them.

Argument Thoughts:

K Affs and Framework- I've read these affs and thing they can be really cool if you know what your aff does or does not do and can explain that. I find that I lean towards affs that are in the direction of the topic not being as big of a violation of framework as others, but I am also willing to vote against these affs if the neg can explain why this is bad. The cleaner the framework flow is the happier I will be.

Topicality- Good T debate is specific T debate. What affs do they include? What successful teams are reading topical affs?and reading a case list are all some examples of viable options. Make sure you answer all of their standards sufficiently, this often(though not always) means that for T to be a viable 2NR strat at least 3 minutes of the block should be spent on it. I have also found that I am more persuaded by ground args than limits, but I'm willing to vote on limits if it is more specific than generic blocks your varsity's varsity wrote.

Theory- The more I've judged the more I've realized I am not super willing to vote on theory. I will if I need to and am much more likely and willing to vote on theory if it is specific and contextualize to the round. I have no idea how to evaluate two teams reading generic theory blocks and if the round turns in to this it will be so much harder for me to vote on theory.

CPs- Handle theory appropriately. Make sure you explain what your counter plan does and have good perm answers.

DAs- I like DAs with clear internal link analysis. If it is vague and something along the lines of "X causes the economy to decline which causes a nuclear war" with no explanation of how the economic decline causes a nuclear war I will have a hard time defending a DA scenario on the ballot.

Kritiks- Make sure you can explain the alt and defend it in CX. I think the best K debate is specific K debate, so if you can read lines of their evidence to prove the link and/or isolate multiple links that is best. You should also make sure you are winning at least some risk of the alt solving or doing something good.

Though I have extensive experience directing high school debate teams, I keep considerable distance from coaching and judging. Nevertheless, circumstances are such that I occasionally find myself in that world. That said, keep in mind that my familiarity with the topic is going to be less yours.

Explain your positions clearly. Consolidate your arguments in final rebuttals. I'm not afraid to ignore something because I don't get it.

Speed is OK but with critical arguments you'll need to help me out. My comprehension of such things isn't great.

Be kind to one another and have fun.

I am primarily a policymaker judge, with a stock issues influence. If you have no idea what this means, you need to ask your coach. Whether you know what it means or not, everyone needs to learn how to adapt to judges.

While I am an experienced policy debater, after my debate career, I experienced a traumatic brain injury. This makes some things harder, but in all reality, I think you should debate this way anyway. EXPLAIN your knowledge of every piece of evidence or analytic that you bring to the table. ARTICULATE/EMPHASIZE the taglines and analytics, because if I can't flow it, you don't get credit for it. What's more, part of my brain trauma was to the right hemisphere which impacts my understanding of most Kritiks, so it's safer not to run Ks in front of me, sorry! I thoroughly understand UTIL.

I'm mean with speaker points. I feel that 30 speaks should be triumphant, not expected. HUGE bonus points if you can make me laugh, if you make fun of someone, if you reference Psych, quote Brian Regan, and if you keep speech times short. You absolutely should not feel like you need to ever fill up all of the speech time, say what you need to say; if it takes all 8/5 minutes, great, if not, perfect, sit down. Ask questions. If you don't know if something is allowed, try it anyway.

P.S. Speechdrop.net is my favorite way of sharing evidence.

Experience:

I debated 4 years at Highland High School (UT) in Policy (2010-2014). After high school, I judged for and worked with various Utah teams for about 5 years.

I haven't worked with any teams for the last couple of years, so keep in mind that I am a little rusty. Be sure to speak clearly and annunciate your words. If you start your speeches a little slower and increase speed throughout, it will help me keep up - especially for the first couple of speeches. I also won't be super well versed in newer critical arguments, nor will I have any topic-specific background knowledge, so be sure to explain your args well - don't assume I immediately know anything.

Everything Important:

I tended to go for kritikal arguments when I debated, but I have grown to really like policy args. Run whatever you are comfortable with. I'm not against voting for any arguments in particular as long as they are run well. Don't run something you aren't comfortable with or can't explain just because you think I would be more likely to vote on it.

Part of what makes debate a particularly useful activity is that it teaches you to alter how you present your arguments based on who you are speaking to. While I try to be as objective as possible, I am not a blank slate, and no other judge really is either. Please read as much of my paradigm as you can, ask me questions before round, etc. - try to get to know your judge and learn to tailor your arguments accordingly. That being said, note that everything I outline here is simply what I typically like as a judge. The debate is yours, and I recognize that my job isn't to insert my own theories about what "good debate" is on you. I do, however, think it's good for you to know my general leanings so you can make some more informed decisions about what I might find persuasive or not.

The most important thing for any round is that you explain your arguments well. I tend to be truth over tech, meaning a well explained argument goes a lot further than anything else. This means even if the aff drops T, for example, I'm not going to vote on T if the neg doesn't explain why the argument is important.

Some more specific stuff:

K AFFS: I'm fine with kritikal affirmatives as long as there is still some engagement with the topic. Meaning, I need to see a clear reason why the aff was run on this specific topic. Also make sure to explain your aff well. Don't expect me to already know who your authors are or what they are saying.

NEGATIVES GOING AGAINST K AFFS: My chances of voting on T or Theory go way up on K affs. Pay attention to the plan text, what the aff is actually doing, and if they significantly engage with the topic. If their plan could theoretically solve any harm, or their aff could be run on any topic as is, then point it out!

KRITIKS: Like I've said, I'm fine with K's. You should be providing specific links, meaning I need to know how the aff specifically contributes to the harms of the K. As always, explain your arguments. Again, don't just assume I am familiar with any of your authors. I prefer teams leveraging K's as one argument in their neg strat rather than going one-off K. This is mostly because I find teams have a hard time defending this strategy well. If you prefer/feel comfortable doing this, then do, just be aware that you should be articulating why this one issue is so important that it is the only argument you present in the debate.

DA's/CP's: I think the DA/CP strat was super underutilized when I was judging (this may have shifted in the last few years). I prefer unique DA scenarios compared to generic DA's. Like with any argument, articulating your DA in the context of each debate goes a long way with me. Be sure to tell me why you are running this specific DA against this specific aff.

THEORY/Your Baudrillard K: I have a really hard time connecting with HS high theory debate. As someone currently outside of the debate circuit, I can't provide the analysis needed to properly or fairly evaluate these args. Traditional theory args are fine.

Please reach out with any questions:

email: k.brad130@gmail.com

(pls include me in any email chains)

Please put me on the email chain - madelinebrague@gmail.com

Quick version for 5 minutes before round:

I am most fluent in critical literature, but I would MUCH prefer a good policy debate to a sub-par K debate. If you read a politics DA, I need more than a single generic link (some damn good analytics can do it for me in some cases). I love a well-executed K, but I would say I'm equally sympathetic to framework and policy turns. Just win your arguments and know that I'm not a good judge for extremely ticky-tacky debate on the exact political implementations of a plan mainly because I usually don't care (process counterplans, I'm looking at you).

***NOTE: please PLEASE don't start top-speed, it's very difficult for me. A few minutes into the speech and you're good to go full speed but don't start there, ESPECIALLY on T or framework or case overviews (full-speed analytics are a hellish nightmare). Start as though you're giving a 2nr overview on T. If you want more info, see below.

Now the details for all you people-pleasers:

A bit about me - I debated for Rowland Hall in high school and currently coach for them. I love debate because it is what you make it. If you win the argument (and I agree that you won it), I'll vote on it. I debated using mostly critical literature when I was the captain, but I usually had policy partners. We went for framework 95% of the time. This means that I am *technically* most experienced with critical jargon, but please don't go for a K that you don't know rather than giving me a solid policy debate. To quote Misty Tippets, "Debate is for the debaters."

Judges I hope to emulate:

Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Daryl Burch, Calum Matheson, Kinsee Gaither, Misty Tippets

About speed:

I'm totally good with speed—but debaters tend to start at top speed and then gradually slow down as they lose steam, which is bad. I cannot catch your arguments when you start that way, and I WILL NOT say "clear" or "slow" to let you know, because it's your job to debate and speak in a compelling way that makes me want to vote for you. Maybe this is more of a problem for me than other judges, but please PLEASE please start slower so I can get used to your voice.

Preferences by argument:

Disads - I love a good link analysis and case turns that don't rely on the threat of nuclear war. DA's are obviously the building blocks of debate, so use them. Remember that generic blocks by themselves won't necessarily get you too far because it's a debate, not a monologue.

Politics - I gave this its own section because I can very much appreciate a politics DA with killer link analysis and a "legitimate" internal link chain (let's be real, they're all stretches). However, please do not run a politics DA when you only have generic links unless it's literally the only argument you have against the aff. When the link is that any aff being passed ever triggers the link, I have a lot of sympathy to the whole non-UQ argument (which makes it very hard to win this DA in that scenario).

Counterplans - if you have a decent net benefit, I think counterplans are great with one exception: process counterplans. I think most debaters tend to run these without a solid internal link to the net benefit, and I just don't think they're very strategic. If you win them, I'll vote on them, but remember: using unexplained political jargon—policy trigger words like "due process"—will not help you at all in front of me.

Topicality - I think case lists are really important for actually winning an impact for both sides. This means both sides should have one! Don't just randomly assert that one side loses or gains a bunch of ground without proving it. Remember that as the neg, you need to win that your model of debate is good in all instances, not just this round. For the aff: I don't have a definition of reasonability that I'll hold you to, because there are lots of interpretations of what it means and I don't think it's necessary to prefer one over the others. But YOU need to define it for me.

Kritiks: I think these have the potential to be both the best and worst arguments in debate. Know your literature and use your evidence! I will likely know your literature—so anything from afropessimism to Baudrillard is fine—but even if I understand your jargon-filled cards, you need to prove to me that YOU understand them (if you don't, at least try to fake it till you make it). The best K debaters will work closely with aff evidence and arguments, not dismiss them as irrelevant to the "real questions" that your shut-in scholars like to ponder.

Planless/nontraditional affs - I'll jive with whatever you're throwing at me as long as you can defend it. Some relation to the topic is probably good, but if you can defend why not then I'm down. I ran these a lot and will likely have a basic understanding of your literature, but I think a good TVA can be deadly. You need to prove that 1) you DO solve things, 2) it's the BEST way to solve those things, and 3) those things are important. Please make your solvency mechanism and impacts clear.

Framework - I think this is a strategic argument when done right, and I enjoy a good defense of the model of debate that you think is most productive. Fairness is the only true impact in my opinion—you can win education is good, but I don't think you can win that you're the only ones who access education. I think framework as an impact turn/pseudo-counterplan is very strategic, and you can have education/game net benefits. It will help you to weigh framework against the mechanism of the aff in front of me. Framework against a critique will VERY rarely be enough to win the debate on its own but can be strategic in hedging against the offense of a K.

Theory - I usually feel good about voting on these kinds of arguments until the impact debate, where teams hope that if their opponents drop it then I'll automatically vote. I'll be very sympathetic, and certainly don't beat a dead horse on the theory flow, but please actually explain your impacts! There has to be a reason why it matters that they dropped it!

Stuff I like -

- a joke or two—stop taking this activity so damn seriously

- showing legitimate respect towards the other people in the room

- detailed links to minutiae in the aff

- 1ARs given off of paper (except for reading a card)

Pet peeves -

- Saying "CX was DAMNING on this question." No it wasn't. Just say "CX proves that..." and don't be so condescending.

- Yelling over people in CX just to prove a point. The judge can never hear what's going on when both speakers are trying to talk over each other and you're being rude.

- Not flowing the 2AR/just randomly gazing off into space during the 2AR. The debate hasn't ended, so you're still a debater...act like it.

- Using lots of your prep time to ask CX questions just to be annoying to the other team. I'm not listening at this point.

- Spreading through blocks. If they're that long, then you should shorten them.

- Saying "obviously debate doesn't leave this room when we say the government should do something." Oh really? I thought you were a senator. My b

I hope this goes without saying, but I will not tolerate any kind of racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, queerphobic, ableist, or otherwise exclusionary discourse/conduct. Doing so will result in lowest possible speaks and an automatic loss for me.

I debated in highschool at Rowland Hall, where I cleared at the TOC. I've judged rarely over the last 5 years, and just a few rounds on the immigration topic. Feel free to treat me like an averagely intelligent person that knows zero acronyms and would benefit from you slowing down 20%. Clarity >> speed always.

Other than that, please do what you do best. Put yourself in my shoes and ask yourself how to make it easiest for me to vote for you. I agree with everything in Mike Shackelford's paradigm if you want more specifics.

I will try my best to be objective, although I will reward your ethos within the round:

• Reference cross-x in your speeches - otherwise what's the point?
• Don’t be afraid to make bold decisions or use humor – it’ll improve the round

Other random stuff:

• Tell me where to vote. I've had this in my paradigm forever and I'm often disappointed that rebuttals don't include specific instructions on where/why I'm signing my ballot
• Impact comparison is your friend (this includes T/Theory)
• Don't read arguments you don't understand
• Answer the best version of your opponent’s argument.

I am not easily offended – take from that what you will. THAT BEING SAID, please always be respectful of your opponents and have fun!

I'm a first year head coach at Skyline High School. I have three experience as an assistant coach. I've mostly worked with speech events, but also congress and Public Forum with limited experience in Policy and LD.

Policy:

Overall: I don't believe I'm experienced enough to understand theory or be able to strongly evaluate Kritiks.

Speed: I'm OK with speed as long as you email me your speeches (tfhenry@granitesd.org) , but please slow down for your taglines.

RFD: I typically base my decision on the the stock issues of the plan on the Affs ability to defend it and prove that it is better than the status quo. The NEG wins if they can prove the plan is worst then the status quo or the status quo is better than the plan.

I did LD a looong time ago, so make it super clear for me.

I may make mistakes, but I will try to be fair. Ultimately it's your job to make the decision easy for me.

Honestly I really only want to vote on (well-argued) T. Don't @ me.

You do you.

Explain your arguments well.

Use your framework.

Don't assume I know stuff.

Don't be a douche.

Give me voters.

Add me to the email chain: graciejames651@gmail.com

I did policy for most of high school so speed, Ks, etc. are cool.

I suck at verbal RFDs but I'll give you more on the ballot.

YOU DO YOU!

***CX***

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

• Will consider any arg (except anything blatantly racist, homophobic, misogynistic , etc.) Just argue it well.

• Down for the K on either side but if you can't it explain it, don't expect a ballot. My background in Higher Theory isn't super extensive but i can generally keep up. That being said just assume that I know nothing about your K cause there is a possibility that its true.

• Performance is cool.

• Affs don't have to defend the topic but topicality can still be a voting issue if argued right.

• I will reward creative args and answers with speaks

• Act however during speeches but be civil when the timer's not running, debate should be fun for all.

• I personally believe good analytics are more powerful than a wall of cards

***LD***

• My background is in policy however this year I have gotten a bit of experience judging LD, take my notes with a grain of salt I am still learning what high level LD really looks like.

•Speed? cool.

• Will consider any arg (except anything blatantly racist, homophobic, misogynistic , etc.) Just argue it well.

•"will you listen to X progressive argument?" Yes, of course.

• Framework args need love too, I really am not loving the trend of shadow extending your interps with no warrant.

•I should understand most of your concepts but good explanations are always good.

• I will reward creative args and answers with speaks

• Act however during speeches but be civil when the timer's not running, debate should be fun for all.

Just tell me how to vote I don't really have an inclination to anything.

Please include me on the email chain: jdutdebate@gmail.com

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible. I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions. I will not tolerate language or behaviors that create a hostile environment. Please include trigger warnings for sexual violence. Feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Specific things:

Speed - I'm comfortable with speed but please recognize that if you're reading typed blocks that are not in the speech doc at the same speed you are reading cards, there's a chance I will miss something because I can't flow every word you're saying as fast as you can say them. Slow down just a bit for what you want me to write down or include your blocks in the doc. I will say "clear" if you are not clear.

Topicality- I enjoy good topicality debates. To me good topicality debates are going to compare impacts and discuss what interp of the topic is going to be better for the debate community and the goals that are pursued by debaters.The goals and purpose of debate is of course debatable and can help establish which impacts are more important than others so make sure you're doing that work for me.

Counterplans- I enjoy creative counterplans best but even your standard ones will be persuasive to me if there is a solid solvency advocate and net-benny.

Theory - In-round abuse will always be far more persuasive to me than merely potential abuse and tricksy interps. I expect more than just reading blocks.

K- I really enjoy a good critical debate. Please establish how your kritik interacts with the affirmative and/or the topic and what that means for evaluating the round in some sort of framework. Authors and buzzwords alone will not get you very far even if I am familiar with the literature. I expect contextual link work with a fully articulated impact and alternative. If your K does not have an alternative, I will weigh it as a DA (that's probably non-unique).

Performance - All debate is a performance and relies on effective communication. If you are communicating to me a warranted argument, I do not care how you are presenting it.

John Shackelford

Policy Coach: Park City, UT

***ONLINE DEBATE***

I keep my camera on as often as I can. I still try to look at faces during CX and rebuttals. Extra decimals if you try to put analytics in doc.

I end prep once the doc has been sent.

GO SLOWER

****TLDR IN BOLD****

Please include me in email chains during the debate (johnshackelf[at]gmail). I do not follow along with the speech doc during a speech, but sometimes I will follow along to check clipping and cross-ex questions about specific pieces of evidence.

Here is what an ideal debate looks like. (Heads up! I can be a silly goose, so the more you do this, the better I can judge you)

- Line by Line (Do it in order)

- Extending > reading a new card (Your better cards are in your first speech anyway. Tell me how the card is and how it frames the debate in your future analysis)

- More content >Less Jargon (avoid talking about the judge, another team, flows, yourselves. Focus on the substance. Avoid saying: special metaphors, Turns back, check back, the link check, Pulling or extending across, Voting up or down. They don’t exist.)

- Great Cross-examination (I am okay with tag team, I just find it unstrategic)

- Compare > description (Compare more, describe less)

- Overviews/Impact Calc (Focus on the core controversy of the debate. Offense wins)

- Engage > Exclude

- Clarity > Speed

- Making generics specific to the round

- Researched T Shells (Do work before reading T. I love T, but I have a standard on what is a good T debate)

- Arguments you can only read on this topic!!

Popular Q&A

- K/FW: More sympathetic to Ks that are unique to the topic. But I dig the 1 off FW strat or 9 off vs a K.

- Theory: Perfcon theory is a thing, condo theory is not a thing. I like cheating strats. I like it when people read theory against cheating strats too.

- Prep time: I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive or when you hit send for the email. I am probably the most annoying judge about this, but I am tired of teams stealing prep and I want to keep this round moving

- I flow on my computer

Want extra decimals?

Do what I say above, and have fun with it. I reward self-awareness, clash, sound research, humor, and bold decisions. It is all about how you play the game.

Cite like Michigan State and open source like Kentucky

Speaker Points-Scale - I'll do my best to adhere to the following unless otherwise instructed by a tournament's invite:

30-99%perfect

29.5-This is the best speech I will hear at this tournament, and probably at the following one as well.

29-I expect you to get a speaker award.

28.5-You're clearly in the top third of the speakers at the tournament.

28-You're around the upper middle (ish area)

27.5-You need some work, but generally, you're doing pretty well

27-You need some work

26.5-You don't know what you're doing at all

26 and lower-you've done something ethically wrong or obscenely offensive that is explained on the ballot.

All in all, debate in front of me if your panel was Mike Bausch, Mike Shackelford, Hannah Shoell, Catherine Shackelford, and Ian Beier

If you have any questions, then I would be more than happy to answer them

I do college policy at Weber State University

email: jordanstephens2@mail.weber.edu

1. I will hear any argument you have. Just make sure it has a claim, warrant, and impact.

2. I do more performative arguments so I am not the best tech wise. I should be able to hear and understand your arguments no matter the debate.

3. Cross ex is important and I will consider the things you've said.

4. Do not be rude, racists, homophobic, ect. You can be mad, loud, soft, funny. Just do not be rude.

5. Last just have fun and learn something! Be passionate. Extra speaker points for the level of spiciness you bring to a debate.

thanks for 10 years and 100 tournaments of judging

:)

If you have any questions email me vanslootenandrew@gmail.com

I'm a tab judge.

I'm good with speed.

Impact debate please.

End your last speech with a limerick for extra points.

Also, Avengers references are welcome.

I did LD predominantly in high school, also dabbled in policy. Did parli at the U of Utah for 2 years, and 3 years of policy at Weber State University. I predominantly made arguments about disability, but I have went for heg bad and Marx

Do whatever you're best at, I am not here to dictate content nor form.

I dont judge much anymore, so I am not super up on current changes in debate norms. That being said, i do still have predilections:

Explanation over extension, I am willing to vote off 1 major arg that frames the entirety of a debate over 10 super quick extensions of a card.

I'll believe terminal defense of "they have no internal link between securtizing rhetoric of the internet and thermonuclear war" if you are unable to explain the link between those two things. Just becasue I know a lot of K lit doesn't mean I will do the work for you.

Slowing down helps everyone. I'll tell you when I cant understand, and you will have to adapt. Giving me typing or pen time (espescially on theory) is super important.

I'd prefer to watch a more substantial debate than just theory, but do you. That being said, I dont judge too much theory so you might not always like my deciscion. I default reasonability, but its not that hard to win competeing interps. The more fleshed out warrants you give me the more likely I am to vote for you

Go for less, going for a CP, DA, K and a FW is a lot for an NR and gives the aff a lot of leeway to poke holes in stuff. Going for just a DA allows me to evaluate that much easier versus the aff. The same can be said for the aff, go for less.

I will compare the NR to the 2AR as to the story told and compare arguments. If there is something neither debater can answer, I'll start thinking back to earlier rebuttals and constructive, possibly call for cards, and then try to make a deciscion.

Curtis Wardle

curtiswardle@gmail.com

435-757-6164

TLDR: debate however you would like in front of me. I'll evaluate whatever you give me to the best of my ability.

Speed: 6. If you aren't clear, then it makes my job infinitely harder. If you spread through the standards on T, Theory, and other analytic arguments, I won't feel guilty if it doesn't make it onto the flow. I can only evaluate what I was able to flow.

K: cool

CP: Cool

DA: Cool

FW: Cool

T: Go for it

Performance: Go for it.

Over/underviews: Please

Non Topical affs

I am open to new uses of time, performance, and affs that are not topical. However, I feel it is the burden of the affirmative to provide solid framework telling me to evaluate the round differently than if I were a traditional policymaker.

Topicality I'll be honest here. As aff, I was frequently non topical and as neg I read T all of the time. I am okay with T hacks, and I won't punish an aff outright so long as they can provide ample reason why their aff would be preferrable to the topic. I will default to competing interps on T debates generally.

Debate authors: this is my pet peeve. Debate people are great for advice at camp, they're not gods on the T flow. Cut it out. "Don't use me in round," Steve Knell, 2015

Kritiks

I don't really feel like I should have to put a section in here for K's but, here we go. I was a K hack that read Queer Theory/Ableism all of senior year. I believe that the K is a valid argument, and provides great (if not real world value,) intellectual value. I am familiar with queer, fem, and ableism literature as well as biopower. If you choose to read other identity critiques or something that isn't a "generic K," I may call for evidence. I will evaluate arguments I am unfamiliar with to the best of my ability.

Perm

Most CPs are totally able to be permed. I require debaters explain how the permutation is functional first, and evaluate whether or not the perm harms the integrity of the kritik if that becomes relevant. I am happy to grant perms, but if you do not tell me how the perm would function, I will most likely conclude neg.

DA

Honestly, disads are my least favorite arguments. If you want me to vote for it, you're best going for a CP/DA strategy.

Yes to the email chain: hannah.wilson@harker.org

It's important to me that judges act like educators (and by that I mean that I understand it's about the debaters and not me + professional boundaries are important). Debate is hard and we're all learning. My goal is to help make the experience as educationally valuable and fun as possible.

My debate experience: I did one year of PF in high school, one year of policy in high school, and three years of policy in college (2 at Weber and 1 at Concordia). I was an assistant coach at Copper Hills High School for 2 years, and a speech/congress coach at The Harker School for 4 years. I am now the head of the middle school program at The Harker School, coaching all the speech and debate events.

Policy & LD:

-I'm a competent person, but don't assume I have deep topic knowledge (especially with LD topics changing so often!). Don't assume I know what an acronym means. Don't assume I already know the link chain for the generic topic args. Don't assume I know about your aff. Even if I already do know about all of the things already, I think good debate requires painting the picture every time instead of just jumping to the end.

-Speed: Slow down and be clear on your analytics!!!!!! It seems like judges are just flowing off of docs, which is incentivizing people to spread theory/t/framework to get through more, but I am not that judge. I haven't judged a debate yet where I felt someone went too fast in the cards for me to keep up and follow. It's the keeping that same speed throughout all your analytics + lack of clarity and emphasis on the things you think are important that becomes the problem.

-I think signposting is so important! I'd much prefer a speech that says things like "on the circumvention debate" "on the link debate" "they say x we say y" than speeches that read as one big essay/overview. I'll still flow it, but the chances I miss a little thing that you decide to blow up later go up when your signposting is poor.

-While I've coached and judged LD, I never did it so some of the quirks are still foreign. I've heard the word tricks, but don't know what that is. The brief explanations I've received have me skeptical, but I'll listen to any arg with warrants and an impact.

-Theory: I have a high threshold for theory. I'm fine with debates about debate, but I don't know if I've ever seen a theory speech that goes in depth enough to do that well. If your theory shell was a full and cohesive argument in the constructive (i.e. the violation was specific and clear + the impact was specific and clear) and it's conceded entirely I'll vote for it. If it's like a one sentence just incase thing in the constructive, I probably don't think it was a full argument so even if they conceded it I might not buy it. Condo will be hard to win. If they are really reading *that* many off case, those arguments are probably very underdeveloped and some could even be answered by a few reasonable analytics. Do not read disclosure theory in front of me if it's the first debate on a new topic. The theory I'm most likely to be persuaded by is perf con.

-Framework: I'll happily vote for framework. Be specific about what ground you've lost and why it matters. Education > Fairness impacts. Affs need to prove their reps are desirable before weighing extinction against Ks.

-Ks: Make sure your link is specific to the aff. Be specific about how and what your alt solves. If it's an epistemology alt that's fine, but I need you to do thorough explanation of why that's the preferable way to debate and a sufficient enough reason to get my ballot. Don't assume I have a background in your specific K.

-Disads: Got a soft spot for a good politics disad. I'd prefer to watch a debate with core topic disads and a strong link than a new disad that might have a weaker link. Will still vote on it if they don't have answers, but I prefer watching a debate with clash. Don't assume I have background on your disads. Explain the story clearly.

Public Forum:

-Y'all should just start sending all of your evidence. It's a waste of my time and yours to wait for evidence to be called to slowly send over things card by card. It will also hold everyone to higher evidence standards if the community starts evidence sharing and debates will get better.

-I know there is some division on this, but I do think the first rebuttal speech should still talk about their case. It's good to start filtering the debate through your impacts right away.

Congress:

Honestly, y'all don't need paradigms. This is a speech event and if you're thinking of it as a debate event you should reorient your strategy. That said, I know people want to read paradigms anyways so... I really value rebuttals. Constructives can do well in front of me, but if you give more than one speech in a round and both are constructives I'll feel like that's because you don't know how to be off script. Remember you are in a room with a bunch of other students... it's hard for your judges to remember all of you. Be an active participant in questioning and the house to help yourself stand out. Cheesy, but I think of the round in terms of who I would want to be my representative. Not necessarily because they agree with all the things I already think, but because they are actively engaged in questioning, are good at responding to opposing arguments, and have a nice balance between pathos and logos. Greatest speeches might not get my 1 if they are disengaged from every other part of the round.