Updated September 2023: Realistically I'm exclusively judging locally and mostly novice debate, so 95% of this isn't useful for you.

Novice Coach Lincoln Douglas at Eagan High School (Somewhere in 2015ish - 2019, 2023-Present)

"Debate Coach" at Hopkins High School (2014)

Lincoln Douglas Debater and Extemporaneous Speaker at Eagan (2010 - 2014)

Please signpost. Please. For the love of all that is good, Signpost!

Disclosure: I don't like disclosure theory. If you really want to run it go ahead, but I'm not a judge who will actually consider a lack of disclosure problematic. In the same vein, I don't care if you don't send me the case in advance. If evidence sounds sketchy, I'll call for it after the round. Furthermore, I'm sympathetic to arguments against disclosure, as my personal opinion is that mandatory disclosure further makes it harder for smaller schools at the national circuit to be competitive.

Theory / Topicality: Not my favorite but I'm willing to hear it. Please understand that I default very strongly towards drop the argument and reasonability. This means if your opponent is being abusive call them out on it, and I'll drop the argument. If you are not running theory in a fully developed nice little shell, I will make the following assumptions for you: education and fairness are voters but whichever one matters more is left ambiguous, that the argument should be dropped whenever possible, and that I should evaluate the argument purely on the role it plays in this round, instead of some broader argument about which positions I would rather see take hold in the current "debate-meta".

Kritiks: I like critical arguments. I did not enjoy how they were being run when I was judging circuit in 2015-2018. I think if you want to run a full critical position it needs to do a few things:

A: It needs to be fully developed. If your "k" is a 2 minute long blitz of arguments with very broad and poorly formed links (both to the Aff/Neg and internally) then I'm going to not care for it. If you're willing to show that you did the reading required for a critical position, and that you're willing to engage in a debate with strong clear links between arguments in a way that flows logically and is well developed then I'll be a happy potato. The rule of thumb for me is the following: if you're spending less than 4 minutes on the K / off-case / whatever you want to call it then you're probably under-covering it. If you're running multiple critical arguments, I'm not going to be happy. That anger will be taken out on your speaks, and potentially will cause you to lose the round.

B: It needs to be clearly laid out logically, I want to see a proper framework, (I lean in favor of cases that don't utilize "Roll of the ballot" arguments but that's purely a framing issue) which in part tells me what arguments I should evaluate, how to evaluate them, why I care, etc etc etc. We're back to novice fundamentals, if you can't explain to me why I should care in a clean and concise manner, I don't see a reason to care.

C: If content includes anything that may be troubling to people in the round, you should make that clear PRIOR TO STARTING YOUR SPEECH. Really this should be the case for all positions, but especially with critical arguments that involve fundamental issues with society / how we frame and understand the world around us.

Speed: I coach novices. I primarily interact with parent judges when it comes to reading ballots. I am somewhat mildly comfortable evaluating arguments relating to dense Marxist positions and to a lesser extent things like Meta-ethics / epistemology. I am not comfortable evaluating those arguments when they're being blitzed out faster than slugs from a railgun. To get an idea of how "out of the circuit" I am, I haven't judged a circuit tournament in a few years, and I plan to keep it like that for the foreseeable future. Slow down for tags, key framework elements like values / standards, and author names. if I don't flow them, I don't evaluate them.

I will say slow twice. Then if you're still too fast, I simply will stop typing. I will yell clear twice. I normally give you five seconds of "grace" to fix yourself before alerting you. Don't presume I caught everything you were saying during the few seconds before and after yelling slow / clear.

Extensions: They need a claim, warrant, and impact. You need to articulate all three very clearly. If someone walks in to the 1AR/2NR and listens to your extensions they should be able to construct a decent synopsis of the case itself. If you don't put in the time and effort to extend things, I won't put in the time and effort required to extend things on my flow. If points are dropped, you can be brief with extending them but I need the claim and impact very explicitly stated still. "My opponent dropped Contention 1 subpoint D subheading iii line 13 so extend it across the flow" Isn't an extension that I'll flow.

Speaker points: I generally evaluate speaker points on things like clarity, argument structure and development, extensions (please for the love of all that is good extend properly), and overall how you carry yourself in the round. If you are openly rude to your opponent or to me, don't plan on getting high speaks. I generally have my speaks average around 27, and I mean that. This isn't "average is 27 but most people get a 28.5", but rather "I will average 27 speaks. Roughly half get more, roughly have get less" so don't be surprised if after a particularly rough round if you leave with a 25 because you didn't care to extend properly. A general description of points and what they mean can be found below. I will modify points due to three things: first, I will deduct speaks if you come up and shake my hand like if I'm a competitor after the round (That was a rule before COVID, it's still a rule now). Second, if you're rude, condescending, overly aggressive, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc etc etc. If you don't make this round a healthy environment to compete in, I will tank your speaks to the bottom of the marianna trench. Third, I'll give speaker points to people who provide clean roadmaps. Signposting is a lost art in debate. Bring it back.

25: Rough round, you made several mistakes, each of which is a good reason to not vote for you. This is a good rebuttal redo round.

26: One or two major mistakes, maybe some misarticulating of offense but not near the point where it's a severe issue. You should probably reread your evidence, work on extensions, and work on clarity.

27: average. Some mistakes, some good ideas. Clarity is fine. You showed up.

28: refreshing. I'm optimistic that you'll get a speaker award at least. Clarity is solid, speed is perfectly paced. Extensions were good. Arguments were well crafted. Good job.

29: Very confident. I'm happy with almost everything. Maybe minor nitpicking.

30: Like a 29 but even rarer. Very little really differentiates values in the 29-30 range, it's more about how clean things went in round.

Good debate is good debate. My Paradigm will mostly provide you with preferences and strong recommendations of conduct to not pursue in front of me, however, remember good debate is good debate and you will be fine.

Speed- Not a preference but I am fine with it. If I yell clear more than twice you WILL NOT receive over a 28.5

I think speed is often used as alternative to poor or inadequate word economy. Word economy, excellent word economy is key to high speaks with me. Word economy+clear speed is also a good way to earn high speaks even if the ballot does not go your way.

Argumentation- Theory is fine even though I have a preference for substantive topical debate and engagement. Alternatively, non traditional responses to theory are also fine- an "argument is an argument"... with one exception.

Do not run ANY arguments in front of me along the lines of discrimination/racism/sexism good, this is a creative educational space not a morally repugnant one and some discussions contrary to contemporary political opinion don't deserve lip service.

Narratives, not the biggest fan but will listen and vote for them if run effectively.

DISADS/K's/CP's/ I have run all of these arguments before and will evaluate them without any sort of preferential treatment. In my day I was known as a debater who at times could run critical arguments. That reputation is not secret, however, running these arguments in front of me will not persuade me to intervene for or against them simply for the sake that I may have an affiliation or even ran them myself.

Cross X- Stand up, make it interesting, I allow for flex prep but don't prefer it. You cannot get a 30 in front of me if you do not stand for CX, hiding behind a laptop is not persuasive.

Final thought- Have fun, be. strategic( I reward strategic decisions) and always feel free to ask me as many questions as you need after the RFD. Persuasion is key

PF PARADIGM (Updated 11/15/2020)

Experience
I have competed and coached public forum debate for over a decade.

I have debate experience in PF, Parli, and NFA LD.

Pet Peeves

1. PRE-FLOW BEFORE THE ROUND

2. Do not laugh at your opponents. Disrespect is not tolerated at all.

3. Paraphrased blips with no warrants. 5 pieces of evidence back to back in a case within 30 seconds of reading drives me nuts. I much prefer you all reading cards which have warrants instead of your paraphrasing. To me, warrants are very important. I do not default oppose paraphrasing but I have voted multiple times on paraphrasing theory when the argument is won.

4. Debaters not collapsing.

Second Half of the Debate

DO NOT expect me to do work for you. I only evaluate offensive arguments found in both the summary and final focus. Defense is not necessary to be extended in these speeches, but can help build a narrative.

Me Calling for Evidence

The exception to me "doing work" is if the debaters don't do the work for me. I.e. - if both teams tell me the other teams evidence is bad and I should call it without explaining why the evidence is bad, I will call both cards and make the determination on my own. If a debate is not resolved by the debaters I will resolve the debate using the evidence if there is no other way to resolve the round.

Speaker Points

Speaker points are not largely determined by how pretty you sound. Rather, I use them as a reward for your talent as a critical thinker. Things I evaluated include but are not limited to - organization, pointing out logical inconstancies or double turns, articulating implications of impacts, etc.

Evidence Ethics
PLEASE READ FULL CARDS - if you do not, I will hold you to a very high level of scrutiny and will likely call for more of your cards and evaluate them myself. I have seen too many teams lose debate rounds because debaters have misrepresented evidence that was never called for.

Speed

In PF, I am cool with speed and will be able to flow you if you read full cards. I have experience in debate with speaking speeds up to 500 wpm. However, if you are reading paraphrased cases with 10 pieces of evidence paraphrased in 30 seconds, I may not catch author name and year and I will likely tank that teams speaks. So, slow down for author names and tags. If you aren't reading full cards (then read full cards), but if you really choose may not want to go as fast.

ALSO - YOU CANNOT USE SPEED AS A TOOL OF EXCLUSION. If both teams want to go fast, go for it- I will be more than capable of following. However, if your opponent is excluded from the round because of your speed, I will vote against you if you do not slow down. If you feel as if you are being excluded from the round please say "speed" audibly while your opponent is speaking. If your opponent has said speed 2-3 times and you haven't slowed down, I will be very persuaded to drop you for your abuse of speed.

"DA's" And "Overviews" in the Rebuttal

I really dislike what PFers are calling "DA's" or overviews which are functionally a new contention. These arguments, absent a link to your opponents case, will not be evaluated. If you are going to make this style of argument I would love to hear it if you have a clear link to an argument offered by your opponent in their prior speech. I don't want to hear a new contention in first and/or especially second rebuttal and then have you tell me your impact comes first on time frame or something shady like that.

Weighing

You must weigh to have a good chance of winning my ballot. That being said, if neither team weighs I will default to magnitude/big stick impacts. That being said, I can easily be persuaded otherwise. You just need to warrant why. Debaters always under-warrant the impact debate and take it for granted. For example, simply saying "my impact is more likely" is not enough of a warrant to persuade me. Carded weighing will likely give you the upper hand and probably a bump in speaks.

Weird Arguments

I am definitely ok listening to arguments that may not be intuitive (prolif good, warming good, etc.). However, I am not a fan of unreasonably stretching the scope of the resolution. For example, if the topic asks about increasing military spending, I don't think the Aff gets the right to pick one obscure program, such as nuclear submarines a professor in Europe thought about in the 90s if it hasn't been discussed as a legitimate policy suggestion. I am much more likely to vote on something ripped from the headlines. Thus, if the Aff reads evidence that says the military is short on funding but its main priority is increasing troop presence to fight ISIL, it is easy to make the logical assumption that if funding were increased that is what the government would do.

I think vague topics are bad in PF but we have our fair share of them. I don't think teams get to cherry pick facets of a topic and claim them as their "advocacy". For example, if the resolution is The USFG should prioritize welfare over transportation, I don't think the neg gets to say that we only defend revamping bike paths and bus routes and then ignore all other aspects of the topic. The Aff has every right to read an evidence based argument that increased spending would be used to improve airports which increases ozone deterioration even though you didn't talk about airport infrastructure in your con. In essence, in my eyes you don't get "advocacies". Rather, it is your job to be prepared to defend the whole of the resolution for whichever side you are on in PF.

Additional Questions

If there is anything you don't see on here, feel free to ask me before the round :)

HIGH SCHOOL LD PARADIGM

I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments. No exceptions.

I look for the easiest route to the ballot. Definitely not a big fan of intervention. Speaks are based on quality of argument and organization, not the way you sound. I hate unwarranted spikes or theory preempts sprinkled in between cards. If you are making a new argument get a new sheet.

I default to a logical decision-making paradigm. As a result I prefer topic-centered debate but I am totally opened to warranted reasons as to why that is a bad metric for debate.

I think the link (or violation or mutual exclusivity, same concept different name) is the most important part of every position and debaters who get good speaker points and win regularly in front of me have robust discussions on the link.

I place a high value on quality evidence and think preparation is the cornerstone of the educational aspects of this activity. I think that extensions of evidence should be more than just blippy tag extensions. If you aren’t extending warrants, I am not going to find them in the evidence for you after the round.

Speed: I think clear speed improves debate. I am cool with any clear speed that isn’t being used to intentionally exclude your opponent or other judges on a panel. I will say that it seems like a lot of HS LD students rely on the email chain for judges to get their warrants: this practice will likely result in diminished speaker points and possibly a poor decision on my part. It is probably a good idea to slow down a bit on tags and make it clear when a tag starts and a card ends. Flying through blippy theory shells at 400 wpm just seems like a bad idea if you want me to flow it all.

Specific Arguments

Topicality: I assume it’s a voter but the neg needs to explain why and I will listen to reasons why it shouldn’t be, extra and fx are up for debate, abuse is just a marginally more persuasive standard, standards are reason to prefer an interp, I don’t like to vote on RVIs unless they are well warranted and even then the aff sneezing on the flow might be enough for me to ignore it. I will probably ignore jargon that is unwarranted like just saying reasonability or competing interps without explanations.

DAs: I will vote on linear and unique Das. I don’t believe a negative needs one to win a round. I am usually very skeptical of politics but still vote offence/defense paradigm on it.

Theory: Most specs are just defense to solvency for me. I definitely get they are a valuable part of a strategy for time and fairness reasons but I find them generally unpersuasive. I will vote on them though if mishandled by the affirmative(or negative) . All that said if you have a really interesting super spec procedural I’ll listen to it with an open mind. 5 off all procedurals will tank your speaks.I generally think there are ways to resolve theoretical objections that don’t necessitate a ballot on theory.

Ks: As with every other position I want the link to be specific and prefer the literature to be in the context of our topic. I think the necessity of framework depends on the nature of the alternative and the presented 1AC. I generally view links as a DA to the perm. I think you need a stable alt text.

Counterplans: I don’t think conditionality is a problem but you can read whatever against the CP. I don’t think you have to establish ME in the NC but I think it ends up being more persuasive if the AR concedes it. I prefer if they have an advocate, but not a deal breaker. You should have a stable CP text. Open to perm theory, same concept as other theory shells though.

Defense: I’m predisposed to believe it’s not a voting issue but if someone concedes some fwk that says it is I guess I would vote for it. This applies to answering neg positions as well.

Performance: I am totally fine with it, but again I think it’s important to explain how it relates to an affirmation or negation of the resolution. That being said, I am completely open to arguments about why resolution centered debate is bad.

A2 K/Performance AC/NC: ENGAGE. Just framing your way out the debate is super boring to me. Cut cards answering their method. If they give you links, use them.

(Paradigm largely stolen from Spencer Orlowski) -> we view debate similarly. I will make a more specific paradigm soon.

NFA LD PARADIGM

To be honest, aside from evaluating practice debates, I have never formally judged an NFA LD round at a tournament since graduating. That being said, I will try and give you my best insight into how I tend to evaluate debates if you have me at NFA. Please feel free to ask me any questions my paradigm does not answer for you before the round begins.

Pet Peeves

Topicality without carded interp

Super short cards with no warrants

Super long tags on policy Affs

Tags that don't use the rhetoric of the card (powertags)

Lack of Sign-Posting

Speed

I am cool with it so long as your opponent is. If I am unable to follow you due to delivery rate I will say speed. If you are unclear I will say clear. There is a difference. I expect a debater to audibly say clear or speed. I am not ok with speed being a tool of exclusion and will be persuaded if I see a clear abuse of speed. I am also not ok with debaters calling speed as a competitive tool when they can truly keep up and are debating at speeds as fast as, if not faster than their opponent.

Speaker Points

Speaker points are not largely determined by how pretty you sound. Rather, I use them as a reward for your talent as a critical thinker. Things I evaluated include but are not limited to - organization, pointing out logical inconstancies or double turns, articulating implications of impacts, etc.

Theory/Topicality

I probably will not be persuaded by theory positions that would be better articulated as solvency deficits to the Aff (i.e. - vagueness). That does not mean I will not vote on these positions, but it is an uphill battle to argue I should drop the debater when in reality it is just a solvency question. Other than that, I do believe that theory is meant to protect yourself and please use it as necessary. Obviously, proven abuse is preferable but if you persuade me that potential abuse should be a voter, then I will vote there. I am particularly persuaded on theory/T if you show me the abuse on clearly on each sheet. Please please please weigh the impacts of standards. Too often, theory/T debates do not resolve which standard is most important. Reminder - please card interps and number your violations clearly if there are multiple.

AC's

Don't really care about the structure of an Aff. If the Aff is not topical, it helps to provide justification in the 1AC as to why the Aff is not topical. This is not necessary, but I think it will make framework and T preempts much cleaner and easier for you.

DA's

Do your thing. I am persuaded by logical responses to DAs if they are true (i.e. Uniqueness overwhelms the link). If your link is not specific to the Aff, then please contextualize the Aff to your link after you read the link ev.

CP's

I have no on face rejection to any types of CPs or their respective status. That being said, I can definitely be persuaded why certain types of CPs should be excluded via a theory debate. I also don't think you need to solve every harm of the Aff.

K's

Do your thing. Aff specific links are preferred. If you are reading generic or topic links, then please contextualize them to the Aff in the NC. I am cool with kicking the alt and using the link and impact as a linear DA to the case but that does open you up to the theory debate which I am not afraid to vote on.

Evaluating Arguments

I default to a comparative advantages frame work. If there is a 1% chance the Aff can solve, and the neg has no substantial harm to weigh against the Aff, I won't vote on solvency as a stock issue. I am not persuaded by lazy try-or-die arguments, but when done properly this framing is persuasive. Weigh, weigh, weigh. If you aren't reading extinction level impacts, that's fine. But please provide some framework/weighing mechanism if you take this approach.

HIGH SCHOOL LD/POLICY PARADIGM

I don't judge these events as much but I have experience in both. Ask me particular questions before round but here is a quick list of things you may want to know.

- Aff doesn't have to be topical if there is a good justification

- That doesn't mean I won't vote on FW or Theory

- I will vote on T - not a hack but I don't throw it out the window like some judges

- Speed Friendly

- K friendly but you will need to explain the lit in your own words to contextualize high theory to the Aff

- I prefer specific vs general links on the K debate (extra-speaks will likely follow if you have case specific links to your K)

- Weigh weigh weigh

- Collapse

I am a head coach at Newark Science and have coached there for years. I teach LD during the summer at the Global Debate Symposium. I formerly taught LD at University of North Texas and I previously taught at Stanford's Summer Debate Institute.

The Affirmative must present an inherent problem with the way things are right now. Their advocacy must reasonably solve that problem. The advantages of doing the advocacy must outweigh the disadvantages of following the advocacy. You don't have to have a USFG plan, but you must advocate for something.

This paradigm is for both policy and LD debate. I'm also fine with LD structured with a general framing and arguments that link back to that framing. Though in LD, resolutions are now generally structured so that the Affirmative advocates for something that is different from the status quo.

Speed
Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I'll be fine.

Do not spread dense philosophy. When going quickly with philosophy, super clear tags are especially important. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Offs
Please don't run more than 5 off in policy or LD. And if you choose 5 off, make them good and necessary. I don't like frivolous arguments. I prefer deep to wide when it comes to Neg strategies.

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I am not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. If I read evidence and its been misrepresented, it is highly likely that team will lose.

Argument Development

For LD, please not more than 3 offs. Time constraints make LD rounds with more than three offs incomprehensible to me. Policy has twice as much time and three more speeches to develop arguments. I like debates that advance ideas. The interaction of both side's evidence and arguments should lead to a coherent story.

Speaker Points
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
29 Excellent
28 Solid
27 Okay

For policy Debate (And LD, because I judge them the same way).
Same as for LD. Make sense. Big picture is important. I can't understand spreading dense philosophy. Don't assume I am already familiar with what you are saying. Explain things to me. Starting in 2013 our LDers have been highly influenced by the growing similarity between policy and LD. We tested the similarity of the activities in 2014 - 2015 by having two of our LDers be the first two students in the history of the Tournament of Champions to qualify in policy and LD in the same year. They did this by only attending three policy tournaments (The Old Scranton Tournament and Emory) on the Oceans topic running Reparations and USFG funding of The Association of Black Scuba Divers.

We are also in the process of building our policy program. Our teams tend to debate the resolution with non-util impacts or engages in methods debates. Don't assume that I am familiar with the specifics of a lit base. Please break things down to me. I need to hear and understand warrants. Make it simple for me. The more simple the story, the more likely that I'll understand it.

I won't outright reject anything unless it is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic.

Important: Don't curse in front of me. If the curse is an essential part of the textual evidence, I am more lenient. But that would be the exception.

newarksciencedebate@gmail.com

kenan.s.anderson@gmail.com

UPDATE for Minneapple 2021:

I haven't judged Varsity LD since... I don't even know when. So slow down A LOT and anything invented in the last 1.5 years I probably won't know about.

I have a strong natural inclination to consequentialism. If your framework is not consequentialist, especially if it's a critical ROB or ROJ, you need to explain VERY DIRECTLY and VERY BLUNTLY how it filters offense. Otherwise, I'll probably not understand and evaluate the round differently than you would like.

I debated on the circuit for four years. In general, I think debate would be better if it was slightly slower, much more topic-focused, more accessible to lay folks, and had way way way less theory. I'm saddened by the number of rounds that are not resolved by whether the core issue of the topic is good/bad. You should win because you have good arguments, not because you tricked your opponent in some technical game of extensions and cross applications. Disclosure is probably good. Needlessly specific disclosure shells are probably not.

A Note On Speaker Points: Evaluating some sort of "subjective" skill in a single debate is hard. Instead, I use speaker points to reward what I consider good, educational, and persuasive models of debate. This means your speaks will be low if you try and win on frivolous theory or short "X is an independent voting issue" and you'll get great speaks for smart affirmative cases or well thought-out negative strategies. Bonus points for not reading the same plan/DA/K/ etc as everyone else on the topic.

Bonus data because I'm a nerd - looking at varsity rounds only I vote neg 52% of the time (a pretty minor bias given the sample size). Feel free to use this to answer bad (NEG SIDE BIAS JUSTIFIES XXXXX) arguments. Also in out rounds I squirrel 20% of the time. If you're interested in stats for your or a judge you know lmk. I have a python script that does it really fast.

Add me to the email chain: sdandersondebate@gmail.com. I prefer email chain to Speechdrop, but either work.

Background

I competed in LD from 2009-2013 and have been the LD coach at Eagan (MN) since 2014 and judge 100+ rounds a season. I qualified debaters to the TOC from 2021-2023 who won the Minneapple and Dowling twice. One primarily read phil and tricks while the other primarily read policy arguments, so I am pretty ideologically flexible and have coached across the spectrum.

If you're not at a circuit tournament, scroll to the bottom for my traditional LD paradigm.

Big Questions 2024

Without having coached it and seen what the topic literature looks like (or if it even exists), this seems like the worst topic I have ever judged. If there's a way to define "incompatible" that lends itself to interesting, balanced, and substantive debates, then by all means read it and emphasize how great your definition is. Otherwise, it's hard to see how the resolution isn't trivially true or false depending on the definitions, so a lot of time should be spent there.

Sections/State 2024 Updates

Not a new update per se, but read the traditional LD section of my paradigm to see what I consider the permissible limits of "national circuit" arguments in LD. TL;DR, uphold your side of the resolution "as a general principle".

I'm somewhat agnostic on the MSHSL full source citations rule -- I do think it's a good norm for debate without email chains, but if you want me to enforce it, that should be hashed out preround.

Rounds on this topic are difficult to resolve. It seems like most of them come down to cards with opposite assertions: status quo deterrence is working/failing, China can/can't fill in, etc, and I struggle to figure out who to side with when it comes down to different authors making different forecasts based on the same basic set of facts and a lot of uncertainty. I encourage you to think really, really hard about the story you're telling, the specific warrants in the pieces of evidence you read and how they interact with the assumptions being made by opposing authors, etc. Alternatively, finding offense that's external to these core issues (whether that's phil offense or a independent impact scenario) can be another way to clean up the round. As a reminder: tagline extensions are no good, and "my card says X" by itself is not a warrant -- it just means that one person in the entire world agrees with you.

General Info

• I won't vote for arguments without warrants, arguments I didn't flow in the first speech, or arguments that I can't articulate in my own words at the end of the round. This applies especially to blippy and underdeveloped arguments.

• I think of the round in terms of a pre- and post-fiat layer when it comes to any argument that shifts focus from the resolution or plan (theory, Ks, etc.). I don't think the phrase "role of the ballot" means much – it's all just impacts, the strength of link matters, and your ROB is probably impact-justified (i.e. instrumentally valuable and arbitrarily narrow).

• I tend to evaluate arguments on a sliding scale rather than a binary yes/no. I believe in near-zero risk, I think you can argue that near-zero risk should be rounded down to zero, but by default I think there’s almost always a risk of offense.

• As a corollary to the above two points, I will vote on very frivolous theory or IVIs if there’s no offense against it, so make sure you are not just defensive in response. “This crowds out substance which is valuable because [explicit warrant]” is an offensive response, and is probably the most coherent way to articulate reasonability.

• I reserve the right to vote on what your evidence actually says, not what you claim it says.

• As a corollary to the above, you can insert rehighlighting if you're just pointing out problems with your opponent's evidence, but if you do then you're just asking me to make a judgment call and agree with you, and I might not. If it's ambiguous, I'll avoid inserting my own interpretation of the card, and if you insert a frivolous rehighlighting I'll likely just disagree with you. If you want to gain an offensive warrant, you need to read the rehighlighting out loud.

• Facts that can be easily verified don't need a card.

• I'm skeptical of late-breaking arguments, given how few speeches LD has. It's hard to draw a precise line, but in general, after the 1N, arguments should be *directly* responsive to arguments made in the previous speech or a straightforward extrapolation of arguments made in previous speeches. "Here's new link evidence" is not a response to "no link". "DA turns case, if society collapses due to climate change we won't be able to colonize space" is fine in the 2N but "DA turns case, warming kills heg, Walt 20:" should be in the 1N.

• Any specific issue in this paradigm, except where otherwise noted, is a heuristic or default that can be overcome with technical debating.

Ks

This is the area of debate I'm least familiar with – I've spent the least time coaching here and I'm not very well-read in any K lit base. Reps Ks and stock Ks (cap, security, etc.) are okay, identity Ks are okay especially if you lean in more heavily on IVI-type offense, high theory Ks are probably not the best idea (I'll try my best to evaluate them but no promises).

• The less the links directly explain why the aff is a bad idea, the more you'll need to rely on framework, particularly if the K is structured like "everything is bad, the aff is bad because it uses the state and tries to make the world better, the alt is to reject everything". If you want me to vote on the overall thesis of your K being true, you should explain why your theory is an accurate model of the world with lots of references to history and macro trends, less jargon and internal K warranting with occasional reference to singular anecdotes.

• Conversely, if you're aff you lose by neglecting framework. If you spend all of 10 seconds saying "let me weigh case – clash and dogmatism" then spend the rest of your speech weighing case, you're putting yourself in a bad position. I don't start out with a strong presumption that the aff should be able to weigh case or that the debate should be about whether "the aff is a good idea".

• For pess Ks, I'll likely be confused about why voting for you does anything at all. You need a coherent explanation here.

• I don't think "the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater" means much. I'm going to vote for the person who I think did the better debating, but that's kind of vacuous. If your opponent wins the argument that I ought to vote for them because they read a cool poem, then they did the better debating. You need to win offensive warrants on framework.

• I’m bad for K arguments that are more rhetorical than literal, e.g. “X group is already facing extinction in the status quo” – that’s just defining words differently.

• Not a fan of arguments that implicate the identity of debaters in the round. There's no explicit rule against them, but I'm disinclined to vote for them and they're usually underwarranted (e.g. if they're not attached to a piece of evidence they're probably making an empirical claim without an empirical warrant and your opponent should say that in response).

• K affs: not automatically opposed, not the ideal judge either. I'm probably biased towards K affs being unfair and fairness being important, but the neg still needs to weigh impacts. I’m very unlikely to vote on anallytic RVIs/IVIs like T is violent, silencing, policing, etc. unless outright dropped – impacts turns should be grounded in external scholarship, and the neg should contest their applicability to the debate round. You also need a good explanation of how the ballot solves your impacts or else presumption makes sense. "Debate terminally bad" is silly – just don't do debate then.

Policy

This is what I spend most of my time thinking about as a coach. Expect me to be well-read on the topic lit.

• There is no "debate truth" that says a carded argument always beats an uncarded argument, that a more specific card always beats a more general card, or that I'm required to give more credence to flimsy scenarios than warranted. Smart analytics can severely mitigate bad link chains. It is wildly implausible that banning megaconstellations would tank business confidence, causing immediate economic collapse and nuclear war – your cards *almost certainly* either don’t say that or aren’t coming from credible sources.

• Probabilistic reasoning is good – I don't think "what is the precise brightline" or "why hasn't this already happened" are damning questions against impacts that, say, democracy, unipolarity, or strong international institutions reduce the overall risk of war.

• Plan vagueness is bad. I guess plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but I don’t think vagueness should be resolved in a way that benefits the aff.

• I’m baffled by the norm that debaters can round up to extinction. In my eyes, laundry list cards are just floating internal links until you read impacts, and if your opponent points that out I don’t know what you could say in response. I encourage you to have good terminal impact evidence (particularly evidence from the existential risk literature that explicitly argues X actually can lead to extinction or raise overall extinction risk) and to be pedantic about your opponent's. Phrases like “threatens humanity”, “existential”, etc. are not necessarily synonyms for human extinction.

• Pointing out your opponent’s lack of highlighting can make their argument non-viable even if they’re reading high-quality evidence – you don’t get credit for the small text.

• Some circumvention arguments are legitimate and can't just be answered by saying "durable fiat solves".

Counterplans

• In general, I lean towards the view that the 1N should make an argument for how the counterplan competes and why. I think 2N definition dumps are too late-breaking (although reading more definitions in the 2N to corroborate the 1N definition may be fine).

• Perms should have a net benefit unless they truly solve 100% of the negative’s net benefit or you give me an alternative to offense/defense framing, because otherwise I will likely vote neg if they can articulate a *coherent* risk. E.g. if the 2AR against consult goes for perms without any semblance of a solvency deficit, perm do both will likely lose to a risk of genuine consultation key and the lie perm will likely lose to a risk of leaks – even if the risk is vanishingly small, “why take the chance?” is how I view things by default.

• I think counterplans should have solvency advocates and analytic counterplans are bad except in the most trivial of cases. E.g. if the aff advantage is that compulsory voting will increase youth turnout and result in cannabis legalization, then “legalize cannabis” makes sense as a counterplan because that’s directly in the government’s power. Otherwise, you should have evidence saying that the policy you defend will result in the outcome that you want.

• Normal means competition is silly. It’s neither logical nor theoretically defensible if debated competently.

• There’s probably nothing in any given resolution that actually implies immediacy and certainty, but it’s still the aff’s job to counter-define words in the resolution.

• I spent a good amount of time coaching process counterplans and have some fondness for them, but as for whether they’re theoretically desirable, I pretty much view them as “break glass in case of underlimited topic”. A 2N on a process counterplan is more “substantive” in my eyes than a 2N on Nebel, cap, or warming good. If you read one and the 1AR mishandles it, the 2N definitely should go for it because they make for the cleanest neg ballots. I’ve judged at least a few rounds that in my eyes had no possible winning 2AR against a process counterplan.

Theory

• I consider myself a middle of the road judge on theory. Feel free to go for standard policy theory (condo, various cheaty CPs bad, spec, new affs bad, etc.) or LD theory (NIBs / a prioris bad, combo shells against tricky strats, RVIs, etc.), I won't necessarily think it's frivolous or be disinclined to vote for it. On the other hand, I don’t like purely strategic and frivolous theory along the lines of "must put spikes on top", etc. I'm also not great at evaluating theory on a tech level because it mostly consists of nothing but short analytics that I struggle to flow.

• Checks on frivolous theory are great, but competing interps makes more sense to evaluate based on my views on offense/defense generally. Reasonability should come with judge instruction on what that means and how I evaluate it – if it means that I should make a subjective determination of whether I consider the abuse reasonable, that's fine, just make that explicit. The articulation that makes the most sense to me is that debating substance is valuable so I should weigh the abuse from the shell against the harm of substance crowd-out.

• Both sides of the 1AR theory good/bad debate are probably true – 1AR theory is undesirable given how late-breaking it is but also necessary to check abuse. Being able to articulate a middle ground between "no 1AR theory" and "endless one-sentence drop the debater 1AR shells" is good. The better developed the 1AR shell is, the more compelling it is as a reason to drop the debater.

T

• If debated evenly, I tend to think limits and precision are the most important impacts (or rather internal links, jurisdiction is a fake impact). There can be an interesting debate if the neg reads a somewhat more arbitrary interpretation that produces better limits, but when the opposite is true, where the neg reads a better-supported interpretation and the aff response is that it overlimits and kills innovation, I am quite neg-leaning.

• Nebel T: I’m open to it. It’s one of the few T interps where I think the overlimiting/innovation impact is real, but some LD topics genuinely are unworkably big (e.g. “Wealthy nations have a moral obligation to provide development assistance to other nations”). The neg should show that they actually understand the grammar arguments they’re making, and the aff’s semantics responses should not be severely miscut or out of context. “Semantics are oppressive” is a wildly implausible response. I view “semantics is just an internal link to pragmatics” as sort of vacuously true – the neg should articulate the “pragmatic” benefits of a model of debate where the aff defends the most (or sufficiently) precise interpretation of a topic instead of one that is “close enough”, or else just blow up the limits impact.

• RVIs on T are bad… but please don’t just blow them off. You need to answer them, and if your shell says that fairness is the highest impact then your “RVIs on T bad” offense probably should have fairness impacts.

Phil

• I debated in a time when the meta was much more phil dominant and I coached a debater who primarily ran phil so this is something I'm familiar with. That being said, heavy phil rounds can be some of the most difficult to evaluate. I'm best for carded analytic moral philosophy -- Kant, virtue ethics, contractarianism, libertarianism, etc. I'm worse for tricky phil or hybrid K-phil strategies (agonism, Deleuze, Levinas, etc.).
• By default I evaluate framework debate in the same offense-defense paradigm I evaluate anything else which means I'm using the framework with the stronger justification. Winning a defensive argument against a framework is not *automatically* terminal defense. This means you're likely better off with a well-developed primary syllogism than with a scattershot approach of multiple short independent justifications. Phenomenal introspection is a better argument than "pain is nonbinding", and the main Kantian syllogisms are better arguments than "degrees of wrongness".
• If you'd rather not have a phil debate, feel free to uplayer with a TJF, AFC, IVIs, etc. I also don't feel like I ever hear great responses to "extinction first because of moral uncertainty", more like 1-2 okay responses and 3-4 bad ones, so that may be another path of least resistance against large framework dumps.
• If you're going for a framework K, I still need some way to evaluate impacts, and it's better if you make that explicit. Okay, extinction-focus is a link to the K, but is utilitarianism actually wrong, and if so what ethical principles should I instead be using to make decisions?

Tricks

I'm comfortable with a lot of arguments that fall somewhere under the tricks umbrella -- truth testing, presumption and permissibility triggers, calc indicts, NIBs that you can defend substantively, etc. That being said, I'm not a good judge for pure tricks debate either -- evaluate the round after X speech, neg must line by line every 1AC argument, indexicals, "Merriam-Webster's defines 'single' as unmarried but all health care systems are unmarried", "you can never prove anything with 100% certainty therefore skep is true and the resolution is false", etc. I don't have the flowing skill to keep up with these, many of these arguments I consider too incoherent to vote for even if dropped (and I'm perfectly happy for that to be my RFD), and I really don't like arguments that don't even have the pretense of being defensible. I also think arguments need clear implications in their first speech, so tricks strategies along the lines of "you conceded this argument for why permissibility negates but actually it's an argument for why the resolution is automatically false" are usually too new for me to vote for.

Non-negotiables

• I have a strong expectation that debaters be respectful and a low tolerance for rudeness, overt hostility, etc.
• If you’re a circuit debater hitting someone who is obviously a traditional debater at a circuit tournament, my only request is that you not read disclosure theory *if* preround disclosure occurred (the aff sends the 1AC and the neg sends past speech docs and discloses past 2Ns 30 minutes prior). If they have no wiki or contact info, disclosure theory is totally fair game. Beyond that, I will probably give somewhat higher speaks if you read positions that they can engage with, but that’s not a rule or expectation. If you’re a traditional debater intending to make arguments about accessibility, I’ll evaluate them, but I will have zero sympathy – a local tournament would be far more accessible to you than a circuit tournament, and if there’s not a local tournament on some particular weekend, that simply is not your opponent’s problem.
• I reserve the right to ignore hidden arguments – there’s obviously no exact brightline but I don’t view that as an intrinsic debate skill to be incentivized. At minimum, voting issues should be delineated and put in the speech doc, arguments should be grouped together in some logical way (not “1. US-China war coming now, 2. Causes extinction and resolved means firmly determined, 3. Plan solves”).
• I’ll drop you for serious breaches of evidence ethics that significantly distort the card. If it’s borderline or a trivial mistake that confers no competitive advantage, it should be debated on the flow and I’m open to dropping the argument. I don’t really understand the practice of staking the round on evidence ethics; if the round has been staked and I’m forced to make a decision (e.g. in an elims round), I’m more comfortable with deciding that you slightly distorted the evidence so you should lose instead of you distorted the evidence but not enough so your opponent should lose.
• I’ll drop you for blatant misdisclosure or playing egregious disclosure games. I’d rather not intervene for minute differences but completely new advantages, scenarios, framing, major changes to the plan text, etc. are grounds to drop you. Lying is bad.

Traditional LD Paradigm

• This is my paradigm for evaluating traditional LD. This applies at tournaments that do not issue TOC bids (with the exception of JV, but not novice, divisions at bid tournaments -- I'll treat those like circuit tournaments). It does not apply if you are at a circuit tournament and one debater happens to be a traditional debater. And if you're not at a bid tournament but you both want to have a circuit round, you also can disregard this.
• Good traditional debate for me is not lay debate. Going slower may mean you sacrifice some amount of depth, but not rigor.
• The following is a pretty hard rule: "Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of their side of the resolution as a general principle." At NSDA Nationals, this is written on the ballot and I treat that as binding. Outside of nats, I still think it's a good norm because I believe my ballot should reflect relevant debate skills. I do not expect traditional debaters to know how to answer theory, role of the ballot arguments, plans, non-T affs, etc. Outside of circuit tournaments, one side should not auto-win because they know how to run these arguments and their opponent doesn't. However, "circuit" arguments that fall within these bounds are fair game -- read extinction impacts, counterplans, dense phil, skep, politics DAs, topical Ks, whatever, as long as you explain why they affirm or negate the resolution.
• As a caveat to the above statement, what it means to affirm or negate the resolution as a general principle is something that is up for debate and depends on the specific wording of the resolution. I'm totally open to observations and burden structures that interpret the resolution in creative or abusive ways, and think those strategies are often underutilized. If one side drops the other's observation about how to interpret the resolution, the round can be over 15 seconds into rebuttals. They just need to come with a plausible argument for why they meet that constraint.
• Another caveat: I think theoretical arguments can be deployed as a reason to drop the argument, and I'll listen to IVI-type arguments the same way (like this argument is repugnant so you shouldn't evaluate it). They're just not voting issues in their own right.
• You cannot clip or paraphrase evidence and need a full written citation, regardless of your local circuit's norms. The usual evidence rules still apply.
• Your opponent has the right to review any piece of evidence you read, even if you're not spreading.
• Flex prep is fine -- you can ask clarification questions during prep time.
• Because (typically) there's no speech doc and few checks on low-quality or distorted evidence, I will hold you to a high standard of explaining your evidence in rebuttals. Tagline extensions aren't good enough. "Extend Johnson 20, studies show that affirming reduces economic growth by 20%" -- what does that number represent, where does it come from? This is especially true for evidence read in rebuttals which can't be scrutinized in CX -- I will be paying very close attention to what I was able to flow in the body of the card the first time you read it.
• Burdens and advocacies should be explicit. Saying "we could do X to solve this problem instead" isn't a complete argument -- I *could* vote for you, but I won't. This can take the form of a counterplan text / saying "I advocate X", or a burden structure that says "Winning X is sufficient for you to vote negative because [warrant]" -- it just needs to be delineated.
• Even if you're not reading a big stick impact, you still benefit a lot by reading terminal impact evidence and weighing it against your opponents' (or lack thereof). When the debate comes down to e.g. a federal jobs guarantee reducing unemployment vs. causing inflation, even though both of those are intuitively bad things, it's really hard to evaluate the round without either debater reading evidence that describes how many people are affected, how severely, etc.
• Normative philosophy is important as a substantive issue, but the value and criterion are not important as procedural issues. I do not mechanically evaluate debates by first deciding who wins the value debate, and then deciding which criterion best links into that value, and then deciding who best links into that criterion. Ideally your criterion will be a comprehensive moral theory, like util or Kant, but if not then it's your proactive burden to explain why the arguments made at the framework level matters, why they mean your offense is more important than your opponent's. This applies when the criterion is vague, arbitrarily narrow, identifies something that is instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, etc. (Side note: oppression / structural violence frameworks almost always fall into one of the latter two categories, sometimes the first.)

Hey y’all. I’m David and I debated at Newark Science for 4 years on the state, regional, and national level.

College Debate: rundebate@gmail.com

High School Debate:asafuadjayedavid@gmail.com

My influences in debate have been Chris Randall, Jonathan Alston, Aaron Timmons, Christian Quiroz, Carlos Astacio, Willie Johnson, Elijah Smith in addition to a few others.

Conflicts:

-Newark Science

-Rutgers

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Two primary beliefs:

1. Debate is a communicative activity and the power in debate is because the students take control of the discourse. I am an adjudicator but the debate is yours to have. The debate is yours, your speaker points are mine.

2. I am not tabula rasa. Anyone that claims that they have no biases or have the ability to put ALL biases away is probably wrong. I will try to put certain biases away but I will always hold on to some of them. For example, don’t make racist, sexist, transphobic, etc arguments in front of me. Use your judgment on that.

FW

I predict I will spend a majority of my time in these debates. I will be upfront. I do not think debate are made better or worse by the inclusion of a plan based on a predictable stasis point. On a truth level, there are great K debaters and terrible ones, great policy debaters and terrible ones. However, after 6 years of being in these debates, I am more than willing to evaluate any move on FW. My thoughts when going for FW are fairly simple. I think fairness impacts are cleaner but much less comparable. I think education and skills based impacts are easier to weigh and fairly convincing but can be more work than getting the kill on fairness is an intrinsic good. On the other side, I see the CI as a roadblock for the neg to get through and a piece of mitigatory defense but to win the debate in front of me the impact turn is likely your best route. While I dont believe a plan necessarily makes debates better, you will have a difficult time convincing me that anything outside of a topical plan constrained by the resolution will be more limiting and/or predictable. This should tell you that I dont consider those terms to necessarily mean better and in front of me that will largely be the center of the competing models debate.

Kritiks

These are my favorite arguments to hear and were the arguments that I read most of my career. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. As I mentioned on FW there are terrible K debates and like New Yorkers with pizza I can be a bit of a snob about the K. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as antiblackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. Explain it or you will lose to heg good. K Lit is diverse. I do not know enough high theory K’s. I only cared enough to read just enough to prove them wrong or find inconsistencies. Please explain things like Deleuze, Derrida, and Heidegger to me in a less esoteric manner than usual.

CPs

CP’s are cool. I love a variety of CP’s but in order to win a CP in my head you need to either solve the entirety of the aff with some net benefit or prove that the net benefit to the CP outweighs the aff. Competition is a thing. I do believe certain counterplans can be egregious but that’s for y’all to debate about. My immediate thoughts absent a coherent argument being made.

1. No judge kick

2. Condo is good. You're probably pushing it at 4 but condo is good

3. Sufficiency framing is true

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Theory
Just like people think that I love K’s because I came from Newark, people think I hate theory which is far from true. I’m actually a fan of well-constructed shells and actually really enjoyed reading theory myself. I’m not a fan of tricky shells and also don’t really like disclosure theory but I’ll vote on it. Just have an actual abuse story. I won’t even list my defaults because I am so susceptible to having them changed if you make an argument as to why. The one thing I will say is that theory is a procedural. Do with that information what you may.

DA’s

Their fine. I feel like internal link stories are out of control but more power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense. Zero risk is a thing but its very hard to get to. If someone zeroes the DA, you messed up royally somewhere.

Plans

YAY. Read you nice plans. Be ready to defend them. T debates are fairly exciting especially over mechanism ground. Similar to FW debates, I would like a picture of what debate looks like over a season with this interpretation.

Presumption.

Default neg. Least change from the squo is good. If the neg goes for an alt, it switches to the aff absent a snuff on the case. Arguments change my calculus so if there is a conceded aff presumption arg that's how I'll presume. I'm easy.

LD Specific

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

LD Paradigm

Ill keep this short:

This is my 13th year involved in LD. I qualled to the TOC, and have coached for the last 8 years as a private coach, assistant at a big program, head of LD at a program, and now run FlexDebate.

I believe that debate is a game and you should play it however you want. Im fine with really any argument so long as it is obviously not racist/sexist/homophobic etc. I have usually found that it is better for debaters to read what they are most comfortable with in front of me.

Slow down on tags and standards texts plz.

EDIT: Tricks debate is super boring and non innovating these days, so I am usually less impressed by those debates and will sometimes point lower as a result.

If you have anymore questions feel free to email me at sam@flexdebate.com

PF Paradigm:

Got involved more seriously in PF these last few years-- currently coach Princeton along with a few other teams and am the Director of PF at NSD. I am a flow judge. Make sure to extend offense in the summary. The second rebuttal does not necessarily have to frontline, but obviously often times it is strategic to do so. I also do not think that the first summary necessarily has to make defense, but again, might be strategic in some instances to do so. Finally, please make sure to weigh in later speeches, otherwise it makes it tough for me. Overall, have fun and learn something while you are at it!

2018----Update:

I no longer care what you read, as long as it is not oppressive in any matter. I only ask that you explain your arguments and their impacts well.

Add me to email chain: nirmalb@u.northwestern.edu

Also, if you can sit down early in a speech, please do. That way we can all just go home and be happy a little earlier.

***old stuff**

LD:
General:
- Speed is fine, please be clear, I'll call it as many times necessary but I will get frustrated and dock speaks
- I won't vote for an argument if I don't understand it, it is your responsibility to explain that
- Prep stops after you have compiled your stuff into one document. If you're flashing- it stops after the flashdrive leaves your computer
- I'm comfortable with most arguments as long as you can explain and weigh them explicitly and clearly
- Disclosure is good norm- if you don't disclose or disclose insufficiently and it's brought up in the round, I will dock your speaks by 1-5 speaker points (based on how I am feeling about this violation) from whatever I would have given you, but I will still evaluate the theory debate and the rest of the round.
- You must make your evidence available
- I enjoy policy debates the most, please weigh
- I also enjoy theory debates that are well executed

Policy-esque arguments:
- Impact comparison and weighing is crucial, otherwise i have no idea where to look first
- Utilize argument diversity
- Framing is very important, if you don't explain implications of winning arguments, then i don't know their use even if you have won them
- please compare evidence
- i personally think that hard work should be rewarded, so well executed strategies will increase your speaks

Phil:
- I understand the basics of most theories/general responses. If this is what you're good at- feel free to go for it.
- Explanation is crucial, your framework should be organized in a well explained syllogism, and your explanation should follow from that
- A lot of people just don't cut evidence that warrants their philosophical arguments or use big buzzwords when going for philosophical arguments- don't do that
- Be comparitive: reading dumps on their ethic is insufficient, explain why your ethic is better

Kritik:
- Please have good evidence and diversify/nuance your kritik and when you respond to it
- Tech and ethos are both very important on the K debate, make sure that you can do both
- Long dumps and generic responses aren't that great, make them better by tailoring it to the round and explaining the 2NR or 1AR against these very well
- I am pretty convinced by policymaking arguments against these, that being said, be super responsive and err on the side of overexplanation against these
- Not well read in high theory, my understanding will solely depend on your ability to explain it.

Theory:
- Default to competing interps, no rvi, drop debater- will still be convinced by arguments for other sides
- Frivolous theory: I will listen to it because it is strategic but if it's clear that it's used as argument avoidance and just for strategy rather than actual abuse, I probably won't be too thrilled and that might reflect in your speaks
- Good theory debates are better to watch especially when they are utilized well against tricks and abuse-
- Weighing and framing is important

Tricks:
- Not a fan of- they prioritize gimmicks over hard work which isn't what educational activities should do
- I will still listen to them but they will reflect in your speaks
- Implications need to be clear in the initial speech
- these include: a prioris, triggers, INCOHERENT framework applications, etc.
- If you come up with some very nuanced and interesting applications against various scenarios, then I'll probably be more receptive to it.

Evidence Ethics:
If you are caught clipping, it will result in a Loss 0. That being said, if you accuse someone of an evidence ethics violation and you are proven to be wrong, the same punishment will be given to you. Accidentally skipping 2 words in a card is not clipping.
Clearly miscut evidence or misrepresentation should be brought up by opposing debaters in round as evidence indicts.

I debated at Apple Valley from 2000-2004. In the interim, I have judged and coached with varying frequency. At this point, I only judge the Minneapple. In general, these are my preferences.

Theory: I will listen, but I generally dislike that level of debate. I will be more likely to vote on theory when abuse is palpable.

As far as assumptions about theory go, I default to competing interpretations and dropping the argument. I don't feel strongly either way about RVIs.

K alt/Plan: If your primary advocacy is conditional, or you advocate a pure rejection alt, you will probably lose.

I am not a fan of defensive debate. Please have an advocacy. This affects your speaker points. Additionally, I am unlikely to vote on presumption.

Use evidence and please make your extensions clear. Sometimes I don't hear the full author name and if that happens, you run the risk of me missing your extensions if you only tag your argument by author name. Your warrants should be clearly extended. I won't give you credit if it's not on my flow, even if you said it, even if both debaters seem to agree that it was made.

Don't lie, don't make your opponent uncomfortable with your demeanor or your argumentation.

Feel free to ask me questions prior to the round beginning.

Anthony Berryhill (MBA, M.Phil., M.A., CSM, CSPO) | Judge Paradigm- updated 9/2/2023
email (for speech docs): anthony@elitecollegehacker.com

Experience:

• Professional background: Former Vice President of Learning (executive) at PIMCO, a leading fixed income firm. Stanford (BA) and Yale (PhD Candidate) alumnus--both in political science with a focus on contemporary political theory
• Current job: Running college admissions company (MBA/MD/PhD/undergrad) at www.elitecollegehacker.com.
• Recent Debate Career Highlights: Coach of 3 national champions (College PF, HS LD @ 2019 NCFL, HS PF - International TOC) | 6x LD Wording Committee member | NSDA Final Round Judge (Policy 2022, LD 2019-2022) | Former Managing Director at VBI | LD (TOC-NSDA-NCFL)/Extemp (NCFL)/Congress (NSDA Senate+NCFL) Qualified student @ Isidore Newman (1996-2000)

How I vote (in brief): I vote for the debater who -- through the appropriate decision rule (values, burdens, argument layer) -- convinces me that I should vote for their side of the resolution (and/or performance) above the other debater.

Style info:

Good debate is good debate - I have judged late TOC and NSDA elims of all styles and historically have very successfully coached traditional, policy, performance (at the LD TOC), and K debaters.

I strongly prefer debates about the topic, but can be convinced otherwise if you pull it off well.

Speed is ok if you are clear, avoid monotone, and if you include me on the speech docs.

How to win my ballot and get high points (preferences):

1. I strongly prefer debaters who do the work to cross apply, connect arguments together, extend evidence, signpost, and keep the flow clean. These students get wins and 29.5s+ with shocking consistency.
2. I look for the easiest, most clear way to vote, so I can minimize/avoid intervention (within reason). I am not a judge who will reconstruct a round and read cards for 30 min after a debate. That's the debaters' job. The more work you do to write the ballot, the more weight I will give to your interpretations and positions.
3. In-round analysis and smart strategy counts: Weighing, closing doors (telling me where you can lose and doing the hard work in detail to stop me from doing so), crystallization, and extensions will help you sway the ballot to your side.
4. Clarity matters: I am biased toward debaters who do the work to explain very complicated ideas in a simple, clear, and accessible way. As a former PhD in critical theory @ Yale, I appreciate good argumentation, depth, and skill at explanation.

What I strongly dislike/what you will want to avoid:

1. High Mental/Cognitive load/confusion -> judge intervention: It is in your interest to collapse arguments down in order to reduce how much I have to evaluate or consider. Otherwise, I get to be dangerously creative and decide how I want to vote, which I'd rather not do.

2. Misbehavior in rounds and debate politics. I judge by the "any given sunday" principle. I do not hack--and have never--hacked for anyone, any position, or at any time. Therefore any debater can win in front of me if they adapt. Make sure to avoid behavior that is out of bounds (swearing, use of inappropriate words, and other actions that parents/principals would disapprove).

3. A note about theory and identity arguments. If you need theory or identity based arguments, go for it. HOWEVER, frivolous theory or blippy arguments are not strategic in front of me.

Also, as one of the first students in circuit LD to run heavily race/gender based arguments (in the late 90s) I'm especially sensitive to students treating these arguments with the seriousness they demand.

Therefore, if you run identity arguments, please do not treat these as strategic pawns to be deployed without regard to ethics (i.e., I've seen some folks use racially insensitive language as a strategy, lie about misgendering/pronouns to trap opponents, claim that only people of a certain race can make certain positions, etc.) As an intersectionalist by training, I'm opposed to essentialism, stereotyping, and authenticity policing. Let's do none of that please.

Good luck!

I am a math teacher at Duchesne Academy and do not have formal debate experience. With that in mind, here is my paradigm for LD.

1. Please consider me as a lay/very traditional LD judge. DO NOT SPREAD or TALK FAST AT ALL. Otherwise, I will not be able to flow your arguments. If you want to, you can send me speech docs, but THAT STILL DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN START SPREADING OR TALKING REALLY FAST IN GENERAL.

2. For arguments, other than theory, I will flow most arguments but I will be best with on-case arguments. The best way to win my ballot is a combination of persuasiveness and how you weigh your arguments against your opponents. EXPLICITLY TELL ME why at the end of the round I should prefer your offense over your opponent's offense.

3. Please time yourselves (all prep time, crossfires, and speeches). You are responsible for timing. I am not okay with flex prep.

4. Be respectful of each other throughout the round.

5. Have fun!

LD is not policy, please do not treat it is as such. That said, speed is fine, provided it is necessary and not speed for speed's sake.

Analysis and critical thought is appreciated.

CX skills weigh heavily.

Topical, non-topical, progressive, narrative, debate the case you wish to debate, I'm happy to judge it.

I have coached at ETHS for four years, though never participated in debate.

I enjoy theoretical argumentation, but prefer that there is a strong link to the resolution. Although I lean strongly toward radical, revolutionary politics, I try to refrain from bias and reward the debater whose arguments outweigh the other's based on sufficient refutation and lack of.

I think spreading is kinda wack. Not really concerned with how fast you can read.

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

1. I rarely read evidence after debates.
2. Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
3. Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
4. Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

1. I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
2. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
3. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

Gosh, I needed to update this...

I'm a long-time coach with a lot of policy debate experience. I pay attention to what's going on and try my best to meet you at your level. I've judged every weekend this season.

Include me on the email chain please - charrier@gmail.com

I prefer a more traditional approach to debate - policy evaluation, dead bodies, uniqueness, etc. Not ruling out other methods, I'll listen intently, but it might be more of a roll-of-the-dice.

Disclose in a fair and honest manner, adhering to Kant: "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”

Noteworthy items:

(1). K vs. K debates leave me confused. K vs. Policy makes more sense, still not your dream K judge. K's of institutions and methods make more sense than K's of in-round whatever. If you are winning a framing issue, tell me why it matters - how does it interact with impacts?

(2) T/Framework. If there is a plan that's even in the ballpark of being topical, don't make T your 2NR strategy. If there is no plan, my ears are much more sensitive to T. But again, not ruling that method out either.

(3). Embedded clash. I'll do my best but I'm going to do the least work for both teams possible. Back in my day, we mocked the lump-and-dump teams without mercy and I still carry that bias. Times change, I'll do my best.

My hope is that you will have enjoyed Debate so much that you will be a lifetime supporter of the activity.

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2023-2024 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last two years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

--This is my first major edit to my paradigm in, like, two years, so ask me questions before the round if there's anything here that doesn't make sense or I forgot.--

I debated four years of policy and one year of LD in high school from 2003 to 2008. I've been coaching LD since I graduated and I've been with Lexington for the past 5ish years. I'm also working on a PhD in philosophy (this doesn't mean what you think it means, see below).

General info/Speaker points stuff

--Email chains are cool, include me on them: hcurtis@albany.edu

--Run whatever you want to run as long as it isn't actively offensive. If you want a K debate, have a K debate. If you're looking for a values or stock debate, that's cool too. The space is yours, do what you want with it. There's stuff that I'm probably less good at judging than other people, but I won't drop you for running a specific type of argument unless, again, it's actively offensive.

--I'm 100% team tech over truth. A dropped argument is a true argument. That being said (and this applies generally as well), the dumber an argument is, the lower my threshold for a response is. So, while most arguments require actual, thought out responses, if you respond to "must concede after the AC" by just saying "no I don't", that'll count. So, don't drop stuff, but don't waste time on really bad arguments. If an argument is given without a warrant, it doesn't need as developed of a response.

--On that subject, warrants are cool too. I hate vague extensions, they bother me and that'll reflect in your speaker points. If you're extending a card, a theory shell, anything really, give me the warrant behind the card. What does the [evidence/shell/value/whatever] say, why is it right, and what does that have to do with my ballot? Better extensions and better storytelling mean better speaker points. Blippy extensions with no explanation require less to respond to because, as above, blippy extensions are bad arguments.

--I'm not the best at flowing. This matters less in a world of speech docs, but for stuff like detailed underviews (like cramming drop the debater, RVI, reasonability, and random evaluate theory after the 1AR spike into the same subpoint) or longer theory shells, slow down. No, seriously, slow down. I won't get all of the details, and then when you're posting me after the round about how I could have missed underview A, subpoint 3, as extended with random other thing on a totally different flow as defense somewhere else, I'll just say I didn't get it on the flow and we'll both be mad.

--I don't like doing work for debaters. Embedded clash is a nicer way of saying judge intervention. Don't make me do it. Offense weighing and comparison is probably the most important thing for me (and key to good speaker points). Don't just say why your stuff is good, say why your stuff is better/more important to my ballot than their stuff.

--Last thing for speaker points, the most important factor for me is strategy. If you make strategic arguments and there isn't anywhere where I think you should have done something different, then you'll get very high speaker points. Strategy is number one for me, but that gets weighed against not being a jerk in round, being funny, and being a good speaker. If you do everything perfectly but you're not a clear speaker, then you won't get a 30, but you'll still get above a 29.5. I'll say clear or slow if I need to, but if I say it a couple of times, then you should know what'll happen to your speaks. If I say clear, don't do that thing where you're clear for a couple of seconds and then just go back to how you were speaking before. Also, general rule of thumb, be loud. I don't hear stuff very well, so the louder you are the better. Don't scream at me, but you get the point.

T/Theory

--At least 80% of my neg ballots when I debated policy were on T. Love me a good T debate.

--General stuff: I default to competing interpretations, no RVI, drop the debater unless told otherwise. Also, general pet peeve, if you're going to tell me drop the argument and it isn't blatantly clear what argument I'm dropping, then tell me what argument I'd be dropping.

--RVIs need a little bit of work for me. You need to convince me why you get RVIs in the first place (RVIs are much more convincing against multiple shells or 7 off strats) and then actively identify what constitutes an RVI and why.

--1AR theory is fine-ish, but when a round turns into shell versus shell, it usually breaks down into incomprehensible nonsense and then I get sad and then I trash your speaker points. If it gets to this point, what makes me happy is offense comparison. This is usually easier if we're weighing between fairness and education voters, but if it's fairness v. fairness, then be super specific about why your opponent is being worse for fairness than you are. Compare offense, don't just extend yours. Alternatively, go meta and tell me why aff or neg theory comes first. Either way, don't ignore the other side of the flow, because then I have to do weighing for you and nobody likes that.

--I'll vote for disclosure shells, but the dumb argument vs. strength of response weighing from before applies here. If there's straight up nothing on the wiki and they're from a school where you'd expect something to be there, then fine. But if it's a small school non-circuit debater and/or your interp is "must disclose all speech docs, past 2NR strategies, and what they've had for lunch the past five days", then a lesser response is required.

--Generally speaking, if there's an obvious win on substance and a more difficult win on T or theory and you go for T or theory, I consider that a less than strategic move and it'll reflect in your speaker points.

DA/Counterplan/LARPy Stuff

--I was a policy debater after all, so I'm pretty comfortable with this kind of debate.

--Impact calc is your best friend. Good impact calc means good speaker points and typically is a tiebreaker if I want to avoid intervening. If I have a better understanding of why your impacts matter more than your opponent's, then you're probably going to win.

--This is a general thing, but I'll highlight it here and elsewhere, but extensions should include storytelling for me. Don't just extend the cards from the disad, explain the warrants and tell me how they link together into the story of the disad. Better extensions, better speaker points.

K/Framework

--So remember how I said that me being a philosophy PhD doesn't mean what you think it means? I study bioethics and general normative theory and have had any knowledge/appreciation of continental philosophy beaten out of me over the last 5 years. So, I'm actually not the best at evaluating super dense Ks, high theory, that sort of stuff. That being said, you can totally run it if that's your thing. However, you're going to ahve to take extra time for storytelling. What's going on in the K, what does the aff/res do that is bad, why should I care, and what do you do to make it better/different? So, don't avoid running Ks if that's your A-strat. Do what you do best. Just be good at it and we're fine. If you've grabbed a K from a teammate that you haven't seen before and don't know how to properly extend and explain, it probably won't go well and you should consider doing something else (this applies generally).

--Framework v. framework debates are almost as bad as theory v. theory debates in terms of incomprehensibility. So, do active weighing work. Why does your framework matter more? If your framework precludes, why? If they say their framework precludes, why doesn't it. If both frameworks preclude each other and I have no in-round way to determine whose actually does, we're all going to be upset.

--Role of the ballot/role of the judge is probably the single most important layer of the flow. I mean, you have the power to tell me what my ballot does. Use it to your advantage. If you win that the only thing I should care about is whatever the role of the ballot says I should care about, that's kind of a big deal. Use it to your advantage. On the other side of the flow, you really should spend time here if you're responding to a K.

--Totally fine with performances, but, and this also applies generally, weighing pre versus post fiat offense and why the performance itself matters is pretty important. This is another area where the role of the ballot is your best friend.

--Like I said, I'm usually pretty good about ethics frameworks since that's kind of what I do for a living. That being said, debate phil is 99% of the time waaaaaaayyyyyyyy different from academic phil. This is especially the case for K authors like Foucault, but also for Kant, Mill, Rawls, etc. So, you'll have a little more leeway with explaining evidence for something like a Kant framework, but you still need to do actual extensions and explanations.

Other miscellaneous stuff

--Again, if this is your thing, this is your thing so do it, but I'm generally not a fan of tricks. Most tricks arguments fall into the camp of bad arguments I describe above where a response of "nuh-uh" is sufficient. Again, if this is what you do, then do it, just be super clear about where stuff is located, both when you're reading it and when you're responding to stuff in c/x. Nothing is more infuriating than shifty c/x responses. Saying stuff like "lol I don't know what an a priori is" when it's pretty clear you do is an easy way to get your speaks docked. Don't be that person.

--In that regard, unless you legitimately don't know what the person is asking about, don't say "I don't know what that means". If you've been to camp or the TOC or on the circuit at all, I assume you at least have some understanding of what terms like pre-fiat or spike mean. That's being shifty and wasting c/x time and it's annoying.

--Flex prep is fine. To a lesser extent, so it using c/x time as prep if you want. It isn't a good look, but c/x time is your time to ask questions and use it strategically. Asking questions is generally better than not. Also, both c/x and flex prep are binding.

That's all I can think of for now, I'll try to be better about updating this more regularly. Again, if something here isn't clear or if you want to know more, find me at the tournament and ask or ask me before the round starts.

Add me to the email chain: dean.doneen@gmail.com

I coach LD Debate at Roseville Area High School in MN

Speed is fine under most circumstances, probably not great to plow through Deleuze at top speed though. I'll say clear/slow 3 times max.

Please debate the resolution

27.5 is average speaks

I will not vote for a prioris (this doesn't include thought out deductive argument like an amoral state NC)

If you have a dog, please include a picture at the bottom of your speech doc

I think I flow pretty well and speed is fine, but if you make 6 quick arguments at top speed and don't remind me of them when you give voting issues and I missed one of them, I won't change my vote based off of the argument I missed. I'd encourage your summary of the round to be at a slower pace.

What a 30 looks like

- I learned something from you

- Your time management was great

- It is clear you are very knowledgeable on everything you read and arguments you made

- You won the round

- You did not do any tricks/ you did not read any a prioris

- You had a great under view/voting issues in your final speech summarizing the debate

- You spoke slower than your opponent (this can still be spreading)

Policy Making

- Advocacy needs to be clear. This doesn't necessarily mean a plan text.

- I won't weigh for you

Critical Theory

- You should have a ROB

- Jean Baudrillard ruined my life, and for that I am forever grateful

- I'm uncomfortable judging debate rounds centered around identity politics. You can do it and you won't lose any speaks, but these debates are harder for me to evaluate.

- Just because an activity produces meaning (a sign) does not mean it is harmful or "co-opts" something. Signs are an important part of communication, if not the entirety of it.

Theory

- I default to reasonability, no RVIs, drop the argument, and it is getting harder every day to convince me otherwise.

- Sometimes I just won't vote for your shell if I think it's really bad.

- I don't believe that Theory is not a strategy. If abuse is real, go right ahead.

- If you consider yourself a theory/tricks debater, I am not the judge for you

- I will not vote for disclosure theory in LD. However, disclosing is probably a good thing to do and parity in document access is important

- I will not vote on potential abuse.

Tricks

- don't

Lay Debate (MN Circuit)

- I don't really care much about the value debate. You could literally just say your value is "good" and I'd buy it

- The standard/criterion debate DOES matter, very much so.

- Being easy to weigh isn't a real reason why your ethics are best

I debated LD for Highland Park in St. Paul form 2001-2005. I coached for a few years in college, but not since 2008. I have continued judging since college, but that's declined to just one or two tournaments per year recently.

As a debater, I was competitive on the national circuit with everything that entailed: speed, critical args, topicality, theory, plans/counterplans, etc. So I am familiar with all of these things. However, it's been a long time since I was deeply immersed in the cutting edge of argumentation and techniques in LD, or had the frequent opportunities to practice flowing rounds at top speeds. I can handle a moderate amount of speed, but not the fastest rounds - and you will want to be sure to enunciate. I consider it the debater's obligation to be clear to the judge. I will say "clear" up to twice per speech, but after that point I will stop flowing if I don't understand you. If you look up occasionally, it will be obvious that I'm not flowing. Similar to speed, I'm definitely no longer well versed in whatever philosopher/philosophy is currently en vogue. Don't just reference an argument by using the author's last name for shorthand and assume I know the details.

In general, I'm very open to types of argumentation. Critical args, plans, or traditional cases are all fine. Just tell me the standard by which I should be evaluating the round, and then link your arguments to that standard. I will do my best not to intervene, with one caveat; I really dislike rounds that become focused on theory, and will only vote on it if I agree that there is abusive behavior or argumentation.

Speaker points are based on several factors: the quality of arguments, technical skills, and presentation. I'm not looking for original oratory, but don't expect great speaks if you're rocking back and forth compulsively, tripping over yourself while trying to spread, yelling for no reason, etc.

Lastly, I expect that all parties, debaters and myself, will treat each other with respect.

If you have any other questions, go ahead and ask before the round.

I am a parent judge and have judged for the past 4 years at traditional tournaments in North and South Carolina in LD and PF. Do not spread – I cannot flow speed. Avoid excessively dense philosophy. Counterplans, disads, plans etc. are fine. Err against kritiks unless you think you can explain it very well. Do not read non-topical affs, I have essentially no experience with these and likely won’t vote on them. Good evidence and clear explanation are key.

email: zip.edwards@offitkurman.com

Um, so, like, so, ummmm, so ... yeah.

He/Him/His pronouns

Add me to the email chain or involve me in flash trades -> noodleevers@gmail.com

I guess I should put my experience here:

I debated 3 years at Appleton East in PF, competing both in state and in the national circuit. Since graduation (2-3 years now), I have coached LD mainly on the national circuit.

General beliefs

How to win my ballot

I default to an offense-defense paradigm to evaluate rounds (maybe that's bad, terminal defense is a thing, but I generally have a high threshold for terminal d). This has a few implications for how I make my decision. First, I love turns, especially if they are not just blips in the rebuttal. I will happily just vote on your opponents' case if you turn each of their arguments and extend those turns. Second, if you only extend defensive arguments and your opponent extends one offensive argument I will vote for them even if they do not point that out.

Above all, I try not to intervene. I do as little work for you as possible, I flow very well, and I put a lot of thought into my decision. I judge because I like doing it and I think Public Forum specifically needs more flow judges that want to be there.

Speed

I do not care about how fast you talk in PF or local LD. For nat circuit LD, I can usually handle a 7-8 dependent on how tired or hungry I am (If it is an 8 am round, I'll prolly be a bit rusty so that that with a grain of salt). If I can't understand you, I will yell "Clear" (yeah, this almost never happens, y'all are pretty good at understanding when I'm tired). Jargon is good as it usually helps me understand what you are saying. If it stops being helpful, my expression will let you know.

Extensions

I guess I'm kinda picky about extensions. Just saying "extend this piece of evidence" is not gonna be enough in my eyes. I will only extend evidence that is warranted, especially if it is key to your offense.

Speaks

I will reward debaters for clarity, humor, tech skill, strategy, and topic knowledge. Here is my scale: 30 - You were amazing, I will remember your performance six months after the round. 29 - You were great, I was impressed by your performance, but not overwhelmed. 28 - You were good, but there is room for improvement. 27- You were below average or didn't disclose :[ . 26 - You were not so good. 25 and below - You said something offensive.

PF

Technical Beliefs about PF

EVIDENCE (updated 4/28/19)

- I've done a lot of thinking about evidence quality in PF specifically. I've come to the realization that paraphrasing is not just bad for the debate community (because it allows for power-tagging, misconstruing evidence, the whole shebang) it is also intellectually dishonest and should be punished. If you paraphrase cards in front of me in the constructive or rebuttal, I will regard that evidence as an analytic that has no empirical backing and you will likely get an L. If you don't have a card cut and instead pull up a pdf that makes it impossible to determine what you actually read in the round, I will also consider that an analytic and you will likely get an L. This is not negotiable. Cut cards, ask your coach the proper formatting, and PF will be much better. Strike me if you don't want to engage in norms that every other form of debate has practiced since at least the 70's.

SUMMARY/FINAL FOCUS CONSISTENCY

- In order for me to evaluate arguments in the final focus, they MUST be in the summary. This includes offense from case, turns from the rebuttal or defense you want to extend. If you want to win with me at the back of the room, you must be consistent.

SECOND SPEAKER REBUTTAL

- I do not believe that that second speaking team must return and answer the entirety of the first rebuttal as the time skew is much too great. I do think that this second speaking team should adapt to the round and answer major offense that could be damning to them in the speech.

RULES BASED ARGUMENTS

- Plans and counterplans have their own place in PF and if justified by the language in the resolution - I'm okay with. I am not very sympathetic to "you can't have a plan/counterplan in PF" or other rules based arguments unless well laid out. Impact the breaking of the rules by the opposing team or find a better argument against it.

ARGUMENTATION

- I am in favor of unconventional argumentation. As a debater, I frequently made arguments about nuclear war and extinction. I am happy to vote for big (albeit unrealistic) impacts as long as there is a solid link chain. I will vote for any type of argument, including critiques, performances, plans, theory, etc. and have had some decent experience evaluating these types of arguments in national circuit LD. Read my LD paradigm for thoughts on those more progressive arguments.

- I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space."

- PF specifically needs more T/Theory arguments. Too many of y'all are getting away with really bad interpretations of debate. I am not afraid to pull the trigger on disclosure good arguments and if you're not disclosing, particularly on the national circuit, you're going to have a rough time with me at the back of the room. Spending the extra minute to disclose your positions is not that tough and has never hampered good debates in LD and Policy. I expect the same in PF.

More evidence stuff that won't cost you an L but might lower you speaks

- During the round evidence should be exchanged quickly and often. I prefer to use an email chain at the beginning of rounds (yes, even in pf - y'all gotta stop power tagging every damn card you read), but if you don't, evidence will be exchanged off of prep time unless they read it during a speech or crossfire. If a team does not have a piece of evidence available I will disregard it. I will call for evidence if not in an email chain after the round in four scenarios.

First, if during the round a debater tells me to look at specific evidence I will ask to see it. If the evidence is misrepresented I will reevaluate the argument that the evidence relates to as though it had never been read, which likely means that I will no longer be comfortable voting on that argument.

Second, if you cite a piece of evidence that I have read and it is blatantly misrepresented I'll want to see it to see who has the correct interpretation. For example, if a debater reports the wrong date for an event for which I know the correct date, provided that the date matters for the argument and the argument is made a voting issue, I'll need to see the source. In this case, do not be tempted to falsify the date on the evidence, I will google it to make sure that what you give me matches the actual evidence.

Third, I'll call for a piece of evidence if it's obviously false. For instance, I might want to read evidence that states that during the round global nuclear war broke out and everyone outside of the room is dead.

Fourth, if there is a "tie" I will ask for evidence from both teams. (This occurs when neither team weighs any of their arguments, extends clean offense, or has an obviously bigger impact.) If either team has misrepresented evidence pertaining to their key arguments I will vote against them. If each team has a similar quality of evidence I will intervene in the best way I can.

Ok, if you’re a pfer, this is where you can check out (read the bottom if y'all feel like getting some extra speaker points tho).

LD

Great, you made it this far, congrats.

Topicality

Bad topicality debates are just the negative whining that “the aff is obviously untopical because we didn’t have any evidence prepared against it.” This is not a winning argument whatsoever. To more easily win a T debate, debaters should have two things:

1. A clear, exclusive interpretation of the resolution. This doesn't necessarily need to be carded.

2. An impact showing why your interpretation is better, whether that be a clear disadvantage to the opposing team’s interp or advantages to your interpretation. This includes clear impact calculus and comparison to outline which definition is superior for the activity and why.

I usually don't default to reasonability but can be persuaded to fit check interps. I often find myself in debates where t isn't really an issue, but often times negatives don't realize when they are ahead on the t debate. Either way, do what you do.

Counterplans

Bad, cheaty cp's are really bad, but good ones I really enjoy hearing. Don't be afraid to go for the PIC, process, or consult CP if the aff undercovers it. Don't let my predispositions decide the debate, particularly when the flow dictates it. Counterplan theory is a good way to answer this. I default to rejecting the argument and not the debater. Also, seeing as people in state (WI) don't really run counterplans that well, I need to hear a net benefit to the aff. If you don't have that it's going to be an uphill battle to win my ballot.

Theory

I weigh theory in an offense-defense paradigm. If the negative gives some crappy answer to a theory argument that only has defense, don't be afraid to go for it. If you have the only offense, you'll win. Generally, I think theoretical objections are a reason to reject the argument (except for condo), but I can be persuaded otherwise if you show me a reason how the other team has caused irreparable damage to the fairness of the round. I don’t think that theory necessarily comes down to a debate of competing interpretations as it should in T debates, but if a question comes up as to where a bright line should be drawn between what is (for example) a process counterplan and what is not, you should be prepared to provide that bright line so that your theoretical objection has a clear basis as to what is and what is not legitimate. I do believe the negative in particular gains a lot from defending an interpretation of what is legitimate (especially as it pertains to conditionality). Additionally, slow down on the theory debate. I don't have your old ass condo block file in front of me like you do. If you just blow through like 5 subpoints in just as many seconds, I will probably not catch all of it. If I don't catch it, I won't be flowing the "extension" of it in later speeches.

Kritiks

Typically, I see K debates as a double-edged sword. Usually, teams either are great at what they’re doing and have blocked responses to typical 2AC answers and know how to employ those responses at later points in the debate OR a team throws together a 1NC shell and thinks if they say “it’s better to have no life than to live one with no value” enough times then they win. Don’t be the latter team. On the other hand, affirmatives should be far less fearful of the K. It truly isn’t all that much more than a uniqueness counterplan and a generic disad (most of the time). That being said here are the things I should see from a successful negative team debating the K:

1. A clear explanation of what the alternative does and why it solves

2. A link that is specific to the affirmative

3. An impact that is explained as per the context of the debate; the impact debate is oft-ignored by the negative

An explanation of an alternative shouldn’t just be “we break down capitalism.” You need to explain to me how. If I don’t know what the world of the alt is like it makes it hard for me to vote on it. A link specific to the affirmative should be more than just cherry-picking a representation from an impact in the 1AC. Tell me specifically how the aff presentation of that representation is especially problematic. The impact is where this debate is won and lost. Whether the impact comes from extinction, turning aff solvency, structural violence, etc. you need to tell me why your impact is worse in the context of what the impact to the affirmative is. Just because you’re reading a K doesn’t excuse you from doing impact calc. Do your K tricks and whatnot too. Floating PIKs, serial policy failure, etc.

K affs

I'm cool with them. I have had limited experience running and judging k affs, so take that with a grain of salt. T/Fw is usually a good response to K Affs, but that may just be my experience speaking.

As far as clash of rev debates go, I have little experience adjudicating or debating them. I'll try to judge them as best I can and have judged a fair number of them on the LD nat circuit, but do not construe that with me being comfortable with them (though I will try my best to interfere as little as possible)

Disads

A good disad should have a clear link and impact and be able to turn the impacts to the affirmative. It's cool if they act as the net benefit to the cp or on its own. Using the DA to turn the case is prolly a good thing. I love a good politics DA debate (but this congress is weird so the link and il is gonna be crucial to win).

Phil, Skep, and the like

- yeah, so ummmm...

- This is the thing I am least comfortable adjudicating. I'll evaluate it the best I can and have voted on phil plenty of times, so don't discourage that from letting you do your thing, but ... yeah.

One last thing,

"'"If you haven't disclosed you will not get above a 27."- Akhil Jalan' - Kedrick Stumbris" - Joshua Evers.

- Plz put me on the email chain --> noodleevers@gmail.com

Regards,

Judge person

I’m the Executive Director of National Symposium for Debate, as well as the site director for NSD’s Flagship LD camp. I’m also an assistant LD coach for Lake Highland Prep.

I debated circuit LD for 4 years in high school, and I graduated in 2003. For what it’s worth, I cleared twice at TOC, and I was in finals my senior year. Since then, I have actively coached LD on the national circuit. For a period, I was a full time classroom teacher and debate coach. I have also coached individually and worked as an assistant coach for a number of circuit programs. I coach/judge at 8-10 TOC level tournaments per year.

Email for docs: tomevnen@gmail.com

TLDR rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 1
Policy - 2
Theory - 1
Tricks - 2
T vs K aff; K aff vs T - 1 (I’m happy on both sides of these debates, regularly vote both ways in these debates, and coach both ways in these debates)

Longer explanation of rankings:

Re my policy ranking - Feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them frequently. I’ll admit that I do the least amount of thinking and researching on the policy wing of topics. This probably makes me an OK, but not excellent, judge of policy vs policy rounds. In policy vs something else rounds, the 2 ranking doesn’t affect things much, except see paragraph below.

Re my tricks ranking - Again, feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them (and against them) frequently. I find well thought out tricks that are integrated with the substance of your phil framework or K interesting. I find a lot of other tricks fairly boring. Again, see paragraph below on adaptation.

Generally speaking, I won’t have any objection to what you read. You are usually better off reading your A strategy in front of me than substantially diverging from that strategy to adapt to me. When relevant, you should tweak your A strategy to recognize that I am also open to and comfortable with the standard maneuvers of debate styles other than yours. For example, if your preference is policy arguments and you are debating a K, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume you can cross-apply the aff or that extinction outweighs the K, when contested. Similarly, if you are a phil debater, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume that your phil framework precludes the util tricks (modesty, extinction first, etc.).

Whatever your style, if you have thought carefully about strategic interactions with opposing styles, and you are comfortable winning those debates in front of a judge who does not assume all of your priors, I will be a fine judge for you. If you need a judge who is strictly “in your lane” stylistically, then there will be matchups where I am not your ideal judge.

In terms of my familiarity with arguments: in phil lit, I am well read in analytic and continental philosophy (less so analytic philosophy, except in the area of ethics) and in the groups in between (Hegel and post-Hegelians, for example). In K lit, I’m well read in critical/Marxist theory and high theory, and I’m pretty comfortable (though slightly less well read) with the identity literature. I actively coach debaters on all of the above, as well as on theory, T vs K affs, K affs vs T, and (some) tricks. My debaters read some policy args, and there are scenarios where I encourage that, but I am less involved in coaching those arguments.

Miscellaneous

As a general policy, I don't disclose speaks.

Generally speaking, I'm not very receptive to arguments like "evaluate after the 1n" or "no neg analytics" (you know the genre). I'm fine with these arguments when they are scenario specific, and you can give an explanation why a type of argument needed to be made in a specific speech; obviously those arguments are sometimes true. Otherwise, I don't think these arguments are worth reading in front of me -- I never find myself comfortable making decisions based on sweeping claims that mean debaters generally can't respond to arguments.

EDIT TO THE EDIT: I haven’t seen a debate in 5 years. The following still applies but know that I probably don’t know much about what you’re talking about if it’s evolved in the last 5 years.

EDIT: The following is a paradigm for LD only. PF folks, please disregard. I'm fine with anything in PF--just make it very clear in the final focus.

I debated for five years at Valley High School in West Des Moines, IA, graduating in 2017. I qualified to TOC my junior and senior years, accumulating eight career bids and getting to octos my senior year. I went to Harvard and studied social studies.

INTRODUCING THE 30 SPEAKS CHALLENGE! If you make an argument that I should give you a 30, here is what will happen:

1. Immediately after the round, I'm going to go to a random number generator and select a number 1-7.

2. That number will correlate to a numbered question, taken from UChicago Supplemental Essays among other sources. See the bottom for essay questions.

3. You will close your laptop and immediately respond with an answer. Your answer cannot exceed 30 seconds long.

4. If the answer is creative, humorous, and interesting, I'll give you a 30. If it's not, then I'll give you what you would have gotten anyway and then subtracting 0.3 speaks. High risk, high reward.

5. I'll repeat this process with your opponent if they wish. If both of you succeed, then whoever wins the round will get a 30 and whoever loses will get a 29.9.*

Note: I reserve the right to not follow the terms of this challenge should something egregious or unsafe occur in the round, or if you are just overwhelmingly rude to everyone.

IMPORTANT NOTE ON SPEAKS:

I'll vote on any argument, but if you read/do the following, your speaks will be lowered.

1. Disclosure theory (especially must disclose full text/open source)

2. AFC

3. If you refer to yourself as "we"

4. If you just read for 7 minutes (your speaks are inversely related to the amount of time spent reading)

5. If you spread against a novice/lay debater/someone of an obviously different skill level instead of including them in the round and making it a learning experience.

Short Version
At its core, debate is your game. I really don't care what you do as long as you aren't offensive. I enjoy good framework debates the most but in the end, do what you want. I'm not great at flowing, so slow down on tags and author names. I'm not a big fan of AFC and really don't like disclosure theory or brackets theory. This means I have a low threshold for responses, but if you win it I'll vote for it begrudgingly. Speaks are based on strategy and usually start at a 28.5 and go up or down from there.

Long Version

Ks: I don't understand a lot of the lit, but a well executed K is impressive. I think K vs. framework debates are interesting. My advice if you want to run a K is to overexplain the implications of the arguments you're running and don't assume I understand all of it.

Theory: I default to theory is an issue of competing interpretations. RVIs are fine to go for, but please weigh between warrants for an RVI instead of 15 blippy arguments for an RVI and 15 blippy arguments against an RVI. Voters other than fairness and education are neat. Oh, and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE SLOW DOWN ON INTERPS AND COUNTERINTERPS.

Util: Weigh everything and it could be interesting. I'm majoring in international relations and did a lot of policy work outside of debate so I'll probably understand what the plan or CP does, but if you're going for something complex/debatey (recontextualizing fiat or something like that) explain what that means.

Framework: Love it. A good framework debate with weighing and preclusion is really fun to watch. However, weigh between preclusion arguments and explain why yours operates on a higher level instead of just going "I preclude." Also, number arguments so they're easier to flow. Framework vs. ROTB debates are cool to watch.

Random things: Don't refer to yourself in the plural that "we meet" or "our argument." There is one of you and it gets kinda annoying. I won't drop you for it obviously but I might dock you speaks. Also, signpost clearly and number blippy arguments so they're at least somewhat flowable.

Ask me questions before the round if I missed anything. Good luck!

30 Speaks Challenge Questions:

1. In 2015, the city of Melbourne, Australia created a "tree-mail" service, in which all of the trees in the city received an email address so that residents could report any tree-related issues. As an unexpected result, people began to email their favorite trees sweet and occasionally humorous letters. Imagine this has been expanded to any object (tree or otherwise) in the world, and share with us the letter you’d send to your favorite.

2. Lost your keys? Alohomora. Noisy roommate? Quietus. Feel the need to shatter windows for some reason? Finestra. Create your own spell, charm, jinx, or other means for magical mayhem. How is it enacted? Is there an incantation? Does it involve a potion or other magical object? If so, what's in it or what is it? What does it do?

3. So where is Waldo, really?

4. Dog and Cat. Coffee and Tea. Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye. Everyone knows there are two types of people in the world. What are they?

5. Joan of Arkansas. Queen Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Babe Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Mash up a historical figure with a new time period, environment, location, or occupation, and tell us their story.

6. You’re on a voyage in the thirteenth century, sailing across the tempestuous seas. What if, suddenly, you fell off the edge of the Earth?

7. You are about to be reincarnated into a specific office supply tool in a specific office. Whose office is it, what office supply are you, and why?

2024 update

I have been out of debate for about 5 years, but this paradigm holds true. End of the day, debate is about you as the debater and I as the judge will do my best to evaluate whatever you choose to do, so long as what you choose to do is not violent. Do you. I may be behind on some jargon so make sure you can explain your buzzwords and if you don't mind work into your top speed so I can acclimate (especially over Zoom!), but speaks will be highest for rounds where I get to see debaters doing what they are most comfortable with and doing that well, whether thats a K, LARP-y policy args, or theory. Strangely, the part of debate I miss most after these years is the ridiculous theory debates. Take that as you will, and Godspeed.

Danny.franksiegel@gmail.com

UPDATE AS OF OCTOBER 2018

I enjoy a good K debate but I don't hack for the K. I don't love tricks as an argument style but a well explained trick can be fun to judge. When its frivolous I have a hard time buying theory, but will evaluate the debate nonetheless. Over the course of one tournament (Valley) I voted for the indexes a priori, Baudrillard, Kant, a LARP aff, and theory. If any of those things sound like arguments you read and you HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT YOU CAN EXPLAIN WELL ENOUGH TO ME TO WARRANT MY BALLOT then pref me. If you do not believe you can have a good and nuanced debate where you explain the intricacies of your position to me, do not pref me highly, because when you don't explain things and your opponent does you will lose me quickly. The only exception to this is explicitly violent language, which I will not take kindly to/intervene against in extreme instances. This is the only scenario in which I will intervene. You can read the rest of my paradigm if you want to (if you are a theory debater trying to make a judgement call on whether to put me at a 1,2, or 3, you may want to read the TJFs/ Sliding Scale section below), because I do go more in depth on some things. But this should be the size of it.

Extra note: if you are debating a novice/debater without a lot of circuit experience, I won't force you to adapt to them, but an attempt to make the debate more accessible (this can look like slowing down, intentionally being forthcoming in cross, reading a position that is engagable, editing your case so that it can be read in an accessible way) I will bump speaks a bit.

YOUR ROUND IS ABOUT TO BEGIN AND YOU NEED TO KNOW WHO THIS GUY IS:

Plant ontology is a true arg. But so is T. Here we go...

tl;dr: do you.

I really don't care what you do. I'm good for all of it. As long as you are not actively offensive in the round. If you are/if someone asks you to stop doing something they perceive as violent and you blow it off/do not make an effort to change your behavior I will take your speaks I would've given, subtract 4, assign your speaks that number, and then wait that many seconds to talk to your coach after the round.

My Preferences/Things you should know about me:

-My pronouns are he/him. I will ask for your pronouns before the round (if I forget please remind me!). That is the most I will ask you to disclose about your personal identity unless you choose to do so later in the round. You do not have to tell me anything about yourself you don't want to.

-I'm kind of a point fairy in LD and more of a stickler in policy. I try to match my speaks to the average I perceive on the circuit.

-I judge a lot of theory debates but I don't love them. I'd much prefer to watch a K vs. K aff round. But since I keep getting preffed by theory kids I guess I'm ok for the theory debate tho. I'm even starting to enjoy watching good debaters go for theory...? But only when its done very well and not frivolous.

-If you read bad theory in front of me (I know this is arbitrary, but I tend to believe that most debaters know what this means and choose to ignore it.) and the other debater tells me to gut check it in any way shape or form, hold this L real quick.

-I will not vote on permissibility skep or any argument akin to "moral decisions are irrelevant," that is explained as "the holocaust/slavery could be good bc everything is true!!1!"

-If you are reading a strategy that doesn't make its arguments until the 1AR (ie you are spamming a speech doc with incoherent cards knowing the only one that matters starts with an R and ends with an odl) you and I will not get along. I'll vote for it if you're winning it, but I'll be unhappy. Caveat: if you're debating a novice/someone without much debate experience and your 1AR is all tricks, yes I'm giving the NR leeway.

-I cuss. A lot. Sorry in advance (and if you are legitimately uncomfortable let me know and I will control my language).

-Albums I'm listening to a lot of right now include but are not limited to: Astral Weeks by Van Morrison, Live in Amsterdam by Phish, Teenage Dreaming by Stranded Civilians (relatively short EP, very worth the listen!!), Close to the Edge by Yes, 10 Day by Chance the Rapper, Blue by Joni Mitchell. If you arrive early to a round and have music recommendations for me I will massively appreciate it :)

LARP

I did policy. I'll listen to your LARP args. Specificity on Politics links is usually where I end up pulling the trigger one direction or the other because most of the time they are either the best card in the DA or the worst card in the DA.

Consult/Process/Delay CPs are cheating, but strategic cheating that you have every right to run. But the more unfair your CP the less likely I am to vote against an equally unfair perm.

Idk how I feel about judge kick. I don't love it in theory, but I also don't know how it would interact with flipping the direction of presumption, so just if you want me to do it make the argument in round.

Framework

Not super familiar with a lot of super dense philosophy. That said, if you tell me what your offense is and why I care clearly in the last speech you've got my ballot. If my lack of philosophical knowledge is a hindrance to you winning, hinder that hindrance by being clear, making sense, impacting, and explaining (see Kant joke I'm doing my best to accommodate you phil hacks). I'm slowly but surely taking more phil classes in college so my knowledge base has broadened somewhat, but still, explain it to me and we'll all be happy.

Policy framework

It makes the game work. That said, I HATE listening to bad framework debates. If I can tell you're reading someone else's prewritten backfiles and you aren't doing it well speaks won't be great. If I can identify the person who wrote your prewritten backfile I will rate how much I like that person on a scale from 1-10 and give you that many speaks. I hate listening to prescripted crappy framework debates.

THAT SAID:

Watching LASA MS go for framework honestly was one of my favorite things to do, even though I usually ran things on the other side of it. Seriously framework can be an art form.

Topicality

T is a procedural and gets evaluated first, but if there is no analysis done beyond your generic blocks I'm gonna be sad and you will too when you see your speaks. Competing interps is my default, but I can be swayed otherwise easily. I try to only evaluate what's in the round. If the aff isn't topical read T. But after the 3rd or so T interp I/We meets become reasonable to me quickly... take that as you will.

Theory

Frivolous theory makes me sad but some theory is a necessary evil. That is about as straightforward as I can say. I will listen to your theory shell. But a counter interp explaining why your interp is absurd and your abuse scenario is contrived is gonna make you sad if you are reading a frivolous shell. That said, watching a good theory debater go to work is a thing of beauty and I guess I'll watch and evaluate as such. Side note: I don't understand the obsession with the counter interp "I defend the converse of the interp." It makes it harder for me as a judge to decide these debates because sometimes I have a tough time figuring out what the world of the counterinterp looks like. It also generally lets the person making the counterinterp shift a lot, which seems pretty unfair. I'll listen to the argument, but if your opponent calls you on it, it seems pretty tough to theoretically defend.

TJFs

I actually find these very convincing when deployed alongside a traditional util framework, and I think that these are a good way for LARP debaters to have a leg to stand on against unfamiliar phil positions full of tricks or Ks that you aren't familiar with. Do I think there's a theory debate to be had over them? Sure. Is it a debate I'm willing to listen to because I think these are a good practice, but there is plenty of theoretical reasons as to why they aren't? Totally. This is also how I approach most theory issues. I will do my best to do due diligence to both positions and hear them out, and legitimately want to hear the theoretical debate about practices that may be a gray area.

Sliding Scale (the shells listed in each section are examples of the stuff I'd put in each category):

Theory I like/would not mind hearing a debate about:

-TJFs Good/Bad

-Disclosure (with MATERIAL evidence proving a violation- I won't vote on something I can't confirm)

-The neg may not read a preclusive theory shell and read multiple counterplans that include the aff (this is an example of how a 1AR theory interp against an abusive neg strategy that would fare well in front of me would look).

Theory I don't like/Will begrudgingly listen to:

-ROB spec (this serves the purpose of policy framework on topics without an agent in my mind)

-AFC

-Ridiculous spec args (Reporter Spec was not quite in this category in my mind, but it was close. That should tell you what you need to know about this)

Theory I will gut check as soon as one side tells me to:

-ACC

-must say "bracketed" when reading bracketed card ie just noting it isn't enough (bracket theory can be in any one of these three categories depending on the context, but this version will almost always be here)

-must spec status in the speech

-all neg theory are counterinterps so they must win an RVI to be offensive

One final theory note: I'll vote on any theory, this is just a scale detailing the level of work you will have to do to make me want to consider pulling the trigger for you. Feel free to facebook message me/ask me at a tournament any questions about this scale.

Ks

This is my bread and butter, but if its not yours, DON'T DO IT!!! If you know DnG like the back of your hand I'll listen to whatever you have to say about God being a lobster and Rhizomes (but the mitochondria is still the powerhouse of the cell). Even just a well executed cap K or security K is dope. But if you get up there and say "his paradigm said read Ks Imma do the thing now" and have no idea whats going on all of us will be sad. So I'll reiterate. Do you. Not what you think I want to see. Performance is also really fun to judge, but make sure you're explaining and implicating well.

Arguments I like

- Delay CP

- Ship of Theseus procedural

- RodlRodlRodlRodlRodlRodl

- time cube

- thyme cube

- aspec/ospec double bind

- fiat double bind

- Antonio 95

Arguments I don't like

- true ones

- sarcasm bad

Additionally

Triadica Sebifera.

Updated 25 August 2019

TL;DR: Parent judge (arghh/ yipeee/ whatever-you-feel). I am able to flow most common types of args (but not dense phil/Ks) delivered at normal speed. I value logical args/ rebuttals, even if purely analytical.

Spreading: I will likely miss some args but will do my best to follow along with any speech docs you share. I strongly recommend you slow down for your tags and crucial points, especially if extemporaneous. Do signpost.

Case Debate: I expect a basic level of case debate in addition to whatever else you may choose to run.

Theory: I am unlikely to view it favorably unless you can show a timely pre-round good faith effort to avoid citing the violation in question. Unless it is a completely unexpected/ egregious in-round violation, the burden is on you to have engaged in pre-round communications if it could have voided the need for a theory debate.

Warrants: Incontrovertible, objective, data based cards are more potent than opinions/ claims. If I call for a card, I am also checking the text you minimized/ did not read.

ROB/ ROJ: Unless proven otherwise, all args will be viewed as a strategy to win a HS debate round and not as an altruistic endeavor to effect societal/ policy change.

I am the current director of speech and debate at the Milwaukee School of Languages.

From 1997-2004, I competed in LD, Congress, Policy, and most speech events in high school and college. Since then, I have coached all events at one time or another.

I will not vote for debaters who physically threaten or verbally abuse their partners or opponents; if you offend your opponent in some way, an authentic apology and reckoning is generally your best option to continue the round.

I would like to be on the email chain (hannanja@milwaukee.k12.wi.us), but only for reference after the round; I will not read along as a substitute for clarity. I will say clear twice if I can't understand you because of enunciation, but then you're probably on your own. If you spread theory blocks/underviews, I can't understand you and I won't be able to flow it.

I will make decisions that are good if:

you explain things to me; you establish a clear standard, role of the ballot, value, or other mechanism and explain to me how I can use that to make my decision; you compare or weigh offense and explain how it is linked to a standard.

I will make decisions that are bad if:

you expect me to do work for you on the flow or among your arguments; you assume I know more than I do.

I will listen to and attempt to flow any speed, but I strongly believe that the faster you go, the less I or any judge will understand. I am reading every week to better understand all sorts of critical theory, but dense stuff delivered at speed is going to be tough for me; ditto for theory/underview/analytic blocks that are a series of two-sentence claims delivered in three second bursts.

I probably will not vote for theory without a clearly explained abuse/harm story and an indication of how the ballot will remedy or prevent that abuse/harm.

I don't think I have any other ideological preferences for argument types or structure; within the constraints listed above, do whatever you'd like and explain to me why it merits my ballot.

PF: if it's in the final focus, it needs to have been in the summary. A complete extension has a link and an impact, preferably with evidence for each. I prefer to make decisions based on clean flow-work; lacking a clean story on the flow, I will occasionally call for evidence to help resolve an issue; I often find myself assessing the 'risk of offense' at the end of rounds based on flow work, evidence quality, consistency of the story between summary and final focus, and the degree of opposition the argument received.

Congress: I care deeply about inclusion and equity, especially in moments where students can have direct influence on which voices are heard. Please work to include everyone in all aspects of procedure and debate.

Any other specifics, please ask.

Speaker Points: I find that a lot of paradigms have speaker point sections that sound like "30 - you're going to win the tournament", and I think that's not helpful (it doesn't really tell the student how to obtain better speaker points) and maybe also actively bad (if you can only get a 30 if the judge thinks you can win the tournament, it means debaters need rep to earn speaker points). So I will try to give you some specific criteria to keep in mind for speaker points in front of me; I'll also probably adjust these criteria and speaker point values over time, and for tournaments that have different speaker point norms.

A top-level speaker (29.5-30) will: demonstrate a strong commitment to explanation, argument comparison, and persuasion; enunciate clearly and consistently; treat their opponent with respect and empathy.

A second-tier speaker (29-29.5) will enunciate clearly and treat their opponent with respect; they will explain arguments well, but generally not do a superior job of comparing/weighing arguments or persuading me of their position's value or truth.

A third-tier speaker (28.5-29) will enunciate clearly and treat their opponent with respect; they will explain their arguments, but may not compare arguments or make an attempt to persuade me.

A fourth-tier speaker (28-28.5) will treat their opponent with respect but may have some clarity issues; they will explain their arguments but could do a better job with the explanation.

A fifth-tier speaker (27.5-28) will not treat their opponent with respect (they may be condescending, or mean, or dismissive, etc) and/or may have clarity issues; they typically do not explain their arguments.

Below a 27.5 would require a confluence of the issues described above.

grossly overqualified parent judge

Current affiliations: Director of PF at NSD-Texas, Taylor HS

Prior: LC Anderson (2018-23), John B. Connally HS (2015-18), TDC,UTNIF LD

Email chain migharvey@gmail.com; please share all speech docs with everyone who wants them

Quick guide to prefs

Share ALL new evidence with me and your opponents before the speech during which it is read. Strike me if this is a problem. A paraphrased narrative with no cards in the doc does not count. This is an accommodation I need and a norm that makes debate better. I have needed copies of case since I was a high school debater. Even with me complaining about this, it often doesn't seem to make a difference. The maximum amount of speaks you can get if you don't share your constructive with me is 28.4 and that's if you are perfect. This guideline does not generally apply to UIL tournaments or novice debate rounds unless you are adopting national circuit norms/speaking style

PF:

Tech > truth unless it's bigoted or something

Unconventional arguments: fine, must be coherent and developed (K, spec advocacies, etc)

Framing/weighing mechanism: love impact framing that makes sense; at the very least do meta-weighing. "Cost-benefit analysis" is not a real framework. Must be read in constructive or top of rebuttal

Evidence sharing/disclosure: absolutely necessary but i won't ever vote for a disclosure shell that would out queer debaters. I will err toward reasonability on disclosure if there is contact info on the wiki and/or the case is freely shared a reasonable time before round.

Theory: I am gooder than most at evaluating theory but don't read it if you don't know how. Evidence ethics is very very very very very important

Speed: Fine. Share speech docs

Problematic PF bro/clout culture: ew no

Weighing: wins the majority of PF debates, especially link weighing

Default: offense/defense if there's no framing comparison or reason to prefer one method of weighing

Flow: yes, i flow

Sticky defense: no

LD/Policy:

LARP/topicality/MEXICAN STUFF: 1+

1-off ap, setcol, cap/1nc non-friv theory: 1-2

kant without tricks: 1-2

deleuze/softleft/psycho/non-pess black studies: 2

most other k/nt aff: 3

rawls/non-kant phil/heavy fw: 3-4

Baudrillard/performance: 4-5

queer pess/tricks: probably strike although I'm coming around on spikes a little bit

disability pess/nonblack afropess: strike if you don't want to lose

UIL: Pretty much anything is fine if it gets us through the round with minimal physical or emotional damage. Try to stay on the line by line. Read real evidence. Weigh, please. For CX, maybe don't read nontopical affirmatives against small schools or novices. For LD, make sure your offense links to your framing and that you have warranted justifications for your framework. Read on for further details

TLDR: Share speech docs. Don't be argumentatively or personally abusive. Debate is a game, but winning is not the only objective. Line by line debate is important. No new case extensions in 2AR or final focus. I will intervene against bigotry and disregard for others' physical and mental wellness. I don't disclose speaks, sorry :). I promise I'm trying my best to be nice. LD and policy-specific stuff at the bottom of this doc. I love Star Wars. I will listen to SPARK, warming good, and most impact turns but I generally believe that physical death is not good. Pronouns he/him/his.

Speaks range: usually between 27 and 29.8. 28.5 is average/adequate. I usually only give 30s to good novices or people who go out of their way to make the space better. If you are a man and are sexist in the space I will hack your speaks.

Note on ableism: It is upsetting for me personally to hear positions advocating unipolar pessimism, hopelessness, or the radical rejection of potential futures or social engagement/productivity by the disabled or especially the neurodivergent subject.DO NOT read disability pessimism/abjection or pandering arguments about autism to get me to vote for you. You will lose automatically, sorry

Post-rounding: I can't handle it. This includes post-rounding in email after rounds. I am autistic and it is psychologically and behaviorally triggering for me. I'll take the blame that I can't handle it, just please don't.

Afropessimism: I will vote you down regardless of any arguments made in the round if you or your partner aren't Black and you read afropess. Watch me I'll do it

I have the lowest threshold you can possibly imagine for a well-structured theory argument based on the refusal to share evidence not just with me but with your opponents.

Long version:

Personal abuse, harassment, or competitive dishonesty of any kind is strictly unacceptable. Blatantly oppressive/bigoted speech or behavior will make me consider voting against a debater whether or not the issue is raised by their opponent. If a debater asks you to respect and use preferred pronouns/names, I will expect you to do so. If your argument contains graphic depictions of racial, sexual, or otherwise marginalizing violence, please notify your opponent. Also see mental health stuff below, which is personally tough to hear sometimes. You do not need to throw trigger warnings onto every argument under the sun, it can be trivializing to the lived experience of the people you're talking about. Blatant evidence ethics violations such as clipping are an auto-voter. Try not to yell, please; my misophonia (an inconvenient characteristic shared by a lot of autistic people) makes unexpected volume changes difficult.

Our community and the individual people in it are deeply important to me. Please do your part to make debate safe and welcoming for competitors, judges, coaches, family members, and friends. I am moody and can be a total jerk sometimes, and I'm not so completely naive to think everything is fluffy bunnies and we'll all be best friends forever after every round, but I really do believe this activity can be a place where we lift each other up, learn from our experiences, and become better people. If you're reading this, I care about you. I hope your participation in debate reflects both self-care and care for others.

(cw: self-harm)

Mental and emotional well-being are at a crisis point in society, and particularly within our activity. We have all lost friends and colleagues to burnout, breakdown, and at worst, self-harm. If you are debating in front of me, and contribute to societal stigmas surrounding mental health or belittle/bully your opponent in any way that is related to their emotional state or personal struggles with mental wellness, you will lose with minimum speaks. I can't make that any more clear. If you are presenting arguments related to suicide, depression, panic, or self-harm, you must give a content warning for me. I am not flexible on this and will absolutely use my ballot to enforce this expectation.

PF: Speed is fine. Framing is great (actually, to the extent that any weighing mechanism counts as framework, I desire and enthusiastically encourage it). Framing should be read in constructive or at the TOP of rebuttal. Nontraditional PF arguments (K, theory, spec advocacies) are fine if they're warranted. Warrants in evidence matter so much to me.

PF Theory: I agree with the thesis behind disclosure theory, though I am less likely to vote on it at a local or buy an abuse story if the offending case is straightforward/common. Disclosure needs to be read in constructive. Don't read theory against novices. I will have a low threshold for paraphrasing theory if the violation is about the constructive and/or if the evidence isn't shared before the speech. Don't be afraid to make something a paragraph shell or independent voter (rather than a structured shell) so long as the voter is implicated.

I will always prefer evidence that is properly cut and warranted in the evidence rather than in a tag or paraphrase of it, especially offense and uniqueness evidence. I have an extremely LOW tolerance for miscut or mischaracterized evidence and am just *waiting* for some hero to make it an independent voter.. So nice, I’ll say it twice: Evidence ethics arguments have a very low threshold.

DO NOT PERPETUATE THE TOXIC, PRIVILEGED MALE PF ARCHETYPE. You know *exactly* what I’m talking about, or should. Call that stuff out, and your speaks will automatically go up. If you make the PF space unwelcoming to women or gender minorities, expect L25 and don’t expect me to feel bad about it.

I absolutely expect frontlining in second rebuttal, and will consider conceded turns true. I will not vote on new arguments or arguments not gone for in summary in final focus. No sticky defense.

"It's not allowed in PF" is not by itself a warranted argument.

Crossfire: If you want me to use something from crossfire in my RFD, it needs to be in subsequent speeches. I am not flowing crossfire; I am listening but probably also playing 2048 or looking at animal pictures. I don't really care if you skip Grand, but I won't let you use that practice as an excuse to frontload your prep use then award yourselves extra prep time.

LD/Policy Specifics:

Speed: Most rates of delivery are usually fine, though I love clarity and I am getting older. If you are not clear, I will say "clear." Slow down on tags and analytics for my sake and for your opponent's sake, especially if you don’t include your analytics in the doc. For online debates, the more arguments that are in the doc the better. I will listen to well-developed theoretical or critical indictments of spreading, but it will take some convincing.

Kritik: I have a basic understanding of much of the literature. Explain very clearly why I should vote and why your opponent should lose. For me, "strength of link" is not an argument applicable to most kritik rounds - I ask whether there is a risk of link (on both sides). Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned. "Don't weigh the case" is not a warranted argument by itself - I tend to believe in methodological pluralism and need to be convinced that the K method should be prioritized. A link is *not* enough for a ballot. Just because I like watching policy-oriented rounds doesn't mean I don't understand the kritik or will hack against them. If you link to your own criticism, you are very unlikely to win. I believe the K is more convincing with both an alternative and a ballot implication (like most, I find the distinction between ROB and ROJ somewhat confusing).Please be mindful and kind about reading complicated stuff against novices. It is violent and pushes kids out of debate.

Theory/T: Fine, including 1AR theory. Just like with any other winning argument, I tend to look for some sort of offense in order to vote on either side. I don't default to drop the debater or argument. My abuse threshold on friv shells is much higher. I will not ever vote for a shell that polices debaters' appearance, including their clothes, footwear, hair, presentation, or anything else you can think of (unless their appearance is itself violent). I'll have a fairly high threshold on a strict "you don't meet" T argument against an extremely common aff and am more likely than not to hold the line on allowing US/big-ticket affs in most Nebel debates. One more thing - all voters and standards should be warranted. I get annoyed by "T is a voter because fairness and education" without a reason why those two things make T a voter. I don't care if it's obvious. Don't abuse theory against inexperienced debaters. A particularly egregious example would be to read shells in the 1AC, kick them, and read multiple new shells in the 1AR. Underviews and common spikes are fine. Please, I strongly prefer no tricks or excessive a prioris.A little addendum to that is that I do like truth testing as an argument, but not to justify skep or whatever dopey paradox makes everything false

Frameworks: Fine with traditional (stock or V/C), policy, phil, K, performance, but see my pref guide above for what I am most comfortable evaluating. While I don't think you have to have your own framework per se, I find it pretty curious when a debater reads one and then just abandons it in favor of traditional util weighing absent a distinct strategic reason to do so. I think TJF debates are interesting, but I seldom meet frameworks that *can't* be theoretically justified. Not sure if there's a bright line other than "you need to read the justifications in your constructive," and I'm not sure how good that argument is. I will vote on permissibility/presumption, on which I often lean aff in LD/policy.

LARP: My personal favorite and most comfortable debate to evaluate. Plans, counterplans, PICs, disads, solvency dumps, case turns, etc. Argue it well and it's fine. I don't think making something a floating PIK necessarily gets rid of competition problems; it has to be reasoned well. I'm very skeptical of severance perms and will have to be convinced - my threshold for voting on severance bad is very low. Impact turns are underutilized, but don't think that means I want you to be bigoted or fascist. Cap/heg good are fine. I'm very skeptical of warming good but will vote for it. To the extent that anyone prefs me, and no one should ever pref me under any circumstances, LARPers ought to consider preffing me highly.

Condo: Be really, really careful before you kick a K, especially if it is identity-related - I think reps matter. I am more likely to entertain condo bad if there are multiple conditional advocacies. More likely to vote on condo bad in LD than policy because of time/strat skew. One conditional counterplan advocacy in LD or 2 in policy is generally ok to me and I need a clear abuse story - I almost never vote for condo bad if it's 1 conditional counterplan.

Flashing/Email/Disclosure: I will vote for disclosure theory, but have a higher threshold for punishing or making an example of novices or non-circuit debaters who don't know or use the wiki. Reading disclosure at locals is silly. Lying during disclosure will get you dropped with 25 speaks; I don't care if it's part of the method of your advocacy. If you're super experienced, please consider not being terrible about disclosure to novice or small-school debaters who simply don't know any better. Educate them so that they'll be in a position to teach good practices in future rounds. My personal perspective on disclosure is informed by my background as a lawyer - I liken disclosure to the discovery process, and think debate is a lot better when we are informed. I won't vote on disclosure theory against a queer debater for whom disclosure would potentially out them. One caveat to prior disclosure is that I do conform to "breaking new" norms, though I listen to theory about it. In my opinion, the best form of disclosure is open-source speech docs combined with the wiki drop-down list. Please include me on email chains. Even if you don't typically share docs, please share me on speech docs - I can get lost trying to listen to even everyday conversation if I'm not able to follow along with written words. Seriously, I have cognitive stuff, please send me a speech doc.

Sitting/Standing: Whatever.

I do not care how you are dressed so long as your appearance itself is not violent to other people.

Flex prep/open CX: Fine in any event including PF. More clarity is good.

Performative issues: If you're a white person debating critical race stuff, or a man advocating feminism against a woman/non-man, or a cis/het person talking queer issues, etc., be sensitive, empathetic, and mindful. Also, I tend to notice performative contradiction and will vote on it if asked to. For example, running a language K and using the language you're critiquing (outside of argument setup/tags) is a really bad idea.

I do NOT default to util in the case of competing frameworks. If the framing debate is absolutely impossible to evaluate (sadly, it happens), I will try to figure out who won by weighing offense and defense under both mechanisms.

I tend to think plan flaw arguments are silly, especially if they're punctuation or capitalization-related. I have a very high threshold to vote on plan flaw. It has to be *actually* confusing or abusive, not fake confusing. I do like interp flaw arguments as defensive theory responses in the 1ar

I won't ever hack against trad debaters, but I am what you’d call a “technical” judge and if a debater concedes something terminal to the ballot, it’s probably game over. If you’re a traditional debater and the field is largely circuit debaters, your best bet to win in front of me is probably to go hard on the framework debate and either straight-turn or creatively group your opponent’s arguments.

Warrant all arguments in both constructives and rebuttals. An extended argument means nothing to me if it isn't explained. “They conceded it” is not a warranted argument.

Policy:

New for 2022: I'm older than most judges and I don't judge policy regularly anymore; I need you to slow down just a tick (300 wpm is fine if clear). I generally don't get lost in circuit LD rounds; think of that as your likely standard.

I was a policy debater and consultant at the beginning of my career. Most of this doc is LD and PF-specific, because those are the pools to which I'll generally be assigned. Most of what is above applies to my policy paradigm. I am most comfortable evaluating topical affirmatives and their implications, but I am a very flexible judge and critical/plan-less affs are fine. That said, just like in LD I like a good T debate and I will happily vote for TFW if it's well-argued and won. One minor thing is different from my LD paradigm: I conform a little bit more to policy norms in terms of granting RVIs less often in policy rounds, but that's about it. Obviously, framework debate (meaning overarching framing mechanisms, not T-Framework) is not usually as important in policy, but I'm totally down with it if that's how you debate. I guess a lot of policy debaters still default to util, so be careful if the other side isn't doing that but I guess it's fine if everyone does it. Excessive prompting/feeding during speeches may affect speaks, and I get that it's a thing sometimes, but I don't believe it's particularly educational and I expect whomever is giving the speech to articulate the argument. I am not flowing the words of the feeder, just the speaker. While I'm fairly friendly to condo advocacies in LD, I'm even more friendly to them in policy because of norms and speech times. I'll vote for condo bad, but it needs to be won convincingly - I'll likely err neg if it's 1 or 2 counterplans. Much more likely to vote for condo bad if one of the advocacies is a K that links to the counterplan(s).

Everyone: please ask questions if I can clarify anything. If you get aggressive after the round, expect the same from me and expect me to disengage with little to no warning. My wellness isn't worth your ego trip. I encourage pre-round questions. I might suggest you look over my paradigm, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask questions.

Finally, I find Cheetos really annoying in classrooms, especially when people are using keyboards. It's the dust. Don't test my Cheeto tolerance. I'm not joking, anything that has the dust sets me off. Cheetos, Takis, all that stuff. I get that it's delicious, but keep it the hell out of the academy.

My history: I debated 4 years of Policy Debate at Bloomington Jefferson High School in Minnesota and 5 years of Varsity Policy for the University of Minnesota. I've been judging Lincoln Douglas and Policy for several years after that — most recently LD for about two years. I'm currently a sportswriter for the Athletic who focuses on the Vikings.

Email: arifmhasan AT gmail DOT com

Long story short: I was a middle-of-the-road college policy debater who judges and has judged for 12 years. I'm up for anything.

General: I have a slight bias for technical argumentation over anything else, and I love foundational claims that get to underlying assumptions. That doesn't have to mean critiques/kritiks; epistemic claims can be evidence-based observations grounded in traditional argument structures. Over time, I've become less of a sophist and have hard limits at blatantly offensive arguments. This doesn't apply to those who make missteps in wording or might be accidentally casual about an opponent's impacts, but rather those who are willing to ground their arguments in things like scientific racism, transphobia, etc.

Ways to get speaker points: being funny is good, trying to be funny and failing is bad. Like I said, I love technical argumentation, so great line-by-line debate is good for me. Impact analysis that clarifies the round in a meaningful way, especially with "even if" statements are very good. I'm a sportswriter, so relevant sports references might help.

Three things not up for discussion: temporal elongation of the round (not time limits, per se, but no way to have the round go longer than intended), speaker points (they are my call), and win/loss paradigm. There will be a team who loses and a team who wins.

Topic Familiarity: I am not familiar with this year's or this month's topic.

Theory/Cheap Shots: I am not afraid to vote on this, but I don’t think “arg not team” is a new argument in the final rebuttals — if you're running theory, anticipate this. Obviously impact comparison is important here as it is anywhere else.

My default impacts on theory if no one gives me any: a. Preserving debate is good b. Education is the most important standard.

If you are an obviously non-topical aff, I prefer you defend the practice of not being topical to trying to defend that you are topical. Of course, these are not mutually exclusive

Kritiks: Tell me how to use the ballot/give me a framework. I have no problem with negatives using their kritik as both a K of the aff and a K of framework, if it fits and the impacts make sense. I have probably judged kritiks in every major literature base for kritiks. Be specific, if possible.

Performance: I have coached and judged performance teams – they tend to win more than lose. Personally, I prefer fast technical debating, and I generally do not believe that speed is bad. If the performance is meant to be uncomfortable for me, explain why it was necessary.

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with. I will do my best to offer you the same consideration.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop.

Speed

I am old - likely 10 years older than you think if not more - this impacts debaters in two ways 1. I get the more triggered when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you are using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it to outspread your opponent then I am not your judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time. If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible. 2. I just cannot keep up as well anymore and I refuse to flow off a doc. I only have four functional fingers on one hand and both hands likely 65% what they used to be. This is especially true as the season moves along and at any tournament where I judge lot of rounds.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Policy

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Competition

Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms do a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.

Condo

In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

I note above that I cannot keep up as much anymore. If your approach is to spam theory (which is increasing a norm in LD) I am not capable of making coherent decisions. I will likely be behind on the flow. I am trying to conceptualize your last blip in a manner to flow and you are making the 3rd or 4th. Then I try to play catch up, but argument is in the wrong place on the flow and it is written as a partial argument. I am not against theory - I loved theory as a debater, but your best approach is to go for a couple shell at most in the NC and likely no more than 1 in the 1AR if you want me to be in the game at all. This is not to say I would not vote on potential abuse/norm setting rather keep your theory to something you want to debate and not using it just a strategic gamesmanship is best approach if you want a coherent RFD.

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might be and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feeling about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

I am a PF coach and former debater. I can handle some speed, but if you go super fast I will most likely miss things. Please don't run critiques. My preference is for debaters to just debate the resolution at hand. The most important thing to me is warrants, I want to hear why your argument is accurate, not just to be told that it is.

Finally if you try to go for a nuclear war impact on a resolution that doesn't directly relate to nuclear I will 100% vote against it.

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

I'd prefer that you not use profanity in round.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.



To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Blaine High School '14 / Ripon College '18 / Assistant Coach New Trier '18-'20 / Chicago Debates UDL '20-

She/Her/Hers

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About Me:

I'm a former debater from the Minnesota Circuit and have experience debating/judging PF, LD, and Congressional debate. I now work for Chicago Debates recruiting judges for their policy program (don't assume this means I am a "policy" type judge). Since I don't cut cards or coach for a living, I won't come with deep knowledge on every topic. In fact, most of my time will be spent in the policy world so whatever topic I am judging may be my first exposure for the season. I say this so you don't assume anything when making arguments. I come into rounds with a pretty blank slate and that's how I will evaluate your arguments.

***NOTE FOR ONLINE: Typically I'm ok with speed but with online tournaments audio can be choppy and hard to understand. You will need to slow down and adjust for this new reality we are dealing with. I'm going to get annoyed if you're running at top speed and I can't understand you because you didn't adapt to zoom.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judging LD:

When I competed in LD I was mainly on the local circuit and thus had a lot of VC debates. I understand that LD has changed a lot since I competed. I am open to alternative structures and off case positions but understand that I won't be technically versed on all of the nuances within these positions. Keep that in mind when making your selection. I'm not a circuit hack so if you're going to run theory, Ks, etc. just make sure you're crystallizing and being clear. DAs, Plans, and CPs are what I'm most familiar with and as an old school LDer Phil debate can even be a fun a time. Other than that I'm open to listening.

****When it comes to email chains I will only reference them if absolutely necessary such as evidence check. As a judge it is not my burden to read your docs. As the debater it is your burden to be clear and easy to follow so I don't have to reference the docs.

Speaking of being easy to follow, the flow is very important to me and thus so is organization and clear signposting. My biggest pet peeve is the abandonment of a clear signpost. Also if you're going to be throwing multiple arguments against one particular card/argument make sure to number your responses. This may seem super trivial but makes a huge difference in the quantity of arguments I'm able to evaluate at the end of the round. My rule of thumb is if I don't flow it I don't vote on it. If you're unclear or messy I won't flow it. Deductive reasoning should tell you that I'd prefer quality over quantity of arguments/positions.

In addition to signposting, weighing is huge for me! If you're not comparing and weighing your arguments why should I have to when casting my ballot. My high school coach used to always say, "the worst thing you can do is make your judge think." Now as a judge myself, I completely agree. Without weighing or evaluating clash your arguments are just two ships passing in the night and I'm left with two random flows. If you're unsure what to weigh it can be as simple as showing me what an aff vs. neg world looks like. If you're an experienced debater give me impact analysis and/or meta-weighing. Weighing is everything!

More common questions that come up: Yes I will accept disclosure theory and believe it is a good norm but I don't personally care if you disclose or not. That's up for your opponent to decide how they strategically want to handle it. Cool with speed but please see my note if this is a virtual tournament.

Speaks start at a 27.5 for me if you lost the round and were disorganized/made blippy arguments. Most debaters will end up somewhere in the 28 range for me. The 29 range is reserved for debaters who were organized, persuasive, and made unique arguments. These are the debaters that understand quality or quantity in their argumentation strategy. 30s are rare for me. I save this for debaters who made me say, "wow that was a good debate." I also don't disclose speaks.

tl;dr: I try to approach every round with a blank slate. The most organized and persuasive debater who takes care of the flow will win my ballot. This is a communication activity after all. Oh, and PLEASE WEIGH. It's that simple.

Judging PF:

My biggest issue with Public Form debate is card clipping and evidence abuse. You need to make sure if you are reading evidence they are full cited cards and not a random sentence you cut for an article and strung together with sentences from other articles.

When it comes to first rebuttal I don't have preference if you go back and frontline/defend your own case. That's a strategic choice you need to make. The summary speech is the most important speech to me and often where I write my ballot. Make sure you are fully extending and weighing your arguments here. This is not just a second rebuttal. The best debaters will make time to boil down the debate and setup their partner for the final focus.

[copied from my LD section] If you're not comparing and weighing your arguments why should I have to when casting my ballot. My high school coach used to always say, "the worst thing you can do is make your judge think." Now as a judge myself, I completely agree. Without weighing or evaluating clash your arguments are just two ships passing in the night and I'm left with two random flows. If you're unsure what to weigh it can be as simple as showing me what an aff vs. neg world looks like. If you're an experienced debater give me impact analysis and/or meta-weighing. Weighing is everything!

I also look for cohesion between partners. You are working as a team so don't setup key issues in the summary and then ignore these key issues in the final focus. Work together to make a complete and clean extension through the round.

One of my biggest pet peeves in PF is when someone asks before CX "Do you mind if I ask the first question." Uh you just did. Take control and just ask a question.

Speaks start at a 27 for me if you lost the round and were disorganized/made blippy arguments. Most debaters will end up somewhere in the 28 range for me. The 29 range is reserved for debaters who were organized, persuasive, and made unique arguments. These are the debaters that understand quality or quantity in their argumentation strategy. 30s are rare for me. I save this for debaters who made me say, "wow that was a good debate." I also don't disclose speaks.

Judging Congress

If you're competing in congress and reading this, kudos to you for being strategic about your judges. I believe judge adaptation can totally be a thing in congress.

Despite what people may think, congress is still a debate activity. The debaters I rank highest in the chamber are those that show a range in their speaking, create clash, and are actively involved through the entire session. I am not only judging your speech but also the amount of questions you ask, if you're utilizing Robert's Rules, and when you choose to speak. If you are someone that is going to give 3 sponsorship/first neg speeches then you won't rank that high. I'm much more impressed by a debater who can be flexible and join the debate at any point than a well rehearsed speaker. I also look at number of sources and times you reference other senators/reps. Flowing is still a thing that can be utilized in congress and I notice when you do it well.

If you serve as a PO that's already license for a higher rank but I will be watching to see if you take control of the chamber and if you're consistent with calling on questioners without showing preference.

Lastly the speeches you give should still be a well organized and presented speech with intro, 2-3 points, and a conclusion. I love a cheesy intro with a bit of personality so have fun with it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please Don't Do These (applicable for all formats)

-Forget to signpost (This is #1 for me). I hate disorganized debate

-Argue sexist, racists, or homophobic points

-Card Clipping

-Extend without analysis or impact. It's not enough to tell me to extend a card.

-Ignore the framework debate if it is applicable

-Turn the last speech of the round into a second rebuttal.

-Excessive off-time road maps, especially when there is only an aff/neg flow to worry about.

-Be mean or obnoxious to novice or newer debaters

-Look at me for facial expressions and validity if you think your opponent is being dumb or whatever. I usually have a straight face while judging and won't give any indication to validate you. The best way to tell if I'm getting everything you're saying is if my head is down and flowing.

For circuit tournaments:I expect teams to disclose promptly after pairings come out. Don't show up to the room 1 minute before the round starts and then finally disclose the aff or past 2NRs (especially if it's not on the wiki). I consider this the same as not disclosing at all and thus am ok with your opponents running disclosure on you.

The brief rundown of whatever event I am judging this weekend is below, but here's the full breakdown of how I feel about various arguments as well as my paradigm for other events. I even used the google docs outline to save you time in finding what you need: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KwX4hdsnKCzHLYa5dMR_0IoJAkq4SKgy-N-Yud6o8iY/edit?usp=sharing

PGP: they/them

I don't care what you call me as long as you don't call me broke (jk, I am a teacher so you can also call me that ig)

Email chain: Yes, I do want to be on the email chain (saves time): learnthenouns[at]the-google-owned-one.

Head coach at Lincoln East (10-ish years), 7 years of debating in high school (LD, Policy and Congress) and college (NFA-LD and NPDA/NPTE Parli)

Overview for all events

• Debate is both educational and a game. I believe the education comes from ideas engaging with one another and students finding their voice. The "game" element functions as a test of your effectiveness in presenting and defending your personal beliefs and advocacies. Thus, I consider myself a games player as it is a necessary component of the educational experience.

• A major exception: I will not listen to you promote any kind of advocacy that says oppression good or structural violence denial (ie claiming anti-white racism is real). They are an auto-ballot against you regardless of whether your opponent points it out or not.

• I flow internal warrants and tags more often than author names so don’t rely on me knowing what “extend Smith #3 in 2k12” means in the grand scheme of the debate and, similarly, don’t power tag or plan to mumble your way through cards because I’m listening and will call you on it. I am more interested in the content of your arguments than the names of the people that you are citing.

• On that note, I want the speech doc so that I can check your evidence and appreciate analytics being included when the debate is online.

Delivery: I'm approaching 20 years in the game at this point so I've started to get more picky about delivery stuff, especially with speed.

• In-person: speed is fine in everything except congress. I watch NDT rounds for fun, so I can handle it. But I do expect clarity in all events. I will yell "clear" once or twice if you're mumbling, and after that I reduce speaks. Enunciation should be a baseline in debate, not a bonus.

• Online: if you are extremely fast, slow it down a little bit (but not a ton) when online, especially if you have a bad mic. The unfortunate reality is most people's set ups can't handle top policy speeds. On that note, I strongly encourage you to include analytics in the doc when online in case audio cuts out or there are other tech issues!
  

• Slow down a bit for your analytics and tags darn it. I am not a machine, I cannot flow your analytics when you're going 400wpm.

Policy

In super-brief (or T/L as the cool kids call it):

See below for in-depth on different arguments

• Great for: Ks; T; K affs in the direction of the topic; unique and well-warranted plan affs; soft left affs; framework; performance args; most things that deal with critical lit (especially love Deleuze tbh)

• Ok for: blippy/big stick plan text affs; K affs with zero topic links; DAs with strong links; valid procedurals (ie vagueness, condo); basic CP debates; Baudrillard

• I would rather not judge (but have definitely still voted for): CP debates that get heavily into CP theory; generic DAs with minimal links, frivolous theory (ie inherency procedural, arbitrary spec shells, etc); most speed ks (unless they are grounded in something like ableism); orientalist China bashing

• Various things I especially appreciate: clash, debating and extending warrants, in-depth case debate, impacting T properly, an organized flow, prompt pre-round disclosure and open sourcing, creative arguments, sending analytics in the doc when debating online

• Various things I especially dislike: rudeness, not kicking things properly, mumbling when speed reading, disorganized flows, debaters who show up late to rounds and then ask us to wait while they pre-flow, extending author names or tags instead of warrants and impacts

Other basics:

• I am mostly down for whatever, but I prefer in-depth debate over blippy extensions. I am ultimately a games player though, so you do you.

• I want teams to engage with each other's arguments (including T, framework, and case). Debating off scripted blocks for the whole round isn't really debating and sort of makes me wonder if we even needed to have the round.

• I will evaluate things however they are framed in the round. That said, if there is no explicit framing, then I usually default to believing that real-world impacts are of more importance than imaginary impacts. Real-world impacts can come from policymaking cases and T as much as K debates. However, if you frame it otherwise and win that framing then I will evaluate the round accordingly.

• Weighing your impacts and warranting your solvency throughout the whole round (not just the rebuttals) is a quick way to win my ballot. Otherwise, I vote off the flow/what I’m told to vote for.

Argument specifics:

Kritiks/K Affs/performance/ID tix/whatever:

I’m a good person to run your critical case in front of. I love K’s/critical/performance/id tix/new debate/most things nontraditional.

• I'm familiar with a lot of the lit and ran a lot of these arguments myself.

• I do not believe that the aff needs to act through the USFG to be topical and, in fact, engaging with the res in other ways (personal advocacy, genealogy, micropolitics, deconstruction etc) can be reasonably topical and often can provide better education and personal empowerment.

• For clarity, as long as you are engaging with a general premise or an interpretation of the resolution then I believe the aff can claim reasonable topicality.

• That being said, to be an effective advocate for these things in the real world, you have to be able to justify your method and forum, so framework/T are good neg strats and an important test of the aff.

• I am increasingly persuaded by the argument that if you are going to be expressly nontopical on the aff (as in advocating for something with no relation to the topic and zero attempts to engage the resolution), then you need to be prepared with a reason for not discussing the res.

Trad/policy-maker/stock issues debate:

• Most of the circuits I debated in have leaned much more traditional so I am extremely familiar with both how to win with and how to beat a topical aff strat.

• My top varsity team the last few years have tended to run trad as much or maybe more than critical, but historically I've coached more K teams.

• I'm totally down to judge a topical debate but you shouldn't assume that I already know the nuances of how a specific DA or CP works without a little explanation as our local circuit is K-heavy and I only recently started coaching more trad teams.

Framework and theory:

• I love: debate about the forum, method, role of the judge/ballot, and impact calc. Making the other team justify their method is almost always a good thing.

• I strongly dislike: generic fw, arbitrary spec shells, K's are cheating args, and most debate theory arguments that ask me to outright dismiss your opponent for some silly reason.

• Real talk, almost none of us are going to be future policymakers (meaning alternative ways of engaging the topic are valuable), and wiki disclosure/pre-round prep checks most abuse.

• In short, I want you to engage with your opponent's case, not be lazy by reading a shell that hasn't been updated since 2010.

• Of course, as with most things though, I will vote for it if you justify it and win the flow (you might be sensing a theme here....).

Topicality:

I L-O-V-E a good T debate. Here are a few specifics to keep in mind:

• By "good" I mean that the neg needs to have a full shell with a clear interp, violation, reasons to prefer/standards and voters.

• Conversely, a good aff response to T would include a we meet, a counter definition, standards and reasons why not to vote on T.

• Since T shells are almost totally analytic, I would also suggest slowing down a bit when reading the shell, especially the violations or we meets.

• I usually consider T to be an a priori issue though I am open to the aff weighing real-world impacts against the voters (kritikal affs, in particular, are good for this though moral imperative arguments work well too).

• Reasonability vs competing interps: absent any debate on the issue I tend to default to reasonability in a K round and competing-interps in a policy round. However, this is a 51/49 issue for me so I would encourage engaging in this debate.

• There does not need to be demonstrated in-round abuse (unless you provide an argument as to why I should) for me to vote on T but it does help, especially if you're kicking arguments.

• Aff RVI's on T are almost always silly. K's of T are ok though the aff should be prepared to resolve the issue of whether there is a topical version of the aff and why rejecting the argument and not the team does not solve the k.

• One caveat: in a round where the aff openly admits to not trying to defend the resolution, I would urge a bit more caution with T, especially of USFG, as I find the turns the aff can generate off of that to be fairly persuasive. See the sections on K's and framework for what I consider to be a more strategic procedural in these situations.

• This is mentioned above but applies here as well, please remember that I do not think an aff must roleplay as the USFG to be topical. Advocating for the resolution can (and should) take many forms. Most of us will never have a direct role in policymaking, but hopefully, most of us will take the opportunity to advocate our beliefs in other types of forums such as activism, academia, and community organizing. Thus, I do not buy that the only real topic-specific education comes from a USFG plan aff.

Counterplans:

• I like the idea of the CP debate but I'm honestly not well versed in it (I probably closed on a CP twice in 7 years of debate). My kids have been running them a lot more recently though so I am getting more competent at assessing them ????

• Basically, I understand the fundamentals quite well but will admit to lacking some knowledge of the deeper theoretical and 'techy' aspects of the CP.

• So feel free to run them but if you are going to get into super tech-heavy CP debate then be warned that you will need to explain things well or risk losing me.

Speed and delivery:

As mentioned above, fine in-person. Mostly fine online unless you are super fast. Also, I really want clarity when speaking even more than I care about speed.

Slow down for analytics and tags. Especially analytics on things like T, theory of framework. These are the most important things for me to get down, so be aware of your pacing when you get to these parts if you want me to flow them.

Pet peeve: speed=/=clear. "Speed" is for how fast you are going. "Clear" is for mumbling. I can handle pretty fast speeds, I can't handle a lack of clarity. I will usually give you one warning, two if I am feeling generous (or if you request it), and then will start docking speaks. I am also good with you going slow. Though since I can handle very fast speeds, I would suggest you give some impacted out reasons for going slow so as to avoid being spread out of the round.

LD

Argument ratings

• K debate (pomo or ID tix): 10 out of 10

• Performance: 10 out of 10

• T/theory (when run correctly): 8.5 out of 10

• LARP/plan-focus: 8 out of 10

• Phil (aka trad): 7 out of 10

• T/theory (when blipped out and poorly argued): 5 out of 10

• Tricks: 0 out of 10 (boooo boooooo!!!)

These are just preferences though. I have and will vote for anything (even tricks, unfortunately, but my threshold is extremely high)

Speed (for context, conversational is like a 3 or 4 out of 10)

• Speed in person: 8.5/10

• Speed online: 6 or 7/10 (depends on mic quality)

The most important specifics:

• (This has increasingly become an issue in LD so I am moving it up to the top) Mumbling through a bunch of cards with no clear breaks before tags or variance of pace is not good or effective. A lot of LDers I have seen don't seem to understand that speed should never come at the expense of clarity. I judge policy most weekends. I can handle speed. No one can understand your mumbling.

• That said, I generally feel that disclosure is good and spreading is fine (even an equalizer in some ways). However, there is a lot of debate to be had here (especially when topics like opacity and the surveillance of non-white debaters or ableism get raised), and I have voted for both sides of each issue multiple times.

• I consider myself a games player, so I primarily am looking to evaluate what 'wins out' in terms of argumentation in the debate.

• I love creativity and being intellectually engaged, so I’m a good person to run your Kritik/project/performance/non-topical aff/art case in front of. Of course, I still need you to make it an argument if you want me to vote for you (singing a song isn't an auto-win, especially if you sing it poorly), but otherwise, fire away.

• Strike me if you have to use tricks or similar bad strategies (i.e. blippy and arbitrary theory spikes/shells/tricks such as "aff only gets 2 contentions" or "aff auto wins for talking" or "neg doesn't get any arguments") to win rounds. They are not debating in any sense of the word, and I cannot think of any educational or competitive value that can be derived from promoting them. If you decide to ignore this, I will likely gut your speaks (ie a 26 or maybe lower).

• If you want to win a theory debate, warrant your arguments in every speech. Really, I guess that's true of all arguments, but it's most frequently a problem on theory. Don't just say "limits key to competitive equity, vote on fairness" and call it a day. I'm a T hack when it's run well, but most people don't like to take time to run it well.

• Beyond that, I like just about every style of LD (again, other than tricks). I have greatly enjoyed judging everything from hyper-traditional to extremely fast and critical. I don't see any type as being inherently 'superior' to the others, so do what you do and I'll listen, just justify it well.

• For your reference in terms of what I am most familiar with arguments wise, I coach a team that has typically run more critical and identity lit (po-mo, anti-blackness, Anzaldua, D&G, cap, fem, neolib, Judith Butler etc) and often plays around with what some might call "nontraditional strategies." Though we often run more traditional philosophy (typically Levinas, Kant, util, or Rawls) and plan-text style cases as topics warrant.

How I resolve debates if you do not tell me otherwise:

**Note: this is all assuming that no other debate happens to establish specific burdens or about the importance of any particular level of the debate. In other words, I am willing to rearrange the order I evaluate things in if you win that I should.

In short:

ROB/ROJ/Pre-fiat Burdens > Procedurals (T/thoery) > Framing (value/crit) > Impacts

Not so short:

-First, the role of the ballot, the role of the judge, and the burdens of each side are up for debate in front of me (and I actually enjoy hearing these debates). I tend to believe that these are a priori considerations (though that is up for debate as well) and thus are my first consideration when evaluating the round.

- Next, I will resolve any procedurals (i.e. topicality, theory shells, etc) that have been raised. I will typically give greater weight to in-depth, comparative analysis and well-developed arguments rather than tagline extensions/shells. If you're going to run one of these, it needs to actually be an argument, not just a sentence or two thrown in at the end of your case (again, no "tricks").

-Absent a ROTB/ROJ or procedural debate I next look to the value/crit/standard, so you should either A) clearly delineate a bright-line and reason to prefer your framework over your opponent's (not just the obnoxious 'mine comes first' debate please) or B) clearly show how your case/impacts/advocacy achieves your opponent's framework better (or both if you want to make me really happy….)

-After framework (or in the absence of a clear way to evaluate the FW) I finally look to impacts. Clear impact analysis and weighing will always get preference over blippy extensions (you might be sensing a theme here).

-For a more detailed breakdown of how I judge certain arguments, please see "argument specifics" in my policy paradigm below. The only major difference is that I do think aff RVI's are semi-legit in LD because of time limits.

PF

Theory (since this will probably impact your strikes the most, I will start here)

In short, I think theory has an important role to play in PF as we develop clearer, nationwide norms for the event. When it's necessary and/or run well, I dig it.

I have sat through enough painful evidence exchanges and caught enough teams misrepresenting their evidence that I would prefer teams to have "cut cards" cases and exchange them by the start of their speech (preferably earlier). If one side elects not to do this, I am willing to vote on theory regarding evidence ethics (assuming it's argued and extended properly). Questions about this? Email me in advance (my email is up top).

To clarify/elaborate on the above: I am very much down for disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory in PF. Irl I think both are true and good arguments. If you don't want to disclose or you refuse to run cut card cases rather than paraphrased cases, you should strike me.

I am not quite as keen on other types of theory in PF, but given how quickly my attitude was changed on paraphrasing, I am very much open to having my mind changed.

Overview for PF

Generally speaking, I see PF as a more topic-centric policy round where the resolution acts as the plan text. This, of course, depends on the topic, but this view seems to generally provide for a consistent and fair means to evaluate the round.

Truth vs tech:

While my default in other events is tech over truth, I find that PF tends to lend itself to a balance of tech and truth due to the fact that teams are rarely able to respond to every argument on the flow. "Truth" to me is determined by warranting and explanation (so still tied to an extent to tech). As such, better-warranted arguments will get more weight over blippy or poorly explained arguments.

Speed:

I can handle pretty much any speed however, if you're going fast, your analysis better be more in-depth as a result. In other words, speed for depth is good, speed for breadth (ie more blippy arguments) is bad. A final word of caution on speed is that PFers often suck at proper speed reading in that they lack any semblance of clarity. So be clear if you go fast.

Other PF specifics:

I tend to prefer the final focus to be more focused on framing, impact weighing, and round story; and less focused on line-by-line. Though again, given my experience in LD and Policy, I can definitely handle line-by-line, just don't forget to warrant things out.

All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides and the judge. Failure to provide evidence in a timely manner when requested will result in either reduced speaker points or an auto loss (depending on the severity of the offense). I also reserve the right to start a team's prep time up if they are taking an excessively long time to share their stuff.

On that note, I will call for evidence and I appreciate it when teams help me know what to call for. I know that paraphrasing is the norm at this point but I do not love it as it leads to a lot of teams that excessively spin or outright lie about evidence. Tell me to call for it if it's junk evidence and I'll do so. I will apply the NSDA guidelines regarding paraphrasing when it is justified, so make sure you are familiar with those rules so that you can avoid doing it and know to call your opponents out when they slip up.

I hate bullying in crossfire. I dock speaker points for people that act like jerks.

(not sure this is still a thing anywhere but just in case....) The team that speaks first does not need to extend their own case in their first rebuttal since nothing has been said against it yet. In fact, I prefer they don't as it decreases clash and takes the only advantage they have from speaking first.

Bio (not sure anyone reads these but whatever): I have competed in or coached almost everything and I am currently the head coach at Lincoln East. I’ve spent over half my life in this activity (16 years coaching, 7 years competing). My goal is to be the best judge possible for every debater. As such, please read my feedback as me being invested in your success. Also, if you have any questions at all I would rather you ask them than be confused, so using post-round questions as a chance to clarify your confusion is encouraged (just don't be a jerk please).

Nebraska only: I expect you to share your evidence and cases with your opponents and me. It can be paper or digital, but all parties participating in the debate need to have access to the evidence read in rounds. This is because NSDA requires it, because it promotes good evidence ethics in debate, and because hoarding evidence makes debate even more unfair for small programs who have fewer debaters and coaches. Not sure why we're still having this discussion in 2023.

To be clear, if you don't provide both sides with copies of your evidence and cases, then I will be open to your opponent making that an independent voting issue. I might just vote you down immediately if I feel it's especially egregious.Oh and I'll gut speaks for not sharing cases.

About Me:

I have debated for three years at Georgia State and did a mixture of debate in high school. Now I’m a graduate coach at Wake Forest

I want to be on the email chain; use gsupanther84@gmail.com

General:

Slow down when reading your tag and author, or I won't be able to catch it.

If GSU debate has taught me anything, it's to be extremely open minded to a variety of arguments. If you want to run death good, afropessimism, deterrence das, no period plan flaw, K affs, traditional affs, feminist killjoy etc, go for it. Just be sure to explain why you should win with this argument. ROB will be who debated the best unless I'm given another ROB with reason to perfer it. I'm against judge fill in but will vote down oppressive/offensive language/arguments especially if the other team points it out.

Aff

Do whatever you're best at, stay topical (or be ready to explain why topicality doesn't matter), be organized, and extend your case and why it outweighs throughout. I tend to err aff on framework if they have and defend a plan text, but you have to lock in if you decide to do that, otherwise I'll be persuaded to neg's abuse claims.

Ks

I love a good k with a clear link and impact. Your alts have to be clearly explained. I'll buy links of omission but the neg has to defend why the aff can't simply perm. Negs really have to take time in the block to explain why the aff can't perm and why it's net better to do the alt alone. Affs have to explain why they can perm and why the perm is net better than aff alone or why the alt can't solve the case. Don't drop theory args, or I will have to vote the other way.

DAs

I’m good with das but there has to be work done on how it links to the aff, or I will agree with the aff on no link args. If you have a solid Nonunique arg and extend it and I will vote on that. Solid impact calc will seal the deal for me, but if the aff successfully turns the DA or explains why the case outweighs the DA, I will vote on that as well. Long story short the more clash on the DA the better.

CPs

Love a creative CP, but it needs to solve/have a net benefit (DA or a K) along with stealing aff ground; otherwise I will agree with aff's perm and theory args. Aff needs to clearly explain why CP can't solve case, beat the net benefit, and articulate why the perm is best. Don't drop theory or you lose my ballot.

T

I will vote neg on a T arg if you convince me the violation is clear, the aff's counter interpretation is unreasonable, and the impact is big. I will vote aff if they convince me that their aff is reasonable, counter interpretation is better or equal to the negs, and a benefit to their definition, but aff can chuck topicality and still win if they articulate why being topical doesn't matter or is worse for debate. If the aff locks in and says they're T however, they cannot shift or it's an auto win for the neg.

FW

I lean aff in most cases unless the neg provides me with a clear violation, story, and impact. 2acs have to clearly explain why the aff is fair and/or better. Tech is important when arguing FW but explanation is key when you arguing framework. Truth always better than tech.

CX

cross ex is binding, answer the questions honestly, don't ask why the aff should win during 1ac cross ex or generic questions like that.

Add me to the chain: speechdocs@whitjack.me

conflicts: DebateDrills, Brentwood (class of 2018)

-------

I am a coach with the DebateDrills Club Team. Information regarding conflicts, team policies, and harassment reports can be found at https://debatedrills.com/en/private-prep-sharing/#policy. Should you have any questions or concerns, email leadership@debatedrills.com

-------

General Philosophy

Debate should be fun and I want to see you have fun and excel at what you do best. Please don't adjust your debating too much to me. Everything below that isn't described as a hard and fast rule should be treated as a mild suggestion about quirks in my judging. I regularly vote for arguments and strategies I passionately disagree with and vice versa. No matter what strategy you defend, act as if my prior knowledge of it is close to 0. Even if you're right, I will judge and hold you accountable for warranting your arguments as if my knowledge was in fact 0. I treat judging as a serious obligation and no matter what you do, I'll give you my full attention and effort!

------

Online (will update as I go)

1. 5 minutes of prep including sending docs. Any extra time comes from your speech.

2. You need to go 65% speed max. Counterplan texts, interps, perms, and anything else where exact wording matters should be conversational speed. If you do not do this, I will miss significant portions of your speech and I will not fill in the gaps. 90% of debaters have not met this threshold and the debaters who have do have done significantly better in front of me.

3. Record your speeches. If anyone's internet goes out you should immediately send the recording to everyone in the round. If you don't have a recording, you only get what I flowed.

4. Blips don't win online debates. Given the difficulties of the format, I'm less willing to vote on a random dropped .5 second subpoint.

-------

Non-Negotiables

1) Disclose. Full text is a bare minimum to win in front of me.

2) I will not vote on any argument about events outside the debate (I consider disclosure pertinent to the debate). Death good, arguments about your opponents appearance/clothing, and facially offensive actions end the round. I am not comfortable using my ballot as a moral judgement on students.

3) Fair Play. Miscut evidence, clipping, reading ahead, outside communication, evidence fabrication, etc are cheating. Accusations without proof mean you lose. “Evidence ethics” ends the round.

4) I won't vote on arguments I can't understand in the speech they're first made.

5) Show up to round on time. 5 minutes of prep. Prep ends when the doc is sent. Flow clarification is prep/CX. Marked docs should be sent immediately after the speech. Dead time is the devil and I'll reward good debate practices with good speaks.

-------

Preferences

1) I don't want to judge rounds about heinous theory arguments or tricks. I don't usually enjoy judging these debates and I don't think I'm very good at resolving them. I enjoy judging Phil debates but think they usually benefit from more explanation and less tricks.

2) I lean further neg than most on counterplan theory. Creative counterplans are underutilized. Creative perms are too (and usually a better 2AR than theory). Judge kick makes sense to me. I'm not opposed to voting on condo but I don't find hail-mary condo 2ARs fun to judge. To make it a viable 2AR, condo should be more than a sentence in the 1AR.

3) "Not defending implementation" doesn't make sense to me.

4) I think my record is near 50/50 in K Aff vs. T debates. I coach students on both sides. Thoughts:

Aff: I think affirmatives have a burden of "affirming" something -- i'm pretty easily persuaded that pure pessimism is neg ground and presumption is very winnable if the aff doesn't do anything (I seriously don't know why this is almost never the 2nr). When answering T counter-define words and have a debatable counterinterp ("discussion of the topic", "only our aff", etc. wouldn't make sense in any other T debate). Impact turns need a counter-interp to provide uniqueness.

Neg: Fairness >>> skills, don't read a 4 minute overview, don't rely on bad args like truth-testing. Please listen to the 1AR -- when I vote aff (or neg) it’s usually because of technical drops. Neg usually under-develop the TVA, but I find having one less important than a lot of judges do.

5) To be upfront, I have voted aff vs the K at a much higher rate than usual this season. I have no personal qualms with the K as an argument, but most rounds I've seen so far this season have lacked specificity to the plan and good impact comparison/framing. When I vote aff vs the K, it's usually because I think the aff outweighs the impact to the links. It would be wise to structure your 2NR around the question of why the links prove the aff is bad and invest significant time winning defense on case.

6) Independent voters don't exist. All arguments need to be tied to a specific framing argument. The distinction between "pre/post fiat" arguments is meaningless.

7) Tired of hearing the same topicality debates over and over again. If it's just a dressed up version of plans bad (Nebel/T-a/etc) I'm probably not the best judge for it. I think topics with diverse aff ground are usually the best and I don't think complex grammar debates are the best way to set the limits of the topic. Perfectly fine for T arguments that delve into specific definitional disagreements that qualitatively, rather than solely quantitatively change the nature of the topic.

8) Random paradigmatic things:

- 1AR doesn't get add ons. 2NR doesn't get new uniqueness, links, etc. Unless the alt explicitly includes the aff in the 1NC, it isn't a PIK.

- Insert re-highlighting: sure

- "You didn't read a fairness voter" isn't super compelling to me w.r.t. paragraph theory. It seems obvious to me that both sides should have a roughly equal shot at winning, all things equal.

- I will disregard any argument about my "jurisdiction" as a judge.

Joshua F. Johnwell (he/him/they/them/queer/josh/whatever you want)

NYU Policy Alumni (2016-2020)
Houston, TX / Nat HS Circuit (4 Years) @ Dawson HS
GDI (Gonzaga) Alum - 4WK, 5WK Scholars, 2WK

Email questions to debatejosh@gmail.com
or just ask before round, preferably. oh & YAS, EMAIL CHAIN ME

Current Affiliations: NYU
Past Affiliations: BL Debate (2020-2021), Success Academy HS (2019-2020), Dawson HS (2012-2016)

1. Conflicts [as of 10/04/2020]

• No Univ of Chicago Lab
• No Iowa City

2. Short Version

• tech over truth
• strong analytics/analysis can beat carded evidence
• prioritize your impacts
• have fun!

3. Pandemic Social Distancing Related Technology Notes

• Please slow down 5-10%. Emphasize your warrants. Without a microphone stem, your quality fluctuates. Keep in mind that I still flow on paper.
• Please get explicit visual or audio confirmation from everyone in the debate before beginning your speech. I may use a thumbs up to indicate I am ready.
• If my camera is off, unless I explicitly have told you otherwise, assume I'm not at the computer.
• If the current speaker has significant tech problems, I'll try to interrupt your speech and mark the last argument and timestamp.

4. Some Detail

I've been meaning to do this for a while, but have not really had the time. My hope is that I end up judging better debates as a result of this updated philosophy. I am now changing to a more linear philosophy, it is my hope that you read this in its entirety before choosing where to place me on the pref sheet. I debated for four years at Homewood-Flossmoor High School in the south Chicago suburbs from 2007-2011. During that time I debated, Sub-Saharan Africa, Alternative Energy, Social services and substantial reductions in Military presence.

Nearing a decade ago, during would would have been the h.s. space topic. I started at the University of Northern Iowa, Where I debated NDT/CEDA Middle East/North Africa while judging a few debate rounds across the midwest. After my freshman year I transferred to the University of Iowa, where I started coaching at Iowa City High School. This year, I will continue to coach the City High Debate team.

Framing, Issue choice and impact calculus are in my opinion the most important aspects of argumentation, and you should make sure they are components in your speeches. Late rebuttals that lack this analysis are severely.

I preference tech over truth. Your in round performance is far more important to me, as it is what I hear. I greatly attempt to preference the speaking portion of the debate. Increasingly, I've found that my reading evidence is not necessarily an aspect of close debates, but rather results from poor argument explanation and clarification. The majority of 'close rounds' that I've judged fall into the category of closeness by lack of explanation. In some limited instances, I may call for evidence in order to satisfy my intellectual fascination with the activity. Anything other than that--which I will usually express during the RFD--probably falls upon inadequate explanation and should be treated as such.

I feel my role as a judge is split evenly between policymaker and 'referee' in that when called to resolve an issue of fairness. I will prioritize that first. Addressing inequities in side balance, ability to prepare and generate offense is something may at times find slightly more important than substance. In short, I consider myself a good judge for theory, THAT BEING SAID, rarely do I find theory debates resolved in a manner that satisfies my liking - I feel theoretical arguments should be challenged tantamount to their substance based counterparts. Simply reading the block isn't enough. Though I was a 2A[≈ High power LED current, peak 2.7 A] in high school I have since found myself sliding towards the negative on theoretical questions. I can be convinced, however, to limit the scope of negative offense quite easily, so long as the arguments are well explained and adjudicated.

I consider reasonability better than competing interpretations, with the caveat that I will vote on the best interpretation presented. But topicality questions shouldn't be a major concern if the team has answered.

I have a long and complicated relationship with the K. I have a level of familiarity with the mainstream literature, so go ahead and read Capitalism or Neolib. Less familiar arguments will require more depth/better explanation.

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

I come from a circuit LD background, BUT I have not judged on the circuit in several years.

Debated LD for Apple Valley High School for four years, class of '09.
Worked at various summer institutes from 2009-2014.

I have not flowed speed in awhile, and wasn't that great with it to begin with, so proceed with caution. I will yell clear once. Slow down for tags and author names.

I strongly prefer debates centered around the topic as a question of comparative worlds/ policymaking, ideally rooted in good evidence from the topic literature. If you are choosing to approach the topic differently, the burden of responsibility is on you to explain and clearly develop your ballot story. I won't vote for anything that I don't understand, or if I don't understand the function of the argument within the round.

Don't be tricky or shady.

I have a fairly high threshold for what constitutes a complete extension-- make sure that you're re-explaining a developed and warranted link story in your rebuttals.

I am willing to listen to theory debates, but I am not excited about it and prefer to see theory used as a check on actual abuse. Be very explicit in terms of the function of your theory arguments. I am frankly not particularly interested in spending my free time thinking about all of the nuances of various theory debate norms and practices, so make arguments about how I should evaluate things rather than making assumptions about how I ought to be doing it.

The things we say in debate rounds matter. I can't stand rudeness, and I will drop you if you run offensive arguments. I will not accept advocacies or frameworks (that the debater admits) say that suffering, genocide, etc. are good.

Be nice to one another. Be smart. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round. Good luck!

I am a simple judge

GENERAL

1. I will say clear or slow-But please don't make me- slow on tags and evidence

2. If I don't have the doc don't plan on spreading

3. I don't have a preference to what you run K's, LARP etc. as long as you can defend your case clearly. If you are spreading make sure you slow down on tag lines.

4. I love smart CX, and I pay close attention to it.

5. Be Eloquent as I do pay attention to that as well

AFF

1.Let Weighing live in LD, I don't want a blitz of back file answers without leveraging the AC- then whats the point besides wasting 6 minuets?

2. I know there is a skew! Please don't waste more time complaining about it, it is an acceptable standard in a counter interp or just argument but shouldn't be the the main point of the 1AR, the more time you spend, the less i'll buy it.

3. Not super familiar w/ performance/Non t affs but please go for it- just break it down and you'll be fine

Neg

1. I won't vote you down but i'll kill your speaks if you run more than 5 off that are all condo, it always leads to bad debate- I'm generally good with condo but 5 or more off is just abusive

2. I expect clear articulation of what operates on the highest layer, K or Theory- If they go for one and you don't kick the other i'll assume risk of offense so for your benefit be clear

Please Note: I don't disclose. when you see it you will see critique clearly showing what and why.

email the doc to gskindra@yahoo.com

Email for the chain (Required unless it's a lay/paper, set it up early please): lekollar@gmail.com

Paradigm:

-Debated for NT from 2012-2016 went to the TOC once, I went to Indiana now and coach NT every now and then. Assume that the number of rounds I've judged at the tournament is also the total number of rounds I've judged on the entire topic. I’ve graduated from college I now only judge with extreme rarity.

-Read whatever you're best at no matter what it is; good debates are better than bad ones no matter the content. I'll always vote for the winner.

-Tech>Truth

-The distinction between true/false arguments and good/bad arguments are two different things. If your argument is false (e.g. global warming not real), I don't care and I'll vote for it if you win it (excluding blatantly offensive arguments, obviously). If your argument is just bad (e.g. global warming is real b/c it is hot out today) it takes a lot more technical skill in order to win with it.

-Zero-risk is absolutely thing

-Strategy, prep, creativity>>>

-Debated LARP in HS so it's what I'm most familiar with and like best. Most of my paradigmatic defaults are the same as the general consensus in policy debate but feel free to ask.

-Don't care about running theory for purely the strategic reason, obviously bad interps are harder to win with (see zero risk/bad arguments)

-Tricks are fine just please actually be creative with them

-Ks are fine, I've read the basics of the common Ks but if you're reading Baudrillard or something you should overexplain it. If you do a bad job explaining your stuff and I don't understand it I'm perfectly willing to vote against you and start the RFD with "Yeah I don't get it".

-In terms of non-T affs I'm not a complete framework hack but if it's not in the 1nc you're doing yourself a serious disservice. Also if you read a plan text, I'm going to hold you to defending/solving that plan text. Again though, debate what you're best at.

-Your pre-round prep/strat development is probably the best way to get good speaks.

-Debate is supposed to be fun, make jokes, be sarcastic, don't be an asshole, don't take yourself too seriously etc.

-I'm very pro-disclosure but generally anti-disclosure theory. I get that sometimes you'll have to read it and I'll treat it like I treat any other theory argument, but if you have a decent case neg put together or only want to quibble over the way that someone discloses then your 1NC is better served by just reading something else. (If you read and go for disclosure theory against someone who is obviously not familiar with the circuit I will not vote for it and your speaks will suck). In case anyone cares I think the true interp is disclosure for debaters with a career bid and in all elim rounds; if you want to card me for your counter interp or run a blog and want an article hmu

-I have a very low threshold for extensions

-I will answer clarifying questions about my paradigm during prep as long as they're things like "what's your default on RVIs?" or "Do you default to Condo means judge kick?" or anything else that you could've asked before the debate but didn't because you can never know which of my potential defaults will be relevant. Stuff that you'd need the context of the debate to ask like "Do you think there's a winning 2NR on the disad or should I go for T?" I will not answer. The former gives you the information you'd need to make strategic decisions, the latter makes some of the decisions for you.

-I really appreciate creativity. Lately, I've been feeling like I've heard every interp/framework/impact scenario before so if you can produce one that's completely unique that'll make me enjoy the round more.

-If you say “non-unique” when you actually mean “uniqueness overwhelms the link” or vice versa I will be annoyed

-If you can tell a joke that makes me laugh about the 2015-2016 debate season or the New Trier debate team speaks go up (they go up further for the 2015-2016 season because with the age of current debates that's tougher)

-Why on earth do so many people take prep for the 1nc?

Brian Kunz

Former coach @ University of Minnesota (Parli) & Lakeville H.S (Circuit LD)

TLDR:

Do whatever you think helps you best in this space or is what you think you are best at is what I want to see, do that and I'll do my best to give you my full attention and to check my disposition at the door. I’ve read a lot of critical literature and I am generally very comfortable adjudicating critical positions but I have still voted on a fair number of FW / T arguments and as a competitor I generally ran Policy Plan affs.

I will award +.4 speaker points to debaters that have their case full disclosed on the wiki -please let me know before the start of the round if this applies to you

prep ends once the flash leaves the computer

Framework: Please tell me how the framework contextualizes your offense / defense in relation to the ballot and/or the round. I require framework to also contextualize how your opponents arguments are implicated by your f/w arguments otherwise I default to f/w being non sequitur and just evaluate offense/defense of both cases (this is not a good place for you to be imo)

Argument Resolution: I reward debaters who clearly articulate and provide reasons why their warrants, impacts, sources are stronger in this round - give me reasons why you win! not why your opponent has lost. Debaters who provide well warranted arguments that are developed early and throughout the debate get both high speaks from me and my ballot.

Theory: I vote on well developed procedurals, I rarely vote on blipped shells that blow up later in the debate - this isn't to say don't run T in front of me but rather that you need to provide me a well developed justification for why to prefer your side - arguments of exclusions and similar arguments can be good reasons to prefer one interp. over another. Focus on impacts through a education/fairness filter will be the easiest way to my ballot on this issue.

Critical debate: I will not dismiss your argument because it is counter to the norm of debate, I have read and actively coach a lot of critical debate but you should not however assume I know the literature base you will be pulling from, feel free to ask prior to the start of the round about my familiarity. The more specific your argument is to the round or issue at hand then the easier route you will have to my ballot.

Disadvantages: I evaluate Disads first on the risk of intrinsic link to the aff before questions of uniqueness and the way this implicates the affirmative, this isn't to say questions of uniqueness don't implicate the link but questions of link comes first and then are determined to be strengthened / weakened by the uniqueness. - Work done on the impact level to have strong warrants as well as good weighing are an easy way to my ballot.

kevinli35@berkeley.edu

Hi I’m Kevin! I debated LD for Stuyvesant High School from 2014-2018. I primarily debated on the national circuit, qualifying to the TOC my junior and senior year. I was coached by Paul Zhou, Ananth Panchanadam, and Dino De La O.

Conflicts: Stuyvesant, Mission San Jose, William Enloe AC, Poly Prep DB, Bergen County Academies MS, Westlake AL

*pleaseplease try not to have a full out larp debate in front of me-- I'm not gonna be great at judging it. If that's what you do it's fine, but I don't feel super confident at resolving those debates when they are close.

*Note for more traditional debaters: do your thing, just wanna make a note that I am receptive to arguments about why progressive debate is bad and why traditional debate is better, and will vote for them if you win them.

To give a little context, as a debater I read a lot of nonT/K/Performance Asian American affs, Wilderson, Weheliye, Barber, and T/theory. I was probably least familiar with phil debate.

Tech > Truth. I don’t think there is such a thing as a tabula rasa judge because experience in debate affects how I view and interpret certain arguments, but I will listen to anything (with the exception of arguments that directly make debate unsafe and alienating.) The most important thing is impacting and explicit implication work. Especially if the content is something I'm less familiar with, I will be pretty dependent on you doing the work to tell me what I should do with what argument.

If you need me to make note of something that was said or conceded in CX please explicitly get my attention even if it looks like I'm listening because I space out a lot.

If it is clear that your opponent is debating at a significantly lower level than you are, you should be able to win in a way that allows them to still understand what's going on and engage with you. I think that indicates familiarity and flexibility with your style of debate, which is an important skill debaters should have, and that will be reflected in speaks.

Defaults (these 100% change when arguments are made in the round):

Truth Testing

C/I

DTA

No RVIs

If I need to presume and no argument has been made either way I will do a fancy coin flip

Literally anything is fine as long as whatever you extend has a claim warrant and impact

Have fun and read arguments that are important and interesting to you!

Speaks Boosts:

Creative Strategy

Making debate fun and enjoyable

Being really knowledgeable about your content

High Uber Ratings

30s are for pleasant and wholesome surprises

These are my views on debate as of now. If you wholly disagree with my paradigm I am open to criticism and I'd be willing to have a conversation about how I should change it.

background: I did LD at Eagan (2012-2016) and coached for a year there after I graduated. I've always preferred more traditional/topical LD over circuit and have been out of the game for a few years now, so take that into consideration when planning your round strategy. As for the specifics...

- Please signpost & extend correctly. I do mean the full claim/warrant/impact. If it ain't SEXII, I'm not buying it.

- If a round doesn't have clash, it's extremely difficult to vote one way or the other. PLEASE engage with your opponent and their arguments. I'll make connections where obvious but you need to reference their case/responses.

- general preferences: stock over framework & before anything else, otherwise stock > plans/CPs/DAs > Ks > T > other batty circuit strats (performance, etc.). Framework debate is important but don't spend a lot of time on it.

- speed: I can flow above-average spreading, but like I said, it's been awhile -- don't use your top circuit speed in front of me. Go for fast but audible. I'll say clear/slow once, but after that, I'll stop flowing if you're not understandable.

- kritiks: I generally don't prefer them but will listen if that's your thing, as long as it's fully developed -- a shitty K run for two minutes at the beginning of your 1N just to trip up your opponent isn't something I'll vote on. DO NOT run a K you don't understand; I'm only vaguely acquainted with moral philosophy and slightly better with political/economic lit so if you don't understand what you're saying, then I sure won't either.

- theory: I don't like theory and never will. Use it only if there is legitimate abuse by your opponent, and it's gotta be in a full-fledged shell. I default drop the arg (I find drop the debater cruel). Don't use theory to make some broad claim about debate as an activity/institution/whatever -- I only care about it's impact in-round. Honestly, just don't run theory in front of me at all.

- speaker points: I evaluate speaker points based on a combination of clarity and argumentation. If you speak well and make a strong effort to develop & extend (ESPECIALLY extend!) your arguments, you'll get higher speaker points. A nice roadmap at the beginning of your rebuttals will win you all the points. I'll average a 27/28.

- Don't be rude to each other in cross-ex. Let your opponent say their piece, but don't let them run on and on when it's obvious they're just trying to suck up your time. Don't scream over each other, either.

- I hate util. I hate it. I get that it's really common FW to run and so I won't say don't run it in front of me, but don't get into a util-centric debate if you can help it. An argument that ends with "and so that's the most util, therefore vote me" will not get a vote.

- Do not run a fem K or anything heavily based in feminist discourse if you're a man. Do not run anything queer-related if you are not LGBT. If you are overtly rude/mean/sexist/homophobic/racist to your opponent or to me at any point in the round I will not give you the win and will tank your speaks. If your case has sensitive content, please give warnings ahead of time.

- Spikes make my heart hurt; any argument (especially a one-sentence piece of bull) that is meant to be nothing more than a Reason You Win Because Your Opponent Didn't Reference This Small Thing is manipulative and Abraham himself is rolling in his grave over their existence.

- I don't care if you sit or stand, but follow whatever your opponent is doing -- if they sit, don't stand & vice versa. It makes me feel awkward :/

I competed for Bronx Science 2012-2014, coached Scarsdale 2014-2016, and am now entering my last year of being involved with this activity by coaching independently. Conflicts- Bronx Science, Scarsdale, Lake Travis, and a few others.

Go slower then your top speed, if I don't catch an argument I am not going to flow it. I honestly don't care what is run in front of me- just signpost well and explain your arguments. slow down on tags and analytics. I am cool with flex prep. flashing/emailing better not take over a minute or it eats your prep time. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at dam13@geneseo.edu (use email for your email chains.)

Edited for LHP RR and beyond: I honestly hate most of the arguments run this year. Don't get me wrong, I love this activity and think that it's awesome but it seems like a bunch of you on the national circuit have taken it upon yourselves to ruin this perfectly nice debate event to the point that I wish I could travel back in time and force myself to join Policy. I haven’t heard much that I thought was smart or creative aside for a few Ks, a couple plans, and a single framework shell. As I am forced to make a decision, I will do my best to adjudicate but I can’t promise you will like my speaker points nor my decision. I got a little better at flowing but being able to hear y’all’s arguments probably will just makes me dislike them a lot more. Best way to win my ballot is to establish a clear framing mechanism and offense back to it. The saving grace for your speaker points and my sanity is the way you present your arguments. Being funny, making gutsy strategic moves, reading interesting arguments, and/or being smart will be rewarded with really high speaker points. If you are a robot that just reads docs please strike me or just have your coach speak for you instead. If you have a coach that wants to waste my time please strike me. If you want to read a case full of analytic arguments that sounds like you are reciting the alphabet or practicing how to count please, for the love of god, strike me. If I judge you I apologize in advance cause if I do and you do not listen to my advice then chances are I am just going to be replaying an episode of "Entourage" in my head instead of paying attention to your boring/asinine arguments. If you want a free conflict, feel free to send me a couple bucks on Venmo and we can claim a financial relationship (just kidding). If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me in person (please do not attempt to contact me) about my thoughts on debate.

My pronouns are He/him/his- let me know yours before the round to avoid any issue

Hi

TL;DR :P

Do what you want, for the most part.

Be clear, concise, and weigh your arguments.

Give clear voters and try not to win off of defense.

Be respectful to your opponent and I. I don't care if you don't agree with my decision or not, the task is on you to persuade me to vote for you and if you don't adapt you probably won't get it. I do not tolerate aggression towards your opponent as an intimidation strategy *articulate passion and critical rage is different than aggression, the former has nuance and craft to make a pedagogy. Respect includes using the proper name and pronouns of everyone in the debate space that they identify with. My pronouns are they/them and I expect that to be respected and I will do my part to ensure the identities of you and your opponent are respected as well.

Credentials- I debated on the Eagan LD team for 4 years in MN and coached for one year with Lakeville North/South also in MN. I debated both national circuit and locally. I preferred circuit debate during my time. That was MY preference. I love any style of debate that you prefer, as long as you pull it off well. Whether your traditional, circuit, or experimental hit me with your best shot.

NOTE: Don’t cite my paradigm as evidence to automatically abide by, or exclude certain advocacies, offense, defense, etc… Whatever I have under my preferences and defaults shouldn’t be what I use to evaluate the round, this is what I use in the absence of you doing your job. Paint a clear picture of what your advocacy is, how it functions in this round and with your opponent’s advocacy. Give me clear weighing analysis, impacting and linking and you just might get a 30. I try to be fairly tabula rasa (you know, as best I can) with a few reasonable exceptions, but for the most part you can run anything you want in front of me as long as you explain it well.

Speed- I’m alright with speed so long as you are clear. I highly doubt that you can outspread me, but that doesn't mean that you can't slow down for tags and card authors and any sort of bullet-pointing whether it is lettering, numbering etc. If you are unclear, you get one “clear” then you shouldn’t expect much on the flow or good speaks.

Framework- I love good framework debates. I mean, it is how I evaluate the round, so it's definitely worth your time. If your arguments are strategic and engaging you can expect some pretty good speaks. However, there unfortunately does need to be some healthy balance of framework and offense. Framework isn’t a voting issue in of itself until you link offense back into it or you make a good reason why fw is an independent voter in the round.

Offense/Defense- Warrants need to be clear, links need to be specific. The more effort/strategy you put into your arguments, the better they will be evaluated. A blippy argument will be easily defeated by another argument of an equal one sentence length.

Theory- I ran SOOOO MUCH theory as a debater. That being said. Don’t run blippy theory or sketchy offs that have some magical implication to drop the debater just because that is how theory functions. You need to be very specific of the abuse in round and flesh out all the support for your implications. If you run theory for the sake of theory you will get very low speaks, and your opponent won’t have a high threshold for answering it. If there is real abuse this shouldn’t be very hard to avoid. Don’t think I’m not open to most theory args, I very much am. You just have to do a good job running it. I will not listen to speed theory (a K is better here honestly) or disclosure theory unless there is a tournament rule requiring it. One of my biggest fears is that someone will be too afraid to run theory in front of me so their opponent will just wipe the floor with them and get away with abuse. Also, I am very interested in hearing what you feel debate should be like, so even if it doesn’t immediately strike me like “A Priori’s Bad Theory” if you can provide good, logical reasons why this should be a rule/guideline and why it warrants your implications I’ll be glad to vote for it. I love theory, but let’s make sure we keep it at least fairly legit please.

K’s- I love them a lot. I also ran a ton of these during my time. I love it when you can also prove to me that you actually understand the arguments you’re making (hint hint don't run things that you can't explain yourself). If you can do this, you’ll escape with high speaks and likely the round. I especially love it if it takes me by surprise. Alt’s have to be something better than drop the opponent and/or rethink mindsets, RoB/J that's a different story. Micro-pol is okay, but you’ll really have to explain how the debate community can actually have an effect in tackling your problems. I’m fine with pre and post fiat k’s. The same standards I have for theory and all other arguments apply here.

Performance- I love a good performance. Again, I enjoy debaters speaking from their heart on issues that they find important. Make sure it isn’t too sketchy though and that it has good impacts. These arguments aren’t automatically free from theory/topicality/k violations in my book, so be careful on that note (or be prepared to engage in those discussions). I'm not a fan of reject the resolution cases unless you can give me some seriously well-thought out and passionate rationale.

Speaks- I don’t evaluate who spoke better as a voting issue. HOWEVER, it is useful for comparative purposes for you to see what that round was like through my eyes. It breaks down like so:

30- I don't feel competent enough to judge you

29- This round was worth nine out of my ten goats. You aren’t the top of my list, but you're pretty damn close.

28- Not Bad.

27- Alright, could’ve been better, but it could’ve been a lot worse. You're very talented.

26- Yikes, need a bit of improvement. It’s okay though, everyone has a bad day.

25- I am horrified by how bad this was.

<24- Dude, dudette or dudex… get your shit together.

20- You have learned my paradigm like the back of your hand just so you could strategically piss me off.

Tricks- I can vote for them just fine and won’t drop speaks on face value unless it's offensive. I won’t protect you though when someone runs theory or some other sort of off all over you. Aside from that, I was a very trick heavy debater (remember I did love the national circuit). The same mechanisms I have for evaluating regular offense goes here. In terms of triggers, I’ll only evaluate if you make it clear what triggers it beforehand. If you trigger it and it makes me do a double take, it probs wasn’t clear enough.

Topicality- I evaluate it almost the same as theory. I prefer to evaluate it in terms of limits. I’ll be open to however you want to run it though. I never ran it that much unless it was against a reject the topic AC or some other glaringly obvious misconstruction of the res.

LARPing- It’s alright; I don’t like policy-making, but I will vote on it and I feel that it is unfair that I automatically reject frames of minds that don’t suit my bias. I also will not dock speaker points on face value.

Presumption/Permissibility/Skep- Meh, can we not… Please… I know what I said about tricks but these I find are the lowest of the low.

***Also side note, not all actions are morally permissible, claim otherwise and I will hit you with a shoe.

Defaults

-I prefer to examine the resolution through a desirability point of view, yet truth testing and comparative worlds is 100% alright with me. If you have some other evaluative mechanism I am fine with that so long as you explain the function and implications well.

-I default to competing interpretations. However, I am EXTREMELY easy to sway one way or the other with good reasoning, especially if there is clear abuse.

-I default to Fairness as a voter, but again EXTREMELY easy to sway for education or any other voter.

-I default to grant an RVI under the circumstance that a debater has sufficient turn ground against the other’s standards. However, absent this turn ground and without clear reasons why I should grant them under other circumstances I go back to evaluating substance.

*I am going to try and defend you as best as I can if you point out real abuse, i.e. you run a good theory shell but the negative puts 500 blippy theory spikes you can never respond to. But there is a point where you need to be able to defend yourself, I can’t intervene to protect you on everything.

-I presume coin flip.

-I don’t presume a risk of offense.

-Debate is about what you want it to be, if you want that to be critical, stock, value or an entire AC made with pre-emptive theory go ahead.

Preferences

-I won’t vote for some intuitive bads such as racism good. Extinction good, I'll raise an eyebrow but I'll listen. Just be careful and weigh the risks of running some of these arguments.

-I prefer Counter Plans to be non-topical.

-Disads need a strong link and strong internal links, be sure to also weigh effectively.

-Aff’s don’t always need a solvency advocate in my mind, it really depends here. That is a bias, I will evaluate what burdens you as the debaters come to a conclusion on so if neither of you make an issue out of it I won’t lose sleep over it. If you run a counter-plan though I will be very angry if I don’t see one. K’s I greatly prefer one, but not 100% needed.

-A role of the ballot for k’s and performances or other sorts of interesting offs would be nice, but not totally necessary depending on how the argument functions.

-No matter how well read I am in a particular topic and/or literature don’t rely on me to fill in the gaps for you, your job as the debater is to explain and know what you are advocating and to persuade me to vote for you. DON’T MAKE ME DO ANY WORK FOR YOU!

Don’t be afraid to ask if you're confused on anything, I won't be offended to provide clarity and I want you to be able to adapt as best you can.

I debated for 5 years at WDM Valley. I qualified to the TOC my junior and senior year. I am attending Iowa State University to study Computer Engineering, Physics, and Math.

Overview: You can literally do whatever you want and I will do my best to evaluate the round as tab as I can. I can flow fast only if you are clear. I am comfortable with any argument being made in the round, but would prefer that your arguments follow some sort of logic or justification. I debated framework and theory, but feel fine judging any type of debate. I decide a winner by evaluating offense to what ever framing mechanism is won in the debate, therefore doing weighing will put you ahead.

As a debater I was most comfortable debating under a truth testing, debate is a game paradigm. I will not vote for you because you run a trolly a priori. I will vote for you if you run a trolly a priori and win the argument as a voter.

I only consider arguments made in the round. If I don't understand an argument I will not vote on it. I will not do any work for either debater. Do not let the debate get to that point and you'll be fine.

Tips and Tricks for a Big Win:

1) I have bias for arguments I think are creative
2) Making it clear what offense you are going for (including overviews/voters) makes it easier for me to give you a ballot
3) Have fun and be nice

4)Don't say hyperreality is bad

Speaks:
1) I will average a 28.5-29.5 (not sure how high this is so it may change as I become a more experienced judge)
2) 27- ok, 28-good, 29 -great, 30 -best
3) if you want speaks please ask me privately after the round and I will tell you

LD Paradigm

This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

My email is jacobdnails@gmail.com

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

I'm an assistant professor of philosophy at USC and executive director of Victory Briefs.

Please add me to the email chain: jake@victorybriefs.com. I don't read along. Happy to answer questions either in person or via email.

Constraints

I'll vote on any argument, so long as:

1. It's compatible with basic norms of respect for your opponent and others. This applies both to the substance of your arguments and to the way in which you deliver them. I have no interest in watching high school students be jerks to each other or to anyone else.

2. It is an argument. An argument needs a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I won't vote on unwarranted claims or blatant non-sequiturs. Not all "because" clauses are actual warrants. A warrant must provide some reason, however weak, to believe the claim.

3. It honestly and accurately represents your evidence. I will ignore any card that I know to be misrepresented. Powertagging counts as misrepresentation. For example, if your tag says that something will certainly happen when the card only says it could possibly happen, or your tag says "extinction" but your card doesn't mention it, you won't get credit for anything in the card. It is also misrepresentation to highlight a card to say something stronger than (or otherwise distinct from) what it actually says. For example, if your evidence says "possibly p" and you only highlight and read "p," you have misrepresented what your evidence says.

4. It is clearly explained. To vote on an argument, I need to understand the entire piece of reasoning—claim, warrant, and impact—when you first articulate it. And I need to understand it because you explained it, not merely because I've read the literature or everyone knows the card. My threshold for understanding an argument is whether I can explain it back to you. If your argument is not explained sufficiently clearly in the first speech, I won't consider it even if it becomes clearer later on.

Delivery

I like fast debate, but not at the cost of clarity, and most debaters are not as clear as they think they are. I need to be able to understand every word you say. And, if the argument is at all complicated, I need time to process what you're saying. So you should probably slow down—not just on tags, texts, and author names, but across the board. I need to be able to hear and flow the warrants in your cards.

A good heuristic is not to read evidence much faster than your top extemporaneous speed. Another is not to read faster than you would be able to flow and process if you were hearing the argument for the first time without following along the speech doc.

I'll yell "clear" or "slow," and am very okay with debaters doing the same when reasonable—which, in my experience, it usually is. You should be aware that, by the time I've spoken up, I've probably already missed something. So you really should start slower and speed up gradually.

If a string of words morphs into an argument that wasn't clearly expressed by those words, "This wasn't clearly explained" is a pretty decisive response to me.

Preferences

Other things being equal, I tend to prefer:

- Nuanced, topic-specific arguments over recycled arguments of any generic flavor. If an argument could be run on pretty much any topic or in pretty much any round, I'm unlikely to be ecstatic about it, but of course I'll vote on it anyway. Among the generic flavors of argument—e.g., policy, kritiks, theory, philosophy, tricks—I suppose I'm indifferent, and would prefer you to run whatever you think are the strongest arguments. But all are equally subject to the four constraints above.

- A small number of well-developed, high-quality arguments over a large number of blippy, low-quality arguments. I also prefer rebuttals that collapse on a single issue, and NC strategies that contain at least a few minutes on case.

- Technical line-by-line over long overviews. Pop up from the flow every now and then to hammer down key points and integrate individual arguments into the big picture. But in general I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to arguments that are clearly responding to other arguments.

Misc.

Just because I'm a philosopher doesn't mean I'll prefer a debate about traditionally "philosophical" issues. As a philosopher I care more about the quality of an argument than its subject matter.

I won't hack for claims I've publicly defended. I evaluate arguments as they are presented. Obviously it helps to make arguments from premises you know I'll find compelling. But there are many bad arguments for true conclusions. I'd prefer to vote on a good argument for a conclusion I believe to be false than on a bad argument for a conclusion I believe to be true.

If your card just says that some impact is really important, or even the most important thing in the world, I won't assume that it's the only impact that matters.

If the NR goes for a conditional counterplan, which turns out to be worse than the aff, I'll still vote negative if the affirmative is worse than the status quo. (In other words, yes, I'll kick the CP.)

I need to know, in the NC, who the agent of the alternative is.

Please be charitable when interpreting and answering your opponent's arguments.

If I have no real grounds for deciding either way, I'll flip a coin, unless someone argues that I should do otherwise. I have done this exactly once in recent memory.

I am the Head Coach at Lakeville North High School and Lakeville South High School in Minnesota. My debaters include multiple state champions as well as TOC and Nationals Qualifiers.

I am also a history teacher so know your evidence. This also means the value of education in debate is important to me.

I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.

Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about a few key pieces of important evidence rather than doing a card dump.

If you plan to run off case that's fine just make sure that you articulate and sign post it well. Don't use narratives or identity arguments unless you actually care about/identify with the issue. You can run any type of case in front of me but do your best to make it accessible to me and your opponent.

Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please take the time to learn your opponent's preferred pronouns. I expect you to take your RFD graciously-the debate is over after the 2AR not after the disclosure.

FJG NOV/DEC 2020 TOPIC - if as the negative you argue "the fact that the unemployed do not have skills" or "they won't want to work hard" is an impact and do not elaborate on that point i will be fairly upset. think of a better way to phrase your argument.

yes, i want to be on the email chain: izzieosorio3@gmail.com

bio: i use they/them pronouns. i'm three years out. i debated 2014-2018 in sioux falls, sd. i have experience in both trad and nat circ ld and policy. i was a 4x natl qualifier, state champion my junior year, state semi-finalist my senior year, top 50 my senior year at NSDAs and top 8 at NCFLs.

i mainly ran analytic phil (kant), critical literature (anzaldua, butler), and pomo (braidotti, haraway). i'll probably be familiar w what you throw at me (ask just in case), but as long as you have a warrant, we'll be good.

prefs:

1 kritikal/performance/non-topical (high theory 2/3)

1 phil

2 larp

4 theory/t/tricks (but feel free to challenge this)

short version: tw's are necessary, pronouns are encouraged. 6/10 on speed. i'll vote on most any argument/position as long as there is a warrant. if it gets too techy, be explicit on the flow or else i'll draw the conclusions for you. pref me if you run deeply critical/philosophical positions. i'm hesitant towards theory and if it's your a-strat you need slow down - i have more thoughts later down. send me the speech doc. be nice.

long version: as an overview, my job is to adjudicate the clash between the ideas that two debaters/teams - i'm not here to tell you what to run, i'm here to listen to the arguments you present.

that being said, run your strat and run it well. i want to hear arguments that have warrants, are impacted out in the round and interactive w your opponents args. preferably these args should be impacted to an established weighing mechanism . if neither debater does this at all, i will try to discern a decision based on the arguments in round and you probably will not be happy with how i vote.

i like critical literature, i like western phil. i like high theory, but slow down so i can catch everything. i did policy in hs and can appreciate a good aff plan/solid cp+disad strat. p much i'll listen to whatever you have to bring to the debate, so run what your most familiar/confident/strong with.

with t and theory, i didn't debate it ~incredibly often~, so i am not the most qualified to judge and have a higher threshold for voting on it. however, i have less preferences/beliefs when it comes to t/theory and will listen to whatever you have as long as it's thought-out and developed. i like strategy, but don't be absurd/unreasonable (a good t shell against a plan aff instead of a generic "aff can't run plans" interp). regardless, you're gonna need to slow down for me to catch all your args. i'll vote on spikes, but if it's your a-strat, you prolly won't get high speaks (don't do 6 mins of "they dropped 'x' spike, vote them down") - give me at least one other route to vote.

speed: if i have a speech doc, we'll be good. if i don't, just be CLEAR and LOUD and i can flow. either way, if you're like the fastest spreader on earth, bring it down to like a 6. i'll yell clear if i'm completely lost on the flow.

speaks: don't be offensive/run offensive args (e.g. racism good), you'll get an L-20

high speaks are gonna be given to well thought-out positions that are utilized in substantive/nuanced ways. debaters will have interacted w the opponents arguments intuitively and made thoughtful/strategic decisions.

just be nice to your opponent, debate is not that deep to be mean about it. if it's clear your opponent has no idea what your position is and you intentionally steamroll them i will tank your speaks.

if you have any questions, email me or ask before round. glhf :)

LD Paradigm -- substantial revisions April 2018:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9uh69u3gaqcoh22/LD%20Paradigm.docx

LD Judging Record:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6yyg8kg6n0elx6d/LD%20Judging%20Record.xlsx

Policy Paradigm:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8r16qjhhzyfyb4g/Policy%20Paradigm.docx

Hey I’m Jazmine.

(Updates for clash debates will be loaded by 1.20.23, the below is still relevant)

Yes I want to be on the email chain: futurgrad@gmail.com

Had a long paradigm from 3 years ago most of it word vomit so I’ll keep it simple.

I know I’ll be in clash debates. Most will think I lean on one side of the "fight" which is probably true but anyone who claims neutrality is lying to ur face. So I’ll say that I have predispositions HOWEVER, I DO NOT AUTO vote on the K or vote against fwk since as a coach I develop arguments on both sides. Don’t believe me? Well check the wikis;). MY Rule of thumb is if your logic is circular and self referential with no application to what is happening in the debate or how these competing theories (Debate as a game, state good, etc. are theories so you’re not out of this comment) structure how I should be evaluating top level framing and the ballot then yea I’m not your judge [FOR BOTH SIDES]. Point out the tautology and implicate it with some defense to solvency or have it lower the threshold for how much you have to win your competing interpretation (or interpretation) and let’s debate it out.

K on K, I’m smart and pick up on levels of comprehension BUT make it make sense. The buzzword olympics was cool but I want to see where the LINKS or POINTS of difference where ever you are drawing them from so I know what does voting AFF mean or What does voting NEG mean.

like I said simple. I appreciate the linguistic hustle and am into the game, but play the damn game instead of stopping at intrinsic statements of "Debate is a game and that presumption is valid because that’s just the way it has to be because MY DA’s! :/" or "This theory of the world is true and since I entered it into the chat I win..." IMPLICATE THE PRESUMPTIONS with solvency thresholds, framing thresholds PLEASE!

THanks for coming over.

My kids keep making fun of me for my paradigm being too long so I decided to make a shorter updated version, but I'll leave the old stuff on the bottom for posterity. All the stuff I say in the old essay is still true unless it contradicts something written up here. Updated 12/22/2019. (Update 2: Apparently even in my short version I’m super verbose so I’ll give you a super cliff notes as well).

Uber-Cliffnotes:

-Put me on the email chain but I flow off your speech.

-Warrants are super important, and I won’t vote on arguments without them.

-More impact comparison, no matter what kind of debate you do.

-Everything is fine, and I’m a lot better judge for neg FW than I used to be.

-Go for theory and T more.

-Don’t be shifty or mean.

-Zero risk is possible and defense can be terminal, but it often isn’t.

Paradigm, Short(er) Edition:

-Email is maxtp26@gmail.com. Put me on the email chain please, though I won't read along outside of curiosity etc. reasons. I flow based on the words I hear, not what's in your document. This means clarity is of utmost importance. I'll say clear up to three times, but if I don't hear an argument the onus is on you. My hearing is also apparently not as good as it once was so this is crucial. It also means if you want me to flow a rehighlighting, you have to actually read the important stuff.

-I'll vote on anything (with the exceptions of racism good, etc.) as long as it's warranted and impacted out. However, arguments do consist of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. If your argument doesn't contain a warrant I won't vote on it and I'll give the other team pretty much infinite leeway on answering it in later speeches. My threshold for blippiness is going up and, from recent panel results, is probably higher than your average judge's. When in doubt, explain.

-While I think I've developed a reputation as a K judge and coach, I'm definitely getting more middle of the road the more I judge, and I think my record in recent framework rounds is near 50-50 or even slightly favoring the team reading framework. I find fairness is usually least persuasive when gone for as an impact of its own, and most persuasive as an internal link to other impacts. The arguments I find most compelling when going for neg framework have to do with the educational value of beginning with the USFG as a starting point or of switching sides as pedagogy. Impact comparison is paramount in these debates and I usually vote for the team who does the most of it.

-Because it bears repeating, impact comparison is paramount. I find one of the most common post-round comments I give to be "there could have been more impact work," whether it's a T debate, FW debate, or DA/case. I would always err on the side of more.

-I love tricky and creative arguments but if your strategy relies on shiftiness and deceit I'm probably not the judge for you. This means if your cxes consist of a lot of "we don't have to answer that" or other forms of question dodging I will be greatly displeased. A good rule of thumb to follow: if truthfully answering questions about your argument hurts you strategically, you probably just shouldn't make that argument.

-I find it funny when judges say "I have a general predisposition against violence" or stuff like that then go on to vote on heg good in half their rounds. I too am predisposed against violence but if your argument includes advocating for violent revolution or whatever to me that's no different (and probably more morally defensible) than advocating for US empire. It's almost like certain forms of violence are naturalized and camouflaged to maintain the supremacy of whiteness and the global liberal order... That said I'll vote on heg good too and will try my best to counteract my personal bias against such.

-Affs should be reading and going for way more theory and negs should be going for way more T (at least in front of me). I find teams these days are getting away with the most ridiculously abusive counterplans and affs because everyone's too scared to go for theory against them.

-Most of all, have fun! Debate as an educational space is great and important but I'd rather have enjoyable debates bereft of educational value than educational debates that everyone hates. You only have 4-8 years on average to enjoy this strange and wonderful activity, and I want everyone to make the most of it and not just look back on their debate careers with ressentiment.

Old Stuff:

Quick LD cheat sheet for Apple Valley:

-I judge/coach policy mainly but judge a couple LD tournaments a year, and have judged multiple bid rounds, RRs, etc. in LD

-Anything goes: tricks, Ks, value/criterion, LARP, whatever. As a former philosophy major, I'm pretty familiar with all major moral theories that get used in phil debates and I judge a lot of K debates in policy so I shouldn't have a problem with whatever you read

-Depth>breadth in terms of argument development. I'm more likely to vote on well-developed arguments that are answered than dropped blips, although I will vote on the dropped blips occasionally as well.

-The one thing I ask is that you SLOW DOWN ON THEORY, maybe by about 20-30%. Any other argument you're fine going full-speed but my tiny policy brain can't flow LD theory at 300 wpm so if you want me to flow your arguments, slow down a bit.

-I'm not gonna disclose speaks, sorry. I get this is seemingly a norm in circuit LD so maybe I just need to adjust the way I think about this but it makes me fairly uncomfortable do so.

What do I need to know?

I'm the varsity policy coach for West Des Moines Valley for my 3rd (non-consecutive) year now, and in the past I debated for Des Moines Roosevelt and the University of Iowa. I just graduated from Grinnell College with a degree in Philosophy and Gender Studies. Over my first two years of coaching I ended up judging 70 or so rounds a year, mostly at bid-level tournaments.

Do what you want, within the reasonable guidelines of not being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and so on. I believe that debate is an activity for the debaters, and while I consider my role as judge to be that of an educator, the educational model I follow is one which is substantially less horizontal than traditional ones, in that I think my job as judge is to learn from you, as well as hopefully encourage and strengthen your competitive abilities.

There aren't any arguments outside of the parameters established earlier that I either won't or haven't voted on, and I'm down to hear whatever you enjoy most and are best at. What I find most disappointing while judging is when I see competitors who seem actively disengaged from the round for whatever reason, and as such I think I should facilitate enjoyment of the round by encouraging you to read and do whatever makes you happy.

With that said, here are my thoughts and presuppositions about specific arguments. All of them can be changed and I will always prefer arguments made within the debate to my thoughts outside of that round, but these are my "defaults" that I will revert to absent arguments to the contrary:

Top Level Stuff:

- Tech over truth but tech is guided by and generally adheres to the "truth," whatever that may be. In other words, I'll evaluate the round based off the flow and the arguments made in round, but determining which argument wins in a technical debate is something which is limited by, or at least shaped by, the truth of those arguments. "Global warming causes extinction" and "Global warming prevents an ice age, which causes extinction" are both viable arguments in a debate round, but the former is going to be easier to win because it is more in line with reality.

- On that note, dropped arguments are true arguments but an argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an implication (impact). If you say that your opponent dropped X arg so you win the debate, that may be true, but you still need to explain why X arg wins you the debate. One of the things that is most frequently missing from high school policy rounds is the impacting of conceded arguments, and this often presents major difficulties to my ability to evaluate the debate, especially in messy rounds where both teams drop arguments all over the flow. If you want an easy way to win (and get good speaker points) make sure you are explaining not only that your opponent has dropped your arguments, but also what it means that they have dropped your arguments. All of the above is of course true in the case of contested arguments as well, but I find the implication debate appears a lot more naturally in those circumstances.

- Do as much as you can get away with. Again, everything here is just my personal bias or default, and just because I say I don't like or disagree with an argument doesn't mean you shouldn't make it or read it.

DA/Advantage Debate

- "Zero risk" is certainly possible but often unlikely. What I mean by this is that if the neg says "The plan leads to an increase in hair loss, and warming causes extinction" and the aff says "No link--no warranted reason the aff leads to hair loss and no internal link between hair loss and warming," I'm not going to decide that since the aff only made defensive arguments that there's "only a risk" of the DA occurring. Smart defensive arguments (including and sometimes especially analytics) can take out entire disads and advantages, but if they're not terminal I am going to be more susceptible to "only a risk" logic.

- I love a good impact turn debate (who doesn't?) and find they're often the most strategic option given that your opponents' evidence about their aff or DA or whatever is often (and probably even should be) better than your cards to answer it.

- Impact comparison is obviously crucial but it seems a lot of debaters forget the comparison part of the phrase. If your overview is just "our impact is big, fast, and probable" you've done the first step, now explain why your impact is bigger, faster, and more probable. Even more astute debaters will attempt to evaluate which of those metrics they are most likely to be winning, and then make arguments as to why I should prefer that one; e.g. "magnitude before timeframe" and so on.

- Most politics theory arguments are, in fact, garbage, but I will happily assign zero risk to the disad if they're conceded. Just because it's a bad argument doesn't mean you shouldn't have to answer it (which is a metric that is, in general, true for how I evaluate debates).

CPs

- My personal bias is that most process counterplans, consult, and so on, are generally cheating because they are A. usually marginally competitive at best and B. steal a lot of aff ground. If you're aff you should almost certainly be reading theory against these arguments, and if you're neg you should be prepared to defend them. All that said, I think "cheating" counterplans are usually a great strategic choice because they steal aff ground and because most aff teams aren't prepared to extend theory in the face of your 15-point 1NR block, so if you have them, it's probably wise to read them. Again, do as much as you can get away with.

- I generally really like PICs on the other hand, with the obvious caveat that the more well-researched and specific to the aff they are the better.

- The common thread between these two presuppositions is that I generally believe the best counterplans are those with a specific solvency advocate that distinguishes them from the aff. What the bar for this solvency advocate is is a matter of debate, but the more contextualized to the aff your cp is the less likely you are to lose it to theory.

- I'll judge kick for you, but only if you tell me to and the aff doesn't tell me you can't. The "logical policymaker" in me thinks the squo should always be an option, but the "debate is a game" person tells me this is bad for the aff, so just make an argument why I should/shouldn't do so if the aff ends up being worse than the CP

"THE K"

- The link debate is probably the most important here since you'll usually be winning that your thing is *~bad~* and the debate will usually come down to whether the aff actually does that thing or not and thus gets access to a perm. That said, if you're reading a big stick policy aff you should probably just bite the bullet and go for the impact turn if there's no chance you can win a link turn.

- In KvK debates I don't really find myself having a default when it comes down to whether "method debates" mean the aff gets a perm or not. I guess I don't really see why the fact that we're talking about methods means that those methods don't have to be competitive, but if we're not viewing the aff as a test of the resolution's truth value maybe that changes. Either way, simply asserting that "method debates means no perms" probably isn't sufficient and I like when these debates get in depth

- Similarly, the zaniness of your perm arguments should probably be proportional to the zaniness of the 1AC&1NC, and the same for perm answers. Creative perms that are based in your literature have often been effective in front of me, and the neg should rely on similar creativeness in answering them. In other words, why limit yourself to "perm do both" when you could tell me the perm is a radical cooption of their method which makes you the true symbolic terrorists, or something?

"K Affs"/"New Debate"/FW

- The teams I coach mostly read critical arguments, affs without plan texts, and stuff like that, I went to college to study gender theory and philosophy, and a large portion of the rounds I've judged in the past have been K rounds, so I think I've (deservedly) cultivated a bit of a prior reputation as a K hack. However, I've noticed in more recent times that perhaps I'm swinging a bit back toward the middle of the road in these debates, or at least that at the end of rounds I often find myself asking: "why didn't this team go for framework?" because the kritikal team has mishandled or neglected parts of that debate, yet the opposing team ends up going for something else. I have voted on framework in the past, I expect I will continue to do so in the future, and if it is the best option for you in any given debate you should choose it.

- I think the biggest shift in my thinking here is that over time I have stopped subconsciously viewing my vote of any given individual debate as implying that I have somehow committed some ideological boon/transgression, and instead believe that the most educational approach to facilitating debates as a judge involves me allowing debaters to challenge any and all aspects of their opponents arguments. While I believe each debate round is important as a unique pedagogical moment, I am somewhat less convinced that the results of that debate will change the world or even the (horrible and oppressive) structures of debate, and thus I believe that if a team is not capable of beating framework or topicality on its own merits, I shouldn't vote for them just because it helps the movement or is supposed to improve debate, because it probably won't.

- If you are the "K team" in this debate, you should make sure you answer args like "it's about the best model of debate/competing interps" if you're just going for arguments that boil down to "our aff is good." If it's "not what you do but what you justify," you need to ensure that you have either an adequate description of what you justify and why it's good, or an answer to the above argument.

- I'm finding myself (slightly) more compelled by "do it on the neg" style arguments against affs that just say the resolution is bad. If you are reading such an aff you probably want a defense of why you being even forced to defend the resolution in a pedagogical space is bad, not just reasons the resolution as a question is bad.

- TVAs are good and important but often not the game-ender FW teams think they are. If the aff says "state bad" then you give a big list of state actions, this still does not (on its own) mean that the state is good, and thus doesn't necessarily disprove any part of the aff's claim. If you impact out how exactly that TVA solves, preferably even with evidence, you're in a much better place. Basically, you need to actually have a warranted reason the TVA solves, not just the phrase "we have a topical version of the aff!!!"

Other random things:

My "role of the ballot" is to, as the cliche goes, determine who did the better debating, but that doesn't mean there can't be other "RoBs" within the debate. Generally I interpret these as frameworks or criteria for evaluating the different arguments and impacts within the round, so a phrase like "the role of the ballot is to vote for the team who best performatively and methodologically challenges queerphobia" would mean, to me, basically, that I evaluate arguments according to whichever team best meets such a criteria, not that my ballot serves some literal other purpose than choosing the best debater. However, this does mean that if you answer such an RoB with the phrase "the role of the ballot is to choose the team who does the better debating" I'm not sure you're being responsive to what that phrase is actually saying.

Any number of conditional options is allowed as long as you can justify you get that many, and any number of conditional options is not allowed as long you can win the opponent doesn't get that many. I don't think there's any magic number above which condo suddenly does or doesn't become okay, and as with everything I think this is a debate best left to the debaters. Despite my reputation I actually really enjoy big debates with lots of different arguments and you should always look to get away with as much as the other team will let you in any given debate.

Excessive rudeness is obviously never appreciated. I know debate can get heated sometimes and that's fine but if you get to the point of insulting the other team, your partner, etc. Jokes are always good as long as they aren't at the expense of other people, and so you should always be careful about accidentally hurting someone.

Call me Max, or judge if you absolutely feel uncomfortable with that (though being referred to as judge makes me feel weird), and put me on the email chain if you remember (my email is maxtp26@gmail.com).

As I've alluded to a couple times earlier, I believe that one of the reasons why debate is such an amazing activity (and it truly can be!) is because of the relatively non-horizontal nature of it compared to other educational activities, and I really want to facilitate that environment. Obviously as the person holding the sheet of paper or connected to the tabroom ballot I have a certain degree of power, but again, debate is for you (the debaters). So, as I keep reiterating, do what makes you most happy and comfortable within the debate space. Me asking anything otherwise would just be an attempt to stroke my ego as a judge and reassert my power within the room. I'm not going to stop you from doing anything as long as it does not hurt other people (which words can most certainly do, as we should all know) or cause me to be responsible for activities which would violate my contract as a coach. Read "trolly" arguments if you so desire, sit or stand to speak, go to the bathroom or get a drink of water when you need to, chat with people as long as it isn't disrupting or delaying the debate, or "dance with a chair if that's what the muse tells you to do." Do what you enjoy and I will enjoy it too.

In high school I was a member of Moore High Schools speech and debate team. There I competed in LD, PFD, OO and Extemp. I crossed over to policy in 2014 when I started debating for the University of Oklahoma’s policy debate team. I honestly do not care what you do in front of me. Debate is a game, a performance, I am the audience and attempt to judge as fair as possible. Persuade me. I am a black woman living in America in the year 2018 with Donald Trump as our President. That is the basic lens through which I evaluate things through.

If you are not clear I will not flow you and will not default to the speech doc.

I like framing and I like being persuaded. It makes my job easy.

Have a link to the case and not the squo. Makes it easier to vote for you.

Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm

Only send speech docs to Powell.demarcus@gmail.com

ASK FOR POLICY PARADIGM - The paradigm below is designed mostly for LD. Some things change for me when evaluating the different events/styles of debate. Also when you ask please have specific questions. Saying "What's your paradigm?", will most likely result in me laughing at you and/or saying ask me a question.

About Me: I graduated from Crowley High School in 2013, where I debated LD for three years mostly on the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to skepticism, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run.I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas, in college policy debate for 3 years. I taught and coached at Greenhill School from 2018 to 2022. Running any sort of Morally repugnant argument can hurt you, if you're not sure if your argument will qualify ask me before we begin and I'll let you know.

Speed: I can flow moderately fast speeds (7-8 on a scale of 10), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I stop typing and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Also just because I can flow speed does not mean I like hearing plan texts and interpretations at full speed, these things should be at conversational speed.

Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so. Also be civil to one another, I don't want to hear about your high school drama during cx if this happens you will lose speaker points.

Prep Time: I would prefer that we don't waste prep time or steal it. If you're using technology (i.e. a laptop, tablet, or anything else) I will expect you to use it almost perfectly. These things are not indicative of my decision on the round rather they are pet peeves of mine that I hate to see happen in the round. I hate to see rounds delayed because debaters don't know how to use the tools they have correctly.UPDATE. You need to flow. The excessive asking for new speech docs to be sent has gotten out of hand. If there are only minor changes or one or two marked cards those are things you should catch while flowing. I can understand if there are major changes (3 or more cards being marked or removed) or new cards being read but outside of this you will get no sympathy from me. If you are smart and actually read this just start exempting things. I don't look at the speech doc I flow. If you opponent doesn't catch it so be it. If this happens in rounds I am judging it will impact your speaker points. If you would like a new doc and the changes are not excessive per my definition you are free to use your own prep time, this will not effect your speaker points.

Theory: I don't mind theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!

Also theory debates tend to get very messy very quickly, so I prefer that each interpretation be on a different flow. This is how I will flow them unless told to the otherwise. I am not in the business of doing work for the debaters so if you want to cross apply something say it. I wont just assume that because you answered in one place that the answer will cross applied in all necessary places, THAT IS YOUR JOB.

• Meta-Theory: I think meta-thoery can be very effective in checking back abuses caused by the theory debate. With that being said though the role of the ballot should be very clear and well explained, what that means is just that I will try my hardest not to interject my thoughts into the round so long as you tell me exactly how your arguments function. Although I try not to intervene I will still use my brain in round and think about arguments especially ones like Meta-Theory. I believe there are different styles of theory debates that I may not be aware of or have previously used in the past, this does not mean I will reject them I would just like you to explain to me how these arguments function.

Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, however receiving a 30 from me is possible but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc). Lastly, I do not care if you sit or stand while you speak, if your speech is affected by your choice I will not be lenient if you struggle to stand and debate at the same time. UPDATE. If you spend a large chunk of time in your 1AC reading and under-view or spikes just know I do not like this and your speaks may be impacted. This is not a model of debate I want to endorse.

General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.

Kritiks and Micropol: Although I do not run these arguments very often, I do know what good K debate looks like. That being said I often see Kritiks butchered in LD so run them with caution. Both should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it.

Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably just stare at you with a weird look if I'm lost.

Some of the information above may relate to paper flowing, I've now gone paperless, but many of the same things still apply. If I stop typing for long stretches then I am probably a bit lost as to where you are on the flow.

I debated for Harker from 2014-2017. I mostly read policy arguments. I care a lot about evidence quality. Arguments do not begin at 100% truth. I haven't judged in a while, so for Apple Valley, especially the earlier rounds, please read a little slower.

I don't like preclusion-based arguments. By this I mean arguments that say "x is the root cause of y" or "x argument/framework comes before y framework". These arguments are impact calculus, albeit usually pretty good impact calculus, and do not mean none of the links to y matter. This means I am strongly in favor of epistemic modesty. This does not mean I'm not open to framework debates. It does mean I think a stategy that concedes all of the other side's offense and just answers the framework or impact is very bad.

If your opponent points out or I find out you didn't disclose (absent outstanding circumstances), I will vote against you. I've recently judged a lot of edge cases here recently, and if you think you fall in one of these edge cases, your best bet is to pseudo disclose to your opponent through messenger/email or whatever as soon as possible.

my email is pap13p@gmail.com - add me to the email chain.

Hey, I'm Chris, and I debated for Newark Science for four years in LD and Policy. To start, I'd like to say that although I was known as a particular kind of debater, I encourage you to do what you can do the best, whether that be Kant, theory, performance, etc.

As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.

I've come to realize I am probably one of the worst flowers in the activity. This doesn't mean I won't hold you to answering arguments but it does mean that I am far less likely to get a 5 point response than the next person. Take that as you will.

I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"

On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."

I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.

These are just some of my thoughts. If I'm judging you at camp, do whatever, don't worry about the ballot. As I judge more I'll probably add to this paradigm. If you have any specific questions email me at cfquiroz@gmail.com

UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant

Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.

In an LD debate I will not flow more than 3 off case arguments!

Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.

Argument specifics

T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen AND CAN BE PERSUADED TO VOTE FOR IT I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.

Also, very very important! Affirmatives have to do something to change the squo in the world in debate etc. If by the end of the debate the affirmative cannot demonstrate what it does and what the offense of the aff is T/Framework becomes even more persuasive. Framework with a TVA that actually gets to the impacts of the aff and leverages reasons why state actions can better resolve the issues highlighted in the affirmative is very winnable in front of me.

DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly

CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit

K- I am familiar with most of the k literature

CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at

In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).

First let me explain how to get a Hot L:

So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L

THE SAME IS TRUE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO GENDER, LGBTQ ISSUES ETC. ALSO WHITE PEOPLE AND WHITENESS IS NOT THE SAME THING

Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean

Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples

I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc

I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating

email: cr30505@gmail.com - yes, add me to the email chain. please feel free to reach out by email/fb (I'm more likely to respond on fb) if you have questions.

I debated circuit LD at WDM Valley for four years and qualified to the TOC, receiving four bids, during my senior year. I have taught at NSD Flasgship (2018,2019), NSD Philadelphia (2018,2019), and TDC (2019) and I've been coaching LD since graduating in 2018.

tl;dr - it's your round, debate it how you want to.

I will evaluate the round on the flow, everything here explains my defaults but if you make arguments as to why the round should be adjudicated in a particular way I will evaluate debate through your lens. please make the round as clear as possible - weighing is your friend, give clear overviews, justify everything, and explain. tell me the implications of your arguments.

I have the most experience with framework debate, identity K debate, and theory debate.

defaults: (this only matters if no one makes arguments to the contrary)

• epistemic confidence
• competing interps, no rvis
• theory > k > substance
• pragmatics > semantics
• truth testing > comparing worlds

misc:

• I’ll say ‘slow’ or ‘clear’ if necessary.
• I am fine with flex prep.
• I love a good framework/identity k debate, it makes my heart happy (you will probably get good speaks).
• I very much think you need an impact mechanism (a standard text, a ROB, etc.) -- otherwise, i will be left to evaluate impacts as I see fit which probably won't make you happy.
• extensions need warrants and impacts, even if you are extending a conceded argument. If you are extending a case that is conceded, it isn't sufficient to say "extend my whole case."
• if you are debating a novice or someone who lacks a lot of circuit experience, please make the round educational and inclusive. this does not necessarily mean go full-on traditional (although that's definitely fine), but it does mean don't go full speed and a bunch of offs (your speaks will go way down).
• please be ready to debate when you walk into the room – this means pre-flowing during your opponent's prep if you need to and having the AC speech doc ready to send.

theory:

• theory violations need to be verifiable. just provide screenshots please! if someone makes an i meet to an unverifiable shell with no verification (i.e. a disclosure shell without screenshots or a coin flip shell that's just word of mouth), i will default to the 'i meet' being true.
• feel free to read theory for strategic reasons (i.e. friv theory) or because there’s actual abuse.
• if you go for reasonability, please provide a brightline. if you don't provide a brightline, or provide a brightline of gut check, i will probably gut check to competing interps.

Chait Sayani

DVHS '17

Add me to the email chain: chaitanya.sayani@gmail.com

LADI Website: https://www.theladi.org/

edit for CPS 2018: I’m currently recovering from eye surgery lol so I might be a little distracted by the pain and my vision during round. Going slower and collapsing more than usual would be much appreciated :’)

Basics:

I did LD for Dougherty Valley High School for 4 years and policy for a bit as well. Like most judges, I will try to evaluate the round as objectively as possible and will not paradigmatically exclude any argument unless it is blatantly racist/homophobic/deliberately exclusionary in any manner. That said, like most judges, I definitely have preferences for certain strategies. To borrow from the late great Arjun Tambe, even if your strat contradicts my defaults, I will still vote on it if its well explained and impacted. Your strategy does effect the amount of work you will need to do to win the round in front of me, So while adaption isn't particularly necessary, it does go quiet a long way in terms of strategic viability. Below, i've listed my views and affinities for certain types of Arguments.

Straight Up/ Util Debate:

This is quiet possibly my favorite form of debate to watch and judge. Honestly, I don't think I evaluate these types of debates differently from anyone else, so if you wanna read these args in front of me, go ahead. However, all the regular technicalities still apply. I think Impact Calc is definitely important, and evidence comparison especially on the Uniqueness and Impact Debate make the evaluation of the round a lot easier. I also think Counterplans must be competitive (read: don't say the CP solves better so we compete through net benefits lol). I think you need to win Uniqueness to win a link turn, and I think that Perms have to win a net benefit. Also as a final note, I find it really hard to believe terminal defense claims. In the words of Scotty P "IMO, there are in fact, risks of things". Good Straight up debaters give me a consistent framework to resolve that risk and make my life easier. If you wanna have a good Util Debate, by all means, go ahead.

Kritiks:

These were probably my favorite args to go for my sophomore, junior and senior years. I am comfortable evaluating most kritik authors, but with that said, I will hold you to a higher level of explanation that some others might. One of my main pet peeves in K debate (especially in LD) is reading a horrifically generic link and doing zero case contextualization in the 1NC and dumping some generic overview in the 2NR. My only requirement to reading the Kritik is to know what you're saying. Engage the Case, and leverage the thesis of the Kritik against various responses. Create a story behind the ballot, and persuade me to buy it. As long as you satisfy that litmus test, read whatever you want.

Edit: Some people told me this section was too vague, so in order to be a little more specific, here's a list of some kritiks i've been going for this year so far. Sep Oct: AfroPes, Fear of death, Meltdowns, Security. Nov Dec: Psycho, Agamben, Delueze, Nietzsche. Jan Feb: Baudrillard, Bataille, Delueze, Warren. Check my wiki if you have any more questions

Theory:

Definitely not the best for theory debates, but I am relatively alright at evaluating them. Don't blip through 7 theory standards in the 1NC/1AR and expect me to magically vote on a horrifically and uncleanly extended standard in the 2NR/2AR. Here are some defaults I lean towards:

- Default Reasonability, NO RVI's, and Drop the Argument

- I lean neg on 1 Condo, but anything more than that makes me iffy

- I do think a lot of theory that's being read nowadays is kinda ridiculous, but I will definitely vote for it if you win it. Just remember I do think Reasonability is a pretty persuasive out on that flow however. To contextualize this, here are some interps I find frivolous that I plagiarized from Kris Kaya's paradigm: Must Spec Status in Speech, Must Read Policy Alt, Must Spec what Maximizing Expected Well Being Means, Extinction impacts bad, Must spec university, etc.

- I also don't think that winning one standard on theory magically makes all others irrelevant. I think because of my relatively low experience going for theory, Impact Calc and comparative analysis is especially key. Impact your args.

Side note on Non T K aff's: I am much more lenient towards direction of the topic aff's as opposed to straight up non topical aff's, but again, Ill evaluate both. Ironically, even though Dougherty's arguably most successful aff was non topical, I lean neg on FW vs K aff debates. If you're aff really is that baller, there's probably a TVA. However, the K debater in me does make me willing to adjudicate FW debates relatively objectively.

Phil/Framework Debates:

Much like theory, I am less experienced with Phil than I am with other types of my arguments, but will evaluate them regardless. I understand basic phil like Kant, Habermas, Rawls, but thats about it. If you do decide to go for this strat in front of me, please make sure to explain, impact, and compare warrants (Read: Tell me what the hell is going on and why I should vote for you).

Tricks: https://goo.gl/BGF2xt .

My understanding of a lot of tricks are limited so run them in front of me at your own discretion. I agree with Arjun when I say that I think Tricks are kinda bad for debate. Just engage please.

Misc/General Notes:

- Sending a speech isn't prep

- I will yell clear

- Tech > Truth

- I think Disclosure is a good thing

- You must be willing to Flash/Email/Pass pages. Give your opponent access to your arguments during the round

- I default Offense Defense

- Don't be mean

- Extensions require explaining a warrant. Not just saying Extend this.

Speaks:

I start at a 28 and go up or down based from there.

I judge at one tournament a year. At one point in time, I was pretty up to date with national debate trends and judged the final round at the TOC in 2008 and 2009. As you may note, this was ten years ago.

I can keep up with moderate speed and will yell clear. I will judge the round however you tell me to, but I am not up to date on acronyms or abbreviations that exist only in the world of debate. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

Professionally, I am a prosecutor. Most importantly, I am the older sister of John and Kathleen Scoggin.

I would like to be on the email chain, my email is jpscoggin at gmail.com

I am the coach of Loyola High School in Los Angeles. I also own and operate Premier Debate along with Bob Overing. I coach Nevin Gera. I prefer a nuanced util debate to anything else.

Arguments

In general, I am not a fan of frivolous theory or non-topical Ks.

High speaker points are awarded for exceptional creativity and margin of victory.

I am fine with speed as long as it is comprehensible.

Procedure

If you are not comfortable disclosing to your opponent at the flip or after pairings are released it is likely in your best interest to strike me. If the tournament has a rule about when that should occur I will defer to that, if not 10 minutes after the pairing is released seems reasonable to me.

Compiling is prep. Prep ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed from your computer.

I'm the current assistant coach at Coppell High School where I also have the lovely opportunity to teach Speech & Debate to great students. I did LD, Policy, and Worlds in High School (Newark Science '15) and a bit of Policy while I was in college (Stanford '19). I'm by no means "old" but I've been around long enough to appreciate different types of debate arguments at this point. As long as you're having fun, I can feel it and will probably have fun listening to you, too!

WSD

This is now my main event nowadays. Given my LD/Policy background, I do rely very heavily on my flow. That doesn't mean you have to be very techy--you should and can group arguments and do weighing--but I try my best to not just ignore concessions. Framing matters a lot to me because it helps me filter what impacts I should care about most by the end of the debate.

If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask.

Also follow @worldofwordsinstitute on Instagram or check out www.worldofworldsinstitute.com for quality WSD content :)

LD/Policy

I'd love to be on the email chain. My email is sunhee.simon@gmail.com

Pref shortcut for those of you who like those:

LARP: 1-2

K: 1-2

Phil: 1-2

Tricks: 5/strike

Theory (if it's your PRIMARY strat - otherwise I can be preffed higher): 3

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Credentials that people seem to care about: senior (BA + MA candidate) at Stanford, Director of LD at the Victory Briefs Institute, did LD, policy, and worlds schools debate in high school, won/got to late elims in all of those events, double qualled to TOC in LD and Policy. Did well my freshman year in college in CX but didn't pursue it much after that. Now I coach and judge a bunch.

LD + Policy

Literally read whatever you want. If I don't like what you've read, I'll dock your speaks but I won't really intervene in the debate. Don't be sexist, ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, or a classist jerk in the round. Don't make arguments that can translate to marginalized folks not mattering (this will cloud my judgement and make me upset). I've also been mostly coaching and judging World Schools debate the past two years so you're going to need to slow down for me for sure. As the tournament goes on my ear adjusts but it's likely I'll say "slow" to get you to slow down. After 3 times, I won't do it anymore and will just stop listening.

Otherwise have fun and enjoy the activity for the 45 or 90 mins we're spending together! More info on specific things below:

Stock/Traditional Arguments

Makes sense.

Ks

I get this. The role of the ballots/framing is really helpful for me and usually where I look first.

T

I understand this. If reading against a K team I'd encourage you to make argument about how fairness/education relates to the theory of power/epistemology of the K. Would make all of our lives better and more interesting.

Theory

I also understand this. But don't abuse the privilege. I am not a friv theory fan so don't read it if you can (or else I might miss things as you blip through things).

Plans/CP/DAs

I understand this too. Slow down when the cards are shorter so I catch the tags.

I don't default to anything necessarily however I do know my experiences and understandings of debate were shaped by me coming from a low income school that specialized in traditional and critical debate. I've been around as a student and a coach (I think) long enough to know my defaults are subject to change and its the debaters' job to make it clear why theory comes first or case can be weighed against the K or RVIs are good or the K can be leveraged against theory. I learn so much from you all every time I judge. Teach me. Lead me to the ballot. This is a collaborative space so even if I have the power of the ballot, I still need you to tell me things. Otherwise, you might get a decision that was outside of your control and that's never fun.

On that note, let it be known that if you're white and/or a non-black POC reading afropessimism or black nihilism, you won't get higher than a 28.5 from me. The more it sounds like you did this specifically for me and don't know the literature, the lower your speaks will go. If you win the argument, I will give you the round though so either a) go for it if this is something you actually care about and know you know it well or b) let it go and surprise me in other ways. If you have a problem with this, I'd love to hear your reasons why but it probably won't change my mind. I can also refer other authors you can read to the best of my ability if I'm up to it that day.

Last thing, please make sure I can understand you! I understand spreading but some of y'all think judges are robots. I don't look at speech docs during the round (and try not to after the round unless I really need to) so keep that in mind when you spread. Pay attention to see if I'm flowing. I'll make sure to say clear if I can't understand you. I'll appreciate it a lot if you keep this in mind and boost your speaks!

You may know me previously as Caitlin Smith or Caitlin Addleman. She/her pronouns.

Experience:

I coached with the University of Minnesota (fall 2017 - 2022). I debated 4 years (2013-2017) of NPDA/NPTE parli for Wheaton College and 4 years of LD in high school. I have also coached policy at the UMN and LD at Apple Valley High School.

Ethics:

I care deeply about debate, about equity in it, access to it, and very much believe in the power it has to change lives. I take my role as an educator seriously, which means I am always happy to chat about or answer any questions related to debate, from theory to substantive arguments. Additionally, I consider the moral/ethical questions of debate to be a constitutive feature of the activity. As such, I refuse to check my status as a moral agent at the door. I will, and have (albeit rarely), voted down arguments that I consider to be seriously morally problematic, regardless of what’s on the flow. While my standard for doing so is high, I take as axiomatic that every person has intrinsic and immutable worth - if I feel that your advocacy or representations seriously impinge on the worth of someone in the room, that will affect my decision. This does not mean that I won’t vote for arguments I don’t like or ethically agree with (I do that all the time); rather, I simply will not hold myself to voting on the flow if I feel someone in the room is being done violence. If you have any questions about my standards or threshold, please ask me.

A Note on Tech:

I believe that the technical aspects of debate are tools we use to allow us to understand and engage with the substance of arguments more deeply. I therefore do not think that tech is a substitute for substantive engagement. I value more highly arguments that engage with the opposing positions substantively than ones that merely do so technically (while to do both is truly masterful debate). Put simply, substance > tech > truth.

Speed:

I’m fine with speed and will clear you if you pass my threshold (which is unlikely). Please be aware of how the online nature of debate constrains speed by paying attention to whatever chat feature we have available for people saying speed or clear - and please make accommodations as necessary. Please say all plans/CP’s/T-interps/alts/etc. slowly and twice.

Weighing:

Please do it. This will make my job a lot easier, and also make it a lot more likely that I see the round the way that you would like me to. I will evaluate the round as you tell me to, although in absence of any weighing arguments, I default to probability first and will have a substantially lower threshold than most parli judges to vote on systemic/materialized/highly probable impacts (given any arguments being made that I should prefer them). This does not mean I will not vote on nuclear, disaster, etc. scenarios, just that I will not accept prima facie an unwarranted claim that those impacts outweigh all other things if your opponents are making arguments to the contrary.

AD/DA/CP Debate:

I have broad knowledge of economic and policy issues (my knowledge skews more heavily towards the K). Thus, I will be largely limited to my understanding of what you put out in a given round. If you’re clear, there shouldn’t be a problem, just don’t expect me to know what various terms or abbreviations mean off the bat or grant you internal warrants without clear explanations.

Theory:

Win the debate on whatever layer you would like. My threshold to vote on theory is determined by the extent to which a clear impact on the shell is articulated and weighed. I also believe that standards should be contextualized to your opponents’ position. I find great problems in reading generic reasons why policy is good against non-T affs because I very much believe that theory should be about bringing questions of how debate ought function into the conversation, rather than forcing certain ideas out. This doesn’t mean don’t read theory in those situations, but that, if you’re going to, I will hold you to a high standard. Finally, I have a lower threshold than most parli judges for we-meets: if they meet the text of your interpretation, I do not consider a remaining violation to be a priori offense (as in, it’s still offense, but without an interpretation it does not function a priori, absent additional arguments that it should). If you have questions about what this means, let me know.

Kritiks:

I debated lots of K’s and write lots of them with my team. I love them. I particularly love when they are clear on what the alt does and what a world of the alternative looks like. I really hate chicken-and-egg style root cause debates and would much prefer to hear substantive debate about the issues in the K. Please don’t assume I know your literature (just because I read K’s doesn’t mean I will understand your K) . I will vote on what is said in the round, not my prior knowledge of your particular author.

Performance:

Debate is both a game and the real world. Bringing real world issues to the forefront within debate rounds is simultaneously extremely important and extremely difficult. It definitely creates change in our community and, as such, is something I take very seriously. I will attempt to evaluate every round as fairly as I can, while recognizing I do not check my status as a moral agent at the door. The one thing I like to be clear in these debates, therefore, is the role of the judge. I don’t mean that you have to include me in your movement, make me feel comfortable, or anything like that; I mean expecting me to evaluate what I’m supposed to do at the end of a debate round, with many moral issues on the table and no framework to deal with them, has the potential to give me a major panic attack. I don’t say this because I anticipate any such problem, but simply because it is a very real concern for my mental health and I want competitors to be aware.

Speaker Points:

26-30, unless you do something very rude or exclusionary.

Updated 4/11/23 -I haven't judged circuit debates in a hot minute, don’t go your top speed and develop your arguments more thoroughly than you normally would.

Email for speech docs: smitnich91@gmail.com. Make sure there’s parity in document access during the round.

My background: I did LD for 3 years. I was the director of debate at Hopkins for 4 years, coached at St. Thomas Academy & Visitation for 2 years, and have been the head coach at Apple Valley since 2017. I’ve worked at VBI since 2012 and I’m currently the director of instructional design and curriculum.

· Good debate involves well developed arguments and genuine interaction/clash with the other debater’s arguments.
I’m not going to be able to flow twenty back-to-back 1-sentence arguments at 400 WPM. If I didn’t initially catch the argument, then I’m not going to evaluate it.

· Quality >>>>>> quantity of arguments.

· I’m going to be skeptical of arguments that start out as 7 seconds of content but suddenly become multiple minutes of a final rebuttal. If the argument isn’t adequately developed in the speech that you initially make it then I’m likely not going to give you credit.

· Generally open to most arguments, but don’t forget that this competitive activity is also an educational activity. I understand progressive argument mechanics, but don’t assume I’m up to date on recent developments in the meta.

· Strategies designed to avoid meaningful engagement probably isn’t given me evidence you are doing the better debating.

Speed

Nope |---------------------X--------------| Heck ya

Stock/Traditional

Nope |----------------------------------X-| Heck ya

Policy

Nope |-----------------------X------------| Heck ya

· I think Nebel T is correct but am totally game for y’all to have a throwdown on this.

· There’s this odd trend to stray far from the core of the topic literature for some far-fetched x-risk scenario. Not a huge fan of this trend.

· You have to establish a baseline of credibility for me to care about your scenario. @ folks reading extinction impacts on the standardized tests topic.

Philosophy

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

· Cases should be built around the topic literature, not just the author/theory you want to read. If your contention is just analytics and/or cards written in a wildly different context than what the topic is about then it probably isn’t a very strong case.

· I think phil has mainly become a vehicle for tricks, which makes me sad.

Kritiks

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

· I used to be a giant K hack because I love critical theory. Unfortunately, K debates have become increasingly convoluted and clashphobic.

· I think the aff should probably defend the topic. That doesn’t mean there’s only one way to interpret a topic. I’ll listen to non-t affs, but framework debates will be an uphill battle for you. Just reading a contestable 1NC link card isn't a very persuasive argument for you not having to defend the topic.

Theory/T

Nope |------------X-----------------------| Heck ya

· Theory/T obviously has a place in debate since debaters are true artisans at inventing & discovering arguments & strategies that skew the playing field or rob the round of any educational value.

· That being said, theory/T debates happen way more frequently than they should.

· Theory/T needs to be sufficiently developed in the first speech that the argument is made.

· If the violation is absurd or silly it isn’t going to pass my sniff test. But once the sniff test has been passed, I’ll evaluate the theory/T debate as tab as I can. Default competing interps. Neutral on RVIs.

· You need to actually show that the crime fits the proposed punishment. I think offering an alternative punishment to solve the violation is a criminally neglected response to theory/T.

Tricks

Nope |---X--------------------------------| Heck ya

· Winning through tricks is rarely evidence that a debater is doing the better debating. When a hyper-focus on strategy comes at the expense of having an enriching experience in the round then I get sad.

· I almost never vote on presumption/permissibility/skepticism since there’s usually a risk of offense.

· I default to comparative worlds and need some convincing to adopt truth testing.

MISC

An important note for progressive debaters: if you’re debating someone that is a traditional debater or significantly less experienced than you then you should adjust what you do so that there can be an actual debate. Don’t read a non-topical Baudrillard AC at 450 wpm against a new novice. Don’t have your 1NC be skep and a PIC against a traditional debater who hasn't had the opportunity to learn about the mechanics of such arguments. Slow down and/or read arguments that your opponent can actually understand. Use your best judgement. If I think that you knowingly made choices that functionally preclude your opponent from engaging then I may murder your speaker points and/or drop you.

I care deeply about inclusion and accessibility within debate. I’m more than happy to vote against debaters who engage in practices that promote exclusion or inaccessibility, even if they’re winning on the flow. I’ll be a tab judge until you give me a good reason not to be.

I will yell clear or slow once or twice; after that it is up to you to pick up on non-verbal cues. I expect you to make serious alterations to your delivery if I’m forced to yell. I won’t vote on an argument, even if it is in the speech doc, if I didn’t flow it or understand when it was initially read in the round. I’m a trashcan judge to have in the back of the room when the rebuttals are filled with hundreds of 1 sentence arguments (especially for T/Theory debates) without real clash, impact analysis, and framing.

Speaker Points: The factors I focus on for determining speaker points are: strategic choices, execution, and how persuasive I found your argumentation. My normal range is 25-30, with 20-24.9 being reserved for super rough or problematic debating. My speaker points are relative to the strength of the pool: 30 for champion level performance, ~28.5 for a performance worth making it to elims, and I aim for ~27.5 as an average performance.

Amanda Soczynski’s Judge Philosophy

A little about myself; I have been involved with forensics for 19 years as a student, judge, and coach. I am currently in my 8th year as the congressional debate coach at Edina High School. My background was originally in speech where I competed and coached. In High School, I learned policy debate as a class rather than competition on a local level, so I competed but not in a typical local circuit. I have been judging debate for the last 13 years, in all categories. I judged CX for the first 5 years and the last 7 years in LD, PF and mostly Congress. I graduated with a Mass Communications degree from University of Minnesota School of Journalism and a J.D. graduate from William Mitchell College of law in 2014. I work at Thomson Reuters on legal software & research, as a content expert. I really love congress, watching, coaching. I always try to strive to do my best! If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask. My goal is always to be an educator and help you succeed!

If for some reason my parli notes don't end up in your results packet, email me at amandasoc@gmail.com or amanda.soczynski@edinaschools.org. I will send you my google doc. I parli a lot and I always take lots and lots of notes and try to give RFD's when I can. If you don't get the link. Please ask, I put a lot of work into them. ????

I have a congress paradigm and CX,LD,PF one included in here.

Evidence / Citations / Warrants for all categories: *note - Statista is not a source, it's like Wikipedia, it's a congregation website not actually doing any of the studies that are on there. If you copy and paste the title of the stat you're looking at it will likely take you to the original source. Also the little (i) icon often will tell you where it can from. DON'T USE STATISTA as a source with me. I am a professional researcher by trade, so I care about citations! They matter and if they are from a source I don't know or if they're suspicious to me, I will google them.

Congress Paradigm:

General:

One thing to remember - judging congress is hard! It's just as exhausting for us as it is for you. We're trying really hard to compare a lot of people who have vastly different styles! I try to write as much as I can, but I spend a lot of time listening, so sometimes my comments can be lite at times. I'm working on that, the three mins go so fast. I'm hoping this will help shed some light on how I evaluate debaters.

When it comes to national level tournaments, at this point, almost everyone is a proficient speaker, so I really focus on the quality of arguments and ability to be flexible in round. Being a well rounded debater is important for me, especially as a Parli. I want to see a variety of type of speeches, and ability to switch sides, and flex to what the round demands. Make sure you are listening and not rehashing, if you're doing a rebuttal make sure you are extending or further attacking an argument.

I REALLY APPRECIATE A GOOD AUTHORSHIP OR SPONSORSHIP. Nothing is worse than judging or watching a semi-final round where there is no first aff, and having to take an in house recess immediately. Come prepared, have one. Spend the rest of your time doing great questions and defending your position there. I feel like people don't like to do this because they feel like they will be dropped. Rebuttals and Crystals are great, but there's a lot of them. If you can do this well, we'll know. It comes with the most amount of questioning time that if you know a lot about the topic you can show boat.

Linking: This is a debate skill you should have, you should able to link your impacts with others, link arguments together for rebuttal. Most national level congress debaters are great at linking within their own argument, but make sure you link and contextualize to the round. I want to see that they go together rather be a stand alone. That being said, contextualizing by: "I want to separate myself from the other AFF or NEG arguments", that's okay because you are still contextualizing within the round. Do not operate as an island in the debate, it's a good way to be dropped by me. Also remember, you can have great speeches, but if you don't ask questions, you're going to find your way to the middle of my ballot. It's a crucial part of debate.

Impacting:

THIS IS SO IMPORTANT. Again, at the national level, most people can impact to lives or economy etc. But what I find people aren't as good, is contextualizing the impact. Example: You tell me that thousands of lives are being lost in Yemen, take it one step further tell me what percentage of that population is being killed, or how that compares to another genocide for context. Make it hit home for all of us. Just giving generic #'s, sure it's the impact, but it doesn't show me the impact. Make sense? Remember I come from a policy background where pretty much everything leads to nuclear war.

Questioning:

Direct questioning is great, but make sure you're not too long winded or too brief, there's a nice sweet spot, where you have maybe a sentence or two question and answer. I've seen people basically run out the time by doing a really long answer, and I've also seen debaters ask such long questions that there's no way the opponent can answer. You only have 30 seconds, make it count.

Participation in Round:

Leadership is important. Remember, I'm comparing a lot of kids, participation with motioning and making sure that all students get to talk is important. This can help make up for bad presidency etc.

PO:

I almost always rank P.O.s in the top 5. It's a hard job, and as a parli, we appreciate good POs. A good way to get to the top 1/2 of my ballot as a PO. The round runs so smoothly I barely know you're there. You are able to solve issues of people not being prepared / docket issues. (This happens so often, time restrictions make things complicated. Especially since lots of tournaments have their own rules).

Mistakes happen, one mistake is not going to tank you. Continuous mistakes, or failing to help chamber resolve issues. This makes it harder. Fairness is also important, I notice when you pick your teammates repeatedly or if you always start in the middle of the room.

Inclusiveness - especially on the local circuit. I don't like parliamentary procedure used to limit people talking. It is also important to encourage those who haven't talked to go. Do your best to make sure the chamber is inclusive.

DON'T ALWAYS PICK YOUR FRIENDS FIRST. I know this happens. And it's easier to pick up than you think it is. Presidency means a lot in congress. Make it fair.

There's a reason I love coaching congress, it's a fun event!

CX/LD/PF Paradigm

General: As I’ve previously mentioned I come from a legal background. I am a “big picture” judge. I do appreciate the attention to detail, however, I don't like when it devolves into a debate that’s myopically focused on one thing. Make sure you take the time, especially in rebuttals to do a “birds eye view” of the debate. Remember, the rebuttal is the last time I hear from you before I make a decision, make it count. I appreciate good crossfire, and cross ex, specifically using information obtained in these for an argument.

Topicality: I like topicality, especially in varsity level debate. I think it makes a for a boring debate to have a non-topical aff. So it’s a pretty garden variety argument for the neg to make.

Critical Arguments: As I wasn’t a debater in high school, I don’t have the technical experience dealing with these arguments, however, I don’t mind critical affs on-face. Since I don’t have the technical experience, I appreciate all critical arguments to be understandable and explained properly. I catch on to arguments quickly, however I loathe having to have to fill in the gaps of an argument because its poorly argued. Make it logical, make it understandable. I generally dislike affs that are anti-topical or affs that critique the topic. I’m not saying I’ll never vote for a critical aff, whiteness aff, performance aff’s, etc, but its the one area where an affirmative is asking the most out of me as a judge. Again, I have less experience with these types of aff’s so extra explanation of sources and philosophies. For kritiks from the negative, I prefer ones that are topic-specific rather than K’s that are broad or philosophical. I’m pretty familiar at this point with cap k, neolib, fem, eco-k, anything outside of these again you’ll have to communicate more effectively as it is a bigger burden for me to decipher.

Theory: I don’t have the background in this, so this won’t be very successful with me as a judge. I overall prefer substantive arguments over theoretical or procedural arguments. My training in law, and my work, deals almost exclusively with substantive arguments, so I tend to prefer and understand those better. If you do decide to go this route, it must be very well done. My flow can’t be muddy, and the explanation must be very logical and understandable.

Speed: I have no problem with speed. I do ask two things. 1. Slow down enough on the tags so that I can understand them 2. Make your tags count. I dislike deciphering poor tags that do not tell me anything about the evidence. Keep tags like 5-8 words, long tags suck.

Post Round Discussion: Please be respectful, I don’t appreciate a “shake down” when I’m explaining my decision. I don’t do speaker points till after the round is over and all the debaters have left the room and I take decorum into account. I am a bit of a non-traditional judge and I do make a concerted effort to bring up constructive criticism and positive comments. Please take these comments as an opportunity to learn!

I coached LD, PF and Congress for 8 years at Chanhassen High School in Minnesota.

Reaffirmed 1-21-23

Lincoln Douglas

My entire career has been coaching at a school that does traditional-ish LD. If you want a judge with more experience in/sympathy for national-circuit-style debate, I would put me as a low pref--for no better reason than you might be disappointed with how I evaluate the round. If you are reading this, chances are rounds have already been paired and you are stuck with me. Sorry. I'll do the best I can.

If you only have a few minutes before the round and don't want to spend that time listening to my rambling I'd sum it up as follows:

Research, evidence, truth.

What I value about the activity of debate is the research and argument-creating process. I am aware of the variety of resources from which debaters can draw arguments and evidence, and I am not insensitive to the reasons why many choose to do so. However, I really disfavor debates that center around arguments and cases that I am well-aware you did not write. Stock K's, generic constructives, and canned CPs disappoint me as a coach and as an educator.

What disappoints me even more than running things that you did not research and write is when you run things that you do not understand. It doesn't take talent or care to write a punchy frontline and cut a card from Baudrillard's gibberish. I want to leave the round feeling like we have all come closer to understanding the truth, not running a race to the most obscure and convoluted.

I want to see good evidence. Please cite the author and the publication. Not all sources are equal. I expect your warrant to literally support the conclusion you state as your frontline. Sources aren't important just because somebody said them; credibility and persuasiveness rests upon credentials and, more importantly the author's logic. If you can't explain why author reaches conclusion X, you haven't created a complete warrant. If you are moving from an evidence warrant to an analytic warrant, you need to make that distinction; don't tell me the card supports your conclusion when it only does half the work. This goes for framework too. Your card doesn't say "the role of the ballot is rejecting oppression." The card says oppression is bad. You are saying that, therefore, the role of the ballot is to XYZ.

I will always be skeptical of cards about debate or written by debaters. I don't find forum or blog posts written by coaches, judges, or former debaters to be the kind of credible, disinterested evidence that we should be using in this activity.

Here is a more concrete list of the things that I do and do not want to see.

1. I don't read the wiki, I will not read your case as you run it, and making your case public ahead of the round does not give you license to run something abusive. Please don't run disclosure theory; I won't evaluate it.

2. I prefer quick and articulate over fast. I'm not adept at discerning spreading, and I will more likely let things fall through the cracks than remind you every 15 seconds to slow down or speak clearly. Your call though.

3. I like kritiks and think they are a good expression of what you can do in this activity, but not all kritiks link to the resolution, and I'm not going to go for bad links. This probably means that you'll need to do more work than just pulling up your camp backfiles and reading your stock will-to-power K.

4. I think formalized theory arguments dumb down debate.

5. I don't think plans are actually affirming, but I'd entertain somebody who wanted to change that perspective

6. Counterplans are cool.

7. Do not argue with me after the round. You're debating your opponent, you accept that I'm the expert. I assume that the losing team is going to say that I'm wrong.

8. I don't like performance or narrative. I'd prefer substance debate.

I'm not as grumpy as this paradigm makes me seem, and I am a qualified and experienced judge.

Public Forum
I coach IE as well as debate, and I specialize in Oratory and Extemp Speaking. My ideal PF round would have the content and argumentation of Extemp with the oratory skills of OO. That is my 30. Unfortunately, I know that a lot of teams sacrifice oratory skills to get in more information, and that is fine with me. Speak fast, but don’t get into LD/Policy territory.

I’m all about weighing. Rarely can a team eliminate all offense from their opponents, so this requires some sort of weighing metric. Magnitude = Probability x Scope. That how I teach my kids, but you can weigh however you’d like, just make sure you do it.

Things I hate in PF: 1) Supercharged impacts. I know that thermonuclear holocaust is a bigger impact than a loss in GDP, but that doesn’t mean that you can find a link from Public Subsidies to nuclear war. If it is a stretch, I will do my best to find a way to vote against it. 2) Complicated framework. Cost/Benefit is the default framework for PF. If you want to argue deontology, you are in the wrong event. That being said, I understand that different resolutions require certain limits on the debate. Be fair and don’t try to rule out arguments rather than debate them. 3) Assuming the judge will intervene. I’ve seen this run rampant in my local circuit—teams trying to refute their opponents by reading a card and then moving onto the next argument. I need you to tell me what to do with your arguments. I will do everything I can to stay completely out of the debate. If you need me to do your work for you, we’ll have a rough round.
Besides that, I am a straight-forward PF judge. Debate the issues in the resolution, don’t try any semantic hocus pocus.

I debated LD for three years for Strake Jesuit (after a brief period in PF). I qualified for TFA State and TOC in LD, and I have instructed at TDC and NSD. I am conflicted with Strake Jesuit. Contact me/add me to docs at jpstuckert@gmail.com

You can call me "JP." "James," "Mr. Stuckert" or "judge" are fine but weird to me.

For online rounds:

1. Keeping local recordings of speeches is good. You should do it.
2. If I or another judge call “clear” video chat systems often cut your audio for a second. This means (a) you should prioritize clarity to avoid this and (b) even repeat yourself when “clear” is called if it’s a particularly important argument.
3. I don’t like to read off docs, but if there's an audio problem in an online round, I will glance to make sure I at least know where you are. I would really prefer not to be asked to backflow from a doc if there's a tech issue, hence local recordings above.
4. You should probably be at like 70% of your normal speed while online.

· I aim to be a neutral party minimizing intervention while evaluating arguments made within the speech times/structure set by the tournament or activity to pick one winner and loser for myself. Some implications:

o The speech structure of LD includes CX. Don't take it as prep and don't go back on something you commit to in CX (unless it's a quick correction when you misspeak, or is something ambiguous). I generally flow cx and factor it into speaker points, but arguments must still be made in other speeches.

o The speech structure also precludes overt newness. Arguments which are new in later speeches should be implications, refutations, weighing or extensions of already existing arguments. Whether 2N or 2AR weighing is allowable is up for debate and probably contextual. Reversing a stance you have already taken is newness -- e.g. you can't kick out of weighing you made if your opponent didn't answer it. (Obviously you can kick condo advocacies unless you lose theory.)

o I won't listen to double-win or double-loss arguments or anything of the sort. You also can't argue that you should be allowed to go over your speech time.

o Being a neutral party means my decision shouldn't involve anything about you or your opponent that would render me a conflict. If I were involved in your prefs, I would consider myself to essentially be a coach, so I won't listen to pref/strike Ks. If other types of out-of-round conduct impact the round, I will evaluate it (e.g. disclosure).

o Judge instruction and standards of justification on the flow are very important, and if they are not explicit, I look to see if they are implicit before bringing to bear my out-of-round inclinations. If two debaters implicitly agree on some framing issue, I treat it as a given.

o Evidence ethics: I will allow a debater to ask to stake the round on an evidence ethics issue if it involves: (1) brackets/cutting that changes the meaning of a card; (2) outright miss-attribution including lying about an author's name, qualifications, or their actual position; (3) alterations to the text being quoted including ellipses, mid-paragraph cutting, and changing words without brackets. Besides these issues, you can challenge evidence with theory or to make a point on the line-by-line. For me, you should resolve the following on the flow: (1) brackets that don't change meaning; (2) taking an author's argument as a premise for a larger position they might not totally endorse; (3) cases where block quotes or odd formatting makes it unclear if something is a mid-paragraph cut; (4) not being able to produce a digital copy of a source in-round. If another judge on a panel has a broader view on what the round can be staked on, I'll just default to agreeing it is a round-staking issue.

· Despite my intention to avoid intervention, I am probably biased in the following ways:

o On things like T framework and disclosure I think there is an under-discussed gap between "voting on theory can set norms" to "your vote will promote no more and no less than the text of my interp in this activity."

o I will be strongly biased against overtly offensive things (arguments which directly contravene the basic humanity of a marginalized group). I don’t think it’s prima facie offensive to read moral philosophy that denies some acts are intrinsically evil (like skep or strict ends-based ethical theories) or which denies that consequences are morally relevant (like skep or strict means-based theories). I also don't think generic impact turns against big stick impacts are innately offensive. But I will certainly listen to Ks or independent voters indicting any of those things.

· Other:

o Speaks: each speech counts, including CX. Strategy and well-warranted arguments are the two biggest factors. My range typically doesn't go outside 28 to 29.5. I adjust based on how competitive the tournament is. I don't disclose them.

o Be polite to novices, even if you can win a round in 20 seconds it’s not always kind to do so. Just be aware of how your actions might make them feel.

o I am usually unpersuaded by rhetorical appeals that take it for granted that some debate styles (K, LARP, phil, theory, tricks) are worse than others, but you can and should make warranted arguments comparing models of debate.

Most important datum: As of Minneapple 2018 (for which I'm writing this paradigm), I haven't seen a debate round or thought about debate since TOC 2017. I was never particularly great at understanding or flowing fast debates, and I can only imagine I've gotten significantly worse in the last 18 months. Also, whatever new fads or jargon have emerged in that time, I'm completely unaware of them.

Background: I debated LD for two years in high school (2003-5) and coached for about 12 years after graduating, mainly for schools in the Midwest. I'm now an academic, with a background in analytic philosophy.

"Paradigm proper": My default view of debate (which I'm open to revising in round on the basis of argument) is as follows: (1) As the judge, I adopt a "neutral prior" for purposes of the round -- an assignment of probabilities to the various propositions that might play a role in the debate that assigns the resolution a 50% probability of being true and assigns probabilities to other contentious propositions that reflect a neutral/conservative (conservative = erring in the direction of 50/50) balance of reasonable opinion. (2) I update those beliefs based on the arguments and evidence presented in round. (3) If, after those updates, the resolution is more likely true than false, then I affirm. If it's more likely false than true, then I negate.

Presentation/delivery preferences: In principle, I have no problem with speed. But, like I said above, I've never been especially good at understanding or flowing it, and I'll try to be very strict about not voting on any argument that I didn't flow the first time around. If you're clear, but I'm just failing to flow you because you're fast and I'm old, I'll yell "slow." If you're sufficiently unclear, I'll yell "clear," but after I've yelled "clear" once, I don't promise that I'll yell it again any time you're unclear. It's on you to adjust, significantly and permanently, to become clear. If you're unclear enough that individual words are getting lost, I won't do very much interpolating for you.

Argumentation preferences: I'm open to anything, but (a) I'll only vote on an argument if I understand it, and I think I have a higher standard for what it means to "understand" an argument than a lot of judges -- specifically, I should be able to identify premises and conclusion in what you said (without interpolation) such that the premises reasonably and significantly support the conclusion; and (b) I'll weight arguments, to some extent, by the prior plausibility of the premises. (If an argument depends on an apparently implausible premise, then that premise ought to be supported by an argument of its own.)

In more nuts-and-bolts terms: (1) I tend to think that most "critical" arguments are just a mix of banalities and absurdities dressed up in obfuscating and poorly defined jargon, though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise in any particular instance. (2) I don't particularly like theory debates, and I have a pretty high threshold for abuse claims. (3) I'm very skeptical of very long, very specific causal link chains. (4) I'm somewhat skeptical of normative frameworks that don't care at all about consequences.

The best way to get my ballot is a deeply justified and prima facie plausible normative framework coupled with contention arguments that, where they rely on empirical claims, are justified by high-quality empirical evidence that you know backwards and forwards, and where they rely on predictive/causal claims, are robust in the sense that they don't depend on a lot of very specific and jointly improbable assumptions.

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

Ks

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

CP

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

T

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

Affiliation: Marlborough (CA), Apple Valley (MN)

Past: Peninsula (CA), Lexington (MA)

Email: ctheis09@gmail.com — but I prefer to use speechdrop.net

Big Picture

I like substantive and engaging debates focused on the topic's core controversies. While I greatly appreciate creative strategy, I prefer deeply warranted arguments backed by solid evidence to absurd arguments made for purely tactical reasons.

I find the tech or truth construction to be reductive — both matter. I will try to evaluate claims through a more-or-less Bayesian lens. This means my knowledge of the world establishes a baseline for the plausibility of claims, and those priors are updated by the arguments made in a debate. This doesn’t mean I’ll intervene based on my preexisting beliefs; instead, it will take much more to win that 2+2=5 than to prove that grass is green.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" — Carl Sagan

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" — Christopher Hitchens

Default Paradigm

I default to viewing resolutions as normative statements that divide ground, but I’m open to arguments in favor of alternative paradigms. In general, I believe the affirmative should defend a topical policy action that's a shift from the status quo. The negative burden is generally to defend the desirability of the status quo or competitive advocacy.

Affirmatives should advocate a clearly delineated plan or advocacy, which can be the resolution itself. The aff's advocacy text is the basis for negative competition and links, and as such, it must contain any information the aff feels is relevant to those discussions. Affs cannot refuse to specify or answer questions regarding elements of their advocacy and then later make permutations or no-link arguments that depend on those elements. "Normal means" claims can be an exception but require evidence that the feature in question is assumed. Proof that some possible version of the aff could include such a feature is insufficient. Refusal to answer direct questions about a particular element of the advocacy will likely take "normal means" claims off the table.

I prefer policy/stock arguments, but I’m certainly open to critical or philosophical positions and vote for them often.

If you refer to your arguments as “tricks,” it’s a good sign that I’m not the best judge for you. Debaters should, whenever possible, advance the best arguments at their disposal. Calling your argument a "trick" implies its value lies in surprise or deception, not quality.

Note: an odd topic construction could alter these priors, but I'll do my best to make that known here if that's the case.

Topicality

Generally, affirmatives should be topical. I have and will vote for non-topical positions, but the burden is on the aff to justify why the topicality constraint shouldn't apply to them.

Topicality is a question of whether the features of the plan/advocacy itself being a good idea proves the resolution. This means I will look unfavorably on a position that is effects topical, extra-topical, or related to the topic but doesn't in and of itself prove the resolution.

In topicality debates, both semantics and pragmatic justifications are essential. However, interpretations must be "semantically eligible" before I evaluate pragmatic advantages. Pragmatic advantages are relevant in deciding between plausible interpretations of the words in the resolution; pragmatics can't make those words mean something they don't. I will err aff if topicality is a close call.

Theory Defaults

Affs nearly always must disclose 30 min before start time, and both debaters should disclose which AC they will read before elim flips.

Affirmatives should usually be topical.

Plans are good, but they need to be consistent with the wording of the topic.

Extra T is probably bad

Severance is bad

Intrinsicness is usually bad, but I'm open to intrinsic perms in response to process cps

Conditionality is OK

PICs are OK

Alt agent fiat is probably bad

Competing interpretations>reasonability, usually

Probably no RVIs

Almost certainly no RVIs on Topicality

I don't like arguments that place artificial constraints on paradigm issues based on the speech in which they are presented.

No inserting evidence. Re-highlights should be read aloud.

Kritiks

I am open to Ks and vote on them frequently. That said, I’m not intimately familiar with every critical literature base. So, clear explanation, framing, and argument interaction are essential. Likewise, the more material your impacts and alternative are, the better. Again, the more unlikely the claim, the higher the burden of proof. It will take more to convince me of the strongest claims of psychoanalysis than that capitalism results in exploitation.

Establishing clear links that generate offense is necessary. Too often, Ks try to turn fundamentally defensive claims into offense via jargon and obfuscation. A claim that the aff can’t or doesn't solve some impact is not necessarily a claim the aff is a bad idea.

It's essential that I understand the alternative and how it resolves the harms of the Kritik. I won't vote for an advocacy that I can't confidently articulate.

Arguments I will not vote for

An argument that has no normative implications, except in situations where the debater develops and wins an argument that changes my default assumptions.

Skep.

A strategy that purposely attempts to wash the debate to trigger permissibility/presumption.

A contingent framework/advocacy that is "triggered" in a later speech.

Any argument that asks me to evaluate the debate after a speech that isn't the 2AR.

Arguments/Practices I will immediately drop you for

Mis-disclosing/disclosure games. (There is an emerging practice of hiding/adding theory arguments or tricks to the AC without including them in the doc that's disclosed pre-round and/or the doc sent out in the debate. This is intentional deception and will result in an automatic loss).

Clipping. (There is an emerging practice of including long descriptive tags in the docs sent out during debates but only reading truncated versions. I consider this clipping. By sending those analytics you're representing, they were read in the round.)

Any argument that concludes that every action is permissible.

Any argument that creates a hostile environment for either myself, the other debater, or anyone watching the debate.

Any argument that explicitly argues that something we all agree is awful (genocide, rape, etc.) is a good thing. This must be an argument THAT THE DEBATER AGREES implies horrible things are ok. If the other debater wins an argument that your framework justifies something terrible, but it is contested, then it may count as a reason not to accept your framework, but it will not be a reason to drop you on its own.

Public Forum

I only judge PF a few times a year, mostly at camp. Arguments are arguments regardless of the format, so most of my typical paradigm applies. The big caveat is that I strongly prefer teams read actual cards instead of paraphrasing evidence. I understand that there are differences of opinion, so I won't discount paraphrasing entirely, but I'll have a lower bar for indicts. Also, I'm not reading ten full articles at the end of the debate, so I'd appreciate it if you could prepare the paraphrased portions in advance.

Paradigm Updated 8/2/2018

Email: marshall@victorybriefs.com

Background

I graduated from Walt Whitman high-school in 2011. I have been coaching debate fairly regularly since then and currently direct curriculum at VBI. My debaters have consistently gotten to late elims at major national tournaments including TOC.

In my non-debate life I am pursuing a PhD in Philosophy at Florida State University. My primary area of focus is in ethics and the nature of persons. I work in the analytic philosophical tradition with a focus on the work of Elizabeth Anscombe.

Conflicts

I am conflicted from Harrison HS

5-Min Before Round Paradigm (how i'm different from the average judge)

1. I am more interventionist than most circuit judges. I am willing to do work to not vote on extremely silly arguments. Arguments I have admitted to doing work to avoid voting on include:

- Drop the debater because they read dates after their card names, rather than numbering the cards with the same author name.

- Prefer aff offense on any given layer, extended as saying aff always win weighing.

- 'I meet' I did not read that argument, I extemped it.

- They forgot to say 'I meet' on theory, even though they did indeed extend a plan text.

That said, I am probably more willing than most judges to deviate from mere community convention when it comes to argumentation. For example, I am quite receptive to arguments that the affirmative should get intrinsicness perms and that philosophical frameworks frame theory offense.

2. I am worse at flowing than perhaps any other circuit judge. I'm extremely dyslexic/dysgraphic and my flows tend to be extremely poor even when typing them. However, I can follow the vast majority of rounds, even fairly technical rounds, pretty well in my head. So, you can still be technical however it will be important to spend more time in the 2ar and 2nr doing big picture analysis and comparison than it is for most circuit judges (and for most judges it is more important than students seem to realize).

3. You should win the round because you can beat your opponent's arguments, not because your opponent cannot make arguments. This means if you read super complex Ks against a novice your speaks will suffer a lot. In general, if you structure the debate in a way that you should have known your opponent could not engage you speaks will be capped at 26.

4. I hold positions to a higher standard of clarity and explanation than most judges. I not only need to understand your position when you first read it (and I have no problem admitting when I do not), but the explanation has to be good enough that I think it is reasonable for a reasonably well-informed high-school student to understand the argument. Thus, if you say 'Morality’s directives can only be categorically binding if they are constitutive of agency, as otherwise they are escapable' that is not an adequate explanation of the argument. The only reason I know what that means, is because I know the actual argument that it's a placeholder for. Similarly, if you say 'prefer competing interpretations because it prevents a race to the bottom and reasonability is arbitrary' I will not fill in for you the many missing internal links and extrapolation needed for that to mean something.

5. You can answer preemptive arguments after they are extended and applied. You don't need to answer them in the first speech. E.g. you can answer AC spikes in the 2nr, or NC spikes in the 2ar.

6. Preptime ends when you remove the flash drive from your computer, or when you hit send on the email. Compiling speech docs is on time.

7. Some debaters are unclear when they spread. Others are just going too fast for the complexity of the arguments. If you are unclear I will say 'clear'. If you are going too fast for how complex your argument is I will either say 'slow' or 'AURGHBLUGGGGG' in a distraught tone.

8. [Update midway through apple valley] I have found that I functionally cap negative speaks at 28.5 if you go for more than two distinct levels of offense in the 2nr. I think collapsing is a non-negotiable component of good debating which speaker points are designed to reflect.

Broader Paradigmatic Considerations: Things I believe but will still do my best to decide on the flow

Theory/T Beliefs

A) The Aff should be topical.

B) Many LD resolutions are generics, and many 'plans' don't prove generics true.

C) There is no good argument for the RVI.

D) Theoretical advantages should not replace substantive argumentation. E.g. this FW is super educational should not be able to be a warrant for your ethical theory (note that many Role of the Ballots have this same problem).

E) Framework argument can, and should be, applied to theory debates. If util is false, than deterrence is probably not a good reason to drop the debater on theory.

F) Ad hoc interpretations are bad.

G) Most theory is not drop the debater. The sensible conclusion is normally drop the argument or something else.

H) Something being difficult to answer does not make it unfair. Similarly, proving a theoretical assumption of the aff is false, does not prove the aff did something unfair in making that theoretical claim.

K Beliefs

A)The Aff should be topical.

B) K arguments that talk about what the debater should have done I tend to think about as theory shells. Ks that talk about what the government should have done I tend to think about as a dis ad + a counterplan.

C) Reasons the affirmative ethical theory is bad, is normally not a reason the affirmative loses. Just a reason we should assess the resolution under a different ethical theory. Obviously this is not universal nor incontestable.

D) If your K can result in the action of the aff then you need to say so in the NC. The K solves the aff offense by resulting in the aff is new if made in the 2nr.

Policy Beliefs

A) Condo is fine in most situations as are intrisicness perms (though you cannot fiat into the future, only within the timeframe suggested by the resolution).

B) Uniqueness arguments are probabilistic, not absolute. For example, suppose a republican win in the house and senate will certainly lead to extinction, and a democratic win in either will certainly prevent that extinction. Now imagine two cases. First, the neg wins republican win is likely now (about 60%) and a link that increases the republican chance of winning (moving democrat chances down to 40%). Here the aff has increased the chance of extinction by 20%. However, suppose that the aff reads cards on uniqueness showing a republican win is actually more likely (so the chance of dem's win starts at 40%). Still if the link evidence is the same strength (and so move the dem's chances to 20%) the impact is still the same (affirming increases the chance of extinction by 20%).

Aaron Timmons

Director of Debate – Greenhill School

Former Coach USA Debate Team

Curriculum Director Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshops

Updated – April 2024

Please put me on the email chain – timmonsa@greenhill.org

Contact me with questions.

General Musings

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is a critic of argument (if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label as a judge). I will evaluate your performance in as objective a method as possible. Unlike many adjudicators claim to be, I am not a blank slate. I will intervene if I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round. I WILL do my best to objectively evaluate your arguments, but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode (even hear) arguments is not true (nor true for anyone.)

I have coached multiple National and/or State Champions in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and World Schools Debate (in addition to interpretation/speech events). I still actively coach and I am involved in the strategy and argument creation of my students who compete for my school. Given the demands on my time, I do not cut as many cards as I once did for Policy and Lincoln Douglas. That said, I am more than aware of the arguments and positions being run in both of these formats week in and week out.

General thoughts on how I decide debates:

1 – Debate is a communication activity – I will flow what you say in speeches as opposed to flowing off of the speech documents (for the events that share documents). If I need to read cards to resolve an issue, I will do so but until ethos and pathos (re)gain status as equal partners with logos in the persuasion triangle, we will continue to have debates decided only on what is “in the speech doc.” Speech > speech doc.

2 – Be mindful of your “maximum rate of efficiency” – aka, you may be trying to go faster than you are capable of speaking in a comprehensible way. The rate of speed Is not a problem in many contemporary debates, the lack of clarity is an increasing concern. Unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together do not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think they might. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable. This does NOT mean you have to be slow; it does mean you need to be clear.

3 – Evidence is important - In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues and warrants (particularly empirical ones), are important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, but I am also likely to prefer your argument if the comparisons are done well.

4 – Online Debating – We have had two years to figure this out. My camera will be on. I expect that your camera is on as well unless there is a technical issue that cannot/has not been resolved in our time online. If there is an equity/home issue that necessitates that your camera is off, I understand that and will defer to your desire to it be off if that is the case. A simple, “I would prefer for my camera to be off” will suffice to inform me of your request.

5 – Disclosure is good (on balance) – I feel that debaters/teams should disclose on the wiki. I have been an advocate of disclosure for decades. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate. While I do think things like full source and/or round reports are good educational practices, I am not interested in hearing debates about those issues. ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.

6 – Zero risk is a possibility – There is a possibility of zero risks of an advantage or a disadvantage.

7 – My role as a judge - I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence after the debate that was not done by the students.

8 – Debate the case – It is a forgotten art. Your points will increase, and it expands the options for you to win the debate in the final negative rebuttal.

9 – Good “judge instructions” will make my job easier – While I am happy to make my judgments and comparisons between competing claims, I feel that students making those comparisons, laying out the order of operations, articulating “even/if” considerations, telling me how to weigh and then CHOOSING in the final rebuttals, will serve debaters well (and reduce frustrations on both our parts0.

10 – Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.

11 - Flowing is a prerequisite to good debating (and judging) - You should flow. I will be flowing your speech not from the doc, but your actual speech..

Policy Debate

I enjoy policy debate and given my time in the activity I have judged, coached, and seen some amazing students over the years.

A few thoughts on how I view judging policy debate:

Topicality vs Conventional Affs:

Traditional concepts of competing interpretations can be mundane and sometimes result in silly debates. Limiting out one affirmative will not save/protect limits or negative ground. Likewise, reasonability in a vacuum without there being a metric on what that means and how it informs my interpretation vis a vis the resolution lacks nuance as well. Topicality debaters who can frame what the topic should look like based on the topic, and preferably evidence to support why interpretation makes sense will be rewarded. The next step is saying why a more limiting (juxtaposed to the most limiting) topic makes sense helps to frame the way I would think about that version of the topic. A case list of what would be topical under your interpretation would help as would a list of core negative arguments that are excluded if we accept the affirmative interpretation or model of debate.

Topicality/FW vs critical affirmatives:

First – The affirmative needs to do something (and be willing to defend what that is). The negative needs to win that performance is net bad/worse than an alternative (be it the status quo, a counterplan, or a K alternative).

Second – The negative should have access to ground, but they do not get to predetermine what that is. Just because your generic da or counterplan does not apply to the affirmative does not mean the affirmative cannot be tested.

Conditionality

Conditionality is good but only in a limited sense. I do not think the negative gets unlimited options (even against a new affirmative). While the negative can have multiple counter plans, the affirmative will get leeway to creatively (re)explain permutations if the negative kicks (or attempts to add) planks to the counterplan(s), the 1ar will get some flexibility to respond to this negative move.

Counterplans and Disads:

Counterplans are your friend. Counterplans need a net benefit (reasons the affirmative is a bad/less than desirable idea. Knowing the difference between an advantage to the counterplan and a real net benefit seems to be a low bar. Process counterplans are harder to defend as competitive and I am sympathetic to affirmative permutations. I have a higher standard for many on permutations as I believe that in the 2AC “perm do the counterplan” and/or “perm do the alternative” do nothing to explain what that world looks like. If the affirmative takes another few moments to explain these arguments, that increases the pressure on the 2nr to be more precise in responding to these arguments.

Disadvantages that are specific to the advocacy of the affirmative will get you high points.

Lincoln Douglas

I have had students succeed at the highest levels of Lincoln Douglas Debate including multiple champions of NSDA, NDCA, the Tournament of Champions, as well as the Texas Forensic Association State Championships.

Theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex;” it cannot be unlimited. The negative does not need to run more than four off-case arguments

Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.

I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other team’s arguments. At its foundation, the debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.

I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.

I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.

Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seem silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card does not mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clashes are a necessary component of the debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of the clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. Any argument that says the other side cannot answer your position is fast-tracking to an L (with burnt cheese and marinara on top).

It takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Cross apply much of the policy section as well as the general musings on debate.

World Schools

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes. Countless times.

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

How would you describe World Schools Debate to someone else?

World Schools is modeled after parliament having argumentation presented in a way that is conversational, yet argumentatively rigorous. Debates are balanced between motions that are prepared, while some are impromptu. Points of Information (POIs) are a unique component of the format as speakers can be interrupted by their opponent by them asking a question or making a statement.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate? (required)

I keep a rigorous flow throughout the debate.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

These should be prioritized and compared by the students in the round. I do not have an ideological preference between principled or practical arguments.

The World Schools Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

Strategy (simply put) is how they utilize the content that has been introduced in the debate.

World Schools Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker were going too fast?

Style.

World Schools Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

Students are required to use analysis, examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side then make comparative claims about the superiority of their position.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Model quibbles are not fully developed arguments if they are only questions that are not fully developed or have an articulated impact.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I utilize the approach of comparative worlds to evaluate competing methods for resolving mutual problems/harms. The proposition must defend its model as being comparatively advantageous over a given alternative posed by the opposition. While many feel in World Schools a countermodel must be mutually exclusive. While that certainly is one method of assessing if a countermodel truly ‘forces a choice,” a feel a better stand is that of net benefits. The question should be if it is desirable to do both the propositions model and the opposition countermodel at the same time. If it is possible to do both without any undesirable outcomes, the negative has failed to prove the desirability of their countermodel. The opposition should explain why doing both would be a bad idea. The proposition should advance an argument as to why doing both is better than adopting the countermodel alone.

I was an LD debater for St. Louis Park High School for four years and a policy debater for the University of Minnesota for four years. I coached for St. Louis Park throughout college and have taught at various LD summer debate camps, including NSD, CDI, and VBI. I’m also a Ph.D. student in philosophy at Rutgers University. I’ve mostly taken a break from debate the last couple of years to focus on my dissertation, so while I have plenty of debate experience, I might not be up on the latest trends.

I’ll listen to and give reasonable speaker points for pretty much any style of debate or argument. There are some arguments that I don’t find persuasive, like theory, but that hasn’t stopped me from voting for those arguments, and I don’t think it has much of an impact on my judging. I tend to give more speaker points for creative arguments and interesting strategies because I like to reward risk-taking, but those things certainly aren’t necessary for high speaker points. Do whatever you want to do, but do it well.

I’m not ideologically opposed to speed, but I’m rusty enough that I don’t recommend going super-fast. I’m willing to yell ‘clear’ if I’m missing most of your arguments, but the slower you go, the more I’ll catch. If it’s clear that your opponent isn’t understanding you, you will get better speaker points if you slow down on their behalf. Relatedly, you’ll get better speaker points if you’re helpful during your opponent’s cross examination. Don’t intentionally waste time or be a jerk.

I try not to call cards or other material unless the situation demands it. If there is a debate about the details of a card’s wording, I’ll call the card. If you weren’t clear when reading the card or explaining it, that’s on you.

I like clear rounds and responsive arguments. To that end, compare your arguments to your opponent’s arguments and avoid reading non-responsive blocks. For example, a 7-minute kritik that doesn’t have anything to do with what your opponent said is not impressive and makes for a confusing round. A 7-minute kritik that has specific links to your opponent’s arguments and specific arguments comparing your impacts to your opponent’s impacts will get better speaker points.

Let me know if you have any questions!

Update for Nationals 2021:

I am a math and philosophy major in college as of right now. It has been months since I last judged LD.

I listen to all arguments and judge the round solely based on arguments provided in the round, unless I deem an argument outlandishly false or offensive.

If you make the ballot easier for me to decide, your speaker points are going to be higher. This means to make the round clear.

Do not assume that I am familiar with your position. A good overview and thorough explanations are always appreciated. They will likely win the round for you.

Please don't spread (that means don't speak like Eminem in Rap God).

Have fun! I always welcome paradigm questions before round.

Update October 23, 2020:

I won't say slow or clear on the internet environment. It is too distracting. So you should ere on slower

If you don't try to steal prep and instead start your speech right after you "end prep time", you get extra speaks.

If you are debating online, don't go as fast as you would in in-person tournaments! Slowing down a bit will only help you. Spend your time on the cards. Slow down on taglines.

Update Feb 14, 2020:

Have fun debating! I listen to all kinds of arguments. I was an LD debater in the national circuit two years ago. I am now a philosophy major in college. I am slightly tech over truth, although I believe they are really inseparable. If you have any other questions, ask me before round.

In Short:

1. Slow down on taglines and analytics. I will say "clear" and "slow", but if I have to say multiple times it will reflect on your speaks. I would like to be on the email chain. My email is yancheng_wang@northlandchristian.org

2. Speaks are given mainly on how clearly you interact your arguments (voters) with your opponents', and how you explain your arguments in context. Also, a clearly articulated presentation will probably beat a fast but muddled speech on speaks.

3. I will generally only vote on arguments and voters given in round. That being said, please don't run offensive or stupid arguments to extend that I have to consider my responsibility as a judge to create a safe academic safe.

4. Ask me questions before the round if you are uncertain about things.

5. Explain. Explain. Explain. Reading a prep-out from your coach doesn’t mean you are the better debater, hence it won’t mean you are entitled to win automatically. Argument interaction is key.

6. Respect everyone in the room and have fun! LD is fun :)

Specifically for 2018 Apple Valley Tournament, it is likely that I am not super familiar with the topic, so don't expect me to know your topic specific jargon. Explain well.

Full

I debated for 3 years at Northland Christian School in LD. I went to both local and national circuit tournaments. I never considered myself an excellent debater, but I think I have a solid understanding of arguments. I might ere on tech over truth, but only to an extent.

General

-I default to comparative worlds

-I prefer a more moderate/slower debate. I am ok but not great at speed.

-Give me voters.

New Positions

I love new and fresh arguments! If you bring up something new to debate and interesting, i.e. an inspiring framework, a unique diagnostic kritik, I would be happy and you could get more speaker points. I do this because I think it is good to encourage adding something new to LD.

I will rank how I like the following types of arguments from 1-5. 5 means it is my favorite to judge/vote on, and 1 means I would have a headache.

Theory--3

Theory should be an observation of what a good LD round should or shouldn't look like (your interp) and its justifications(standards) and the impact in this round. Hence, I would vote on potential abuse. Your standards/voters need to justify why your interp is a good normal/rule to have in debate.

Theory debates tend to be very muddled and unclear. There can be a lot of information in a short paragraph. That being said, if you can make the theory layer very clear, I would be more likely to vote for you. The following are my defaults, but they only play a role when there is no argument made in round about them: Competing Interps, Fairness and Education are voters, Theory is a higher layer. For RVIs, it is up to the debater.

Frivolous theory is fine, but I prefer not judging a round that has thirty standards and fifty subpoints and ten voters. Again, make it clear why you should win. Pick one voter to go for.

Topicality--2

I do believe that the aff needs to be somewhat topical, but you still need to tell me why—it is about you debating. If you want to win on topicality, it is vital that you tell me why your definition is better than your opponent’s. I think T and theory are the same layer, which means you have to do weighing.

Kritik—1

I like kritiks, and I think they are really important, but the interaction between dense Ks sometimes throw me off. I am more than willing to judge good K debates because they tend to be very clear and thoughtful. What I don't like is when you run stuff you don't even understand, which is shown when you keep repeating yourself without explaining it in depth or in context. In general, I am not a good judge for you if you expect to run something that no one understands and just win because of it.

I am fine with radical kritiks. I also like it when you are enthusiastic about your Ks. But if you are running any K outside of the realm of the common ones, PLEASE articulate and explain it well for me to understand. That means, I encourage you to run new, but you need to be good at it.

When I evaluate K debates, the most important thing is how your criticism applies in context. If you are criticizing your opponent’s position, it should be more than generic. What does it mean in context of the aff? How does the aff advocacy/methodology fall to your criticism specifically? What does it mean?

In addition, I do think the impacts of the K need to be weighed. I think K is a higher layer only because it re-defines what the ballot means. That doesn’t automatically mean that your IMPACTS are more important. Your opponent still has a chance to outweigh you under your framing, so winning the ROB doesn't mean you automatically mean—you need to explain how you meet and outweigh, even if it is just a brief extension.

Framework/Philosophy—1

I think philosophy debates are very interesting and educational. I think it is also the best form of debate to allow a good debater to win, not just good case positions or good cards.

In philosophy debates, I won’t vote on blippy arguments or arguments that are poorly explained. Reading a bunch of short arguments is fine, but you have to extend and expand them into voters to put weight in them.

I like weird philosophies, but again, you have to understand it first and be good at it. Especially for phil—I won’t vote for you unless I see your harms clearly linked to your framework. I consider skepticism as a philosophy (sort of), so you can run skep in front of me. But I don't like when you run it as tricks—I think that is what has earned it such a bad name.

LARP—1

I like judging LARP debates. They are usually pretty straight forward. Telling a good story will probably get you good speaks and a win.

There is not too much to say. Your extinction impact won’t automatically outweigh, unless it is the only weighing in round. A dropped or under-covered turn is not a guarantee for a win. You need to make weighing arguments.

hullo, i'm kathy! any pronouns are fine.

email chain: kathywang098 [a] gmail.com

UPDATE FOR D8: i've been really out of the college policy scene for the past few years & this is the first time i'm judging at a tournament on the topic, so please keep that in mind! i think at this point it'd be helpful for y'all to slow down a little and err on overexplaining if you can - i'm very unfamiliar with the topic lit and haven't personally been doing any research for it at all. hoping some things will just be muscle memory, but i appreciate the patience regardless.

--

as you can see from the rest of this paradigm, a lot of my judging experience is with LD -- i've bolded anything of note/applicable in the ld paradigm below, but i'll try and consolidate everything here. feel free to also ask me any other questions, either through email or before round or however! here's a super quick paradigm:

- bg: i debated for nyu and graduated in 2020 and was quite a partner-hopper LOL. i was mostly-but-not-always a 2a and read lots of non-t affs, but have also been a 2n for like, disads and framework. in my time judging ld i have voted on everything from disads to performance affs to test case fiat, i don't think policy's gonna change that.

- straight policy: i've probably had the least experience in straight policy v policy rds, but if you make your link scenario clear i'll be able to follow! like i said, i haven't been doing topic prep or anything on antitrust so try to make any obscure acronyms clear for me too. policy debate for me comes down to a question of who can best control the scenario even when accounting for the possibility of the other side's links -- the more engagement and the more explicit comparison b/w your offense and your opponent's, the better. the worst thing in the world is two teams independently describing their own scenarios - big picture framing will take you far b/c i really don't want to be stuck with like, 4 different extinction scenarios and no way to delineate between them. win the probability of your scenario, win weighing on your impact, we are all happy.

funky cps are a go for me! theory is a go for me! (good theory is underrated in policy, but it's gotta be good).

- ks: go for it. always happy to hear a good methods throwdown, always happy to learn more ab the lit. innovative advocacies/alternatives are amazing and i love to hear them, but good k debate shouldn't have to rely on my preexisting knowledge of any body of literature. besides that, though, debate's your sandbox. vague advocacies have a very uphill battle in front of me, you should have a ready-to-go, instant, rehearsed, and clearly defined answer to "what does the world of the aff/alt look like and what exactly do we have to do to get there". not to say the alt can't be something like unintelligibility, but like... you should know what you're defending.

reading a k also doesn't mean you can't be techy. don't rely on me to make connections to the line by line and apply offense for you. yes this is about your 6 minute long 2nc k overview.

- fw v ks: i'm leaning more towards the procedural fairness is an internal link not a voter camp, but you can always convince me otherwise. fw and cap is no reason to not even bother attempting to answer the aff - you're 100% capable of generating analytics on the fly. i will be INCREDIBLY UNIMPRESSED with teams who read fw without even attempting to engage the aff in good faith. the more fw claims contextualize in round abuse the better they are. tvas are great tools and the more creative you can be with them the better. the less generic, the better. win a model of debate.

- ks v fw: no need to be resolutional at all but i think it's better if there's an attempt to be topical [i.e. somehow related to the topic area]. if you draw a link from the general area of the topic, that's ideal. if the aff is just, totally unrelated to alliances at all i'll have a lower threshold for voting on fw. general impact turns to their form either a) need to have the scope of their implication clarified or b) need interactions with specific offense from the shell clarified. i find that clash debates are very hard to win without some clearly defined counter interp ready. the less generic, the better. win a model of debate.

i can handle speed but slow down for online debate. feel free to ask me questions after the round, but the rfd is not your 3nr/3ar. if i cannot adequately explain an argument myself in the rfd, i will not vote on it and i have no problems w making that clear even if it's not satisfying for you or gives you closure. i'll do my best to put rfds on tabroom as well!

----------------------------

LD PARADIGM:

main paradigm/right b4 rd: i've judged nearly every style of debate within ld, so odds are i'll be okay with whatever you read. i'm less confident with dense phil debate and blippy theory debates (but really, what kind of judge isn't less confident with blippy theory...) and more read-up on k literature. i don't care if you don't defend the resolution, but i have reliably gone both ways on t-framework. i'm not coaching, so i'm unfamiliar with the topic - if you're going for more LARPy positions, please overallocate explanation on link-level arguments! also in general slow down bc a) i'm out of practice listening to spreading b) who knows how much latency verizon wants to put upon my humble network b/c they thrive in my suffering and know i'll be back on the 29th of each month to pay my internet bill regardless

lately i've found that i have a pretty high threshold of explanation for arguments, especially on theory, so please keep that in mind. my usual threshold when making decisions is "can i thoroughly reexplain your argument in the rfd and draw lines throughout the flow" -- if the answer is no, i won't count it in my decision. the larger the implication of an argument is, the higher the threshold for explanation is. you can still win off things like independent voters, but there must be some coherent warrant and impact (and honestly, warrant for why something is an independent voter/outweighs everything else in the first place, because that's also never there)

if something happens in a round that makes you feel unsafe and you don't feel comfortable expressing it out loud, please send me a separate email during the round and i will intervene without naming you.

my background:

i debated for stuyvesant hs from 2012-2016, and then debated college policy at nyu ("graduated" in 2020). i'm no longer coaching anyone, so i guess that means i'm pretty out of the activity now? i already even deleted my paradigm and made a joke one, so now i have to rewrite all this. :( if it matters at all, in hs i read more policy-esque or soft-left positions, and in college i read a lot of far-left ks, theory args, and occasionally high theory. besides that, i've judged a lot, so i've honestly seen it all especially because nobody thinks reading paradigms is cool anymore. F

misc:

- being tab is impossible but i do strive for less intervention. usually what i do when i make decisions is construct two ballots in my head - one for the aff, one for the neg - and vote on whichever one is more logical/coherent and requires less work

- a general rule of thumb: if you think you are the only person in the pool (or even debate as a whole) to read your position, tech implications should probably be overexplained at the very least

- i'm willing to disclose speaks, but also sometimes willing to not do that (avg is usually a 28.5) -- this does not apply to policy

- starting to think that rounds that come down to 1ar theory are literally irresolvable. like, it's just impossible. i'll evaluate them as well as you can expect someone to evaluate latebreaking theory that an entire round somehow hinges on even though affs are time-pressed/blippy and negs only have one speech and less than 15 minutes are spent on the only thing that matters in the round yknow? i mean, don't get me wrong, i still think it's one of the most strategic options for the aff, so don't take this as a "don't read 1ar theory." all i'm saying is, life's a gamble!

- can everyone lay off me for constantly rotating my head 90 degrees during a debate round. my ear faces you so i hear better but now it's just a habit and/or eye contact makes me feel awkward :((((

- things i won't vote on: blatantly offensive stuff like racism good or the sorts, double win/loss (i physically cannot), "give me [x] speaks" arguments.

- are indexicals making a comeback? please do not read indexicals in front of me. like, please don't. i keep thinking 2020 can't get any worse and then lders bring back INDEXICALS. what the heck!!

- i can't really process layers of audio - it gives me a really, really bad headache and scrambles my brain. not saying you can't play music or other audio, just not simultaneously while you speak b/c i won't be able to write anything down

- please give me a heads up for explicit discussions of self-harm or su*cide -- you can still read it, i'd just like to know it's coming

anyways, thanks for readin! above all i hope you have fun while debating and remember why you joined this activity and why you stay. feel free to reach out to me if you have any other questions ab this paradigm, or anything else!

Doing an email chain? I'd love to be on it: amwelter12@ole.augie.edu

Short version

Policy/LD background. Former debater and current coach. I time prep, but you should too. Please don't rely on me to give you 30-sec intervals.

PF - Big fan of disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory, but I'm iffy on most other theory. Don't tell me why your impact is big, tell me why it's BIGGER than your opponents'. I don't need you to win every contention (kicking out is under-rated). I don't need you to win more contentions than your opponent. I just need you to tell me why the arguments you DO win are more important than the other arguments in the round. Impacts are crucial for that. I'm a sucker for "even-if" weighing. Please don't make me judge a round where both teams close for everything, some contentions have links, some have impacts, and none have both. If you call for a card, prep starts as soon as the card is in front of you. Your speaks will take a hit if you steal prep. Your speaks will take a bigger hit if you make blatantly new args in FF (which I won't weigh). 2nd rebuttal should respond to 1st rebuttal. Uniqueness is probably important.

LD - Connect your contentions to your framework (or your opponents') or tell me why you don't have to. Winning framework alone is almost never enough to win the round. It is in your best interest to give me more than one way to vote for you (e.g. "I win and uphold my framework so vote for me there, but even if you don't buy that then here's why I win under my opponent's framework"). I am willing to vote you down for paraphrasing evidence instead of reading/quoting cards if your opponent calls you on it and gives me any explanation for why it's a bad thing to do.

Long version

I prefer topical debates on substance--that's where I've found that I'm least likely to get lost. I also prefer judging debaters who are doing what they love and do best, which doesn't need to be substance or topical. If 10 is top-speed, then I can handle about a 6. I will try super hard to follow the round, but it'll be in your best interest to slow down (substantially so on theory). LD/Policy experience. Always up for a K if there’s a solid link, but not familiar with most K lit. I’ll vote for almost anything with a valid warrant behind it.

Please, ask me anything before the round. I've been judging national circuit LD for the last few years and there are no arguments I'm opposed to on principle (except overtly discriminatory arguments...), but there's a solid chance that I won't have the same understanding of how a round should break down or what's meta. Asking me stuff before the round minimizes this chance.

My default weighing preferences (I can absolutely be convinced away from these):

Pre-fiat K > T = Theory > Post-fiat K > Substance. Condo is fine, running a ton of blips or spikes is sleazy and I'm way less likely to vote for you on those.

I default to truth-testing in general and reasonability on theory. I have a high threshold on theory and probably won't vote on without clear in-round abuse.

Pet peeve: people who say "moral obligation" or "d-rule" with no warrant beyond "x is bad". If you want me to weigh your args as a prior question to your opponent's args, I need a solid warrant for that.

Higher speaks indicate I learned something from you (either about debate or about your argument) and/or that you clashed often and effectively.

Lower speaks indicate that I think your strategy was sleazy (tricks / spikes), or that you were a jerk to your opponent.

I might disclose speaks, but I'll be the one to tell you--please don't ask.

My name is Darius White and I debated at C.E. Byrd High School for 4 year and debate for the University of Oklahoma currently.

Speaker Points: I generally give fairly high speaks, and I understand that their is going to be some rudeness in the debate, but try not to over-do because that will be a speak-point decrease. Also stealing prep, and speaking CONSTANTLY during your partners speech will drop your speeches quite a bit, but I usually try to be generous with the speaks.

Cross-X: I defer c-x being binding (unless told otherwise but they need to be nuanced, not tag line extensions of theory shells) and tend to flow c-x

After-round evaluation of evidence: I will try as best as possible to not call for evidence unless you are highly reliant on one piece of evidence in your last speeches, and/or evidence is into question (i.e. if you call for me to look at a piece of evidence after round), but other than that I tend to try to judge the debate on the actually speeches given by the debaters.

Theory: I have a high threshold for theory arguments and hate when teams spray through your theory blocks; I usually default to reasonability and reject-the-arguments-not-the-team
unless you win the abuse story i.e. I don't think one conditional advocacy destroys aff ground so just try to be reasonable and very persuasive when going for theory.

Disads/CP's: Impact calculation is always a good idea, and even though I am more on the K side of debate, I am down to listen to a really technical CP/DA as a net-benefit debate, so don't be shy to run these arguments in front of me. But, I feel that the CP does need a net-benefit for me to vote for it, so if the 2NR is just CP with no net-benefits, I will have a hard time finding reasons why I should vote for the CP. Turns case arguments on the DA are always tight.

Impact Turns: I really enjoy these types of debates, and they are very persuasive in my opinion, so if you got any in your files, I am down to listen.

Kritiks: I hate when teams read a random K that they have no idea what it means or says, and that is always a pet peeve. Don't run a K in front that you are not comfortable going for, but if you are very well at going for a specific criticism then do your thing because I am more familiar with this side of the debate. I feel that the alternative portion of the K is very under utilized and would like to be a debate I would want to see, but if your thing is going to turns case, then do your thing.

Framework: This is the argument I least agree with but if will listen and flow if required.

Flashing: I don't count flashing as prep unless you are taking hella a lot of time in which I will inform you that I am about to start your prep time; PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, do not steal prep.

Random shit: I like jokes, and making me laugh usually gets you some where speak point wise. Using historical references is always a good idea and paints a better picture on the impact calc. Remember to jump your cards over before the speech, and if you read any new cards that aren't on the flash, flash them before c-x or before the next speech is about to start, this is not prep time.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me: darius12456@gmail.com

NYU ‘22

Stuyvesant High School ‘18

She/Her Pronouns

Conflicts: Stuyvesant High School, Interlake AS, Interlake DB, Interlake AG, Interlake EL, Northview YS, North Mecklenburg PM, Lexington AK.

Please do email chains, flash drives are obnoxious (pacy.yan@gmail.com)

If you have questions about my paradigm/preferences/whether or not I would tank speaks for certain things, email me or ask me before the round. This would be preferable to me having to resolve the issue in round or lowering your speaks unnecessarily.

*Brief TOC Update: I have not judged in a long time. I coach a bit still, but I am not caught up on the current meta as much as I was before. This means two things for you: a) you should absolutely not act as though I know what you're talking about and b) really listen/slow down when I ask you to.

*Dogmatism: I have recently written an article with Joanne Park about my position on some of the ongoings in debate culture, specifically on the issue of dogmatism. You can find the article here.

Short

1) Tech>Truth Do whatever. I will not paradigmatically hack against any particular real arguments. I do not care what you do in terms of how I judge. I have arguments that I strongly dislike and arguments that I like, but will try not to reflect this in my speaks as much as possible.

2) Don't be mean. I hold the position that I cannot ethically vote for arguments that would be endorsing acts of particular forms of interpersonal violence. This line might become hard to draw. I am fine with heg good, authoritarianism good, skepticism, etc., and it is a bit unclear to me what the difference between some of these positions and the arguments I might find ethically hard to vote for are such as racism good, sexual assault good, etc. are so this might result in me making judgement calls during round. I will attempt to be as reasonable as possible. I also dislike it when more experienced debaters purposely make rounds exclusionary to younger and less resourced debaters. Of course, this judgement is hard to make sometimes as well, but I will lower speaks if I am certain it is happening.

3) I'll say clear/slow unless its obvious you are not listening when I do.

4) I don't flow off the speech doc.

5) I have done a little bit of policy in college.

Longer Version:

1) I did LD for four years and ran whatever. I ran Ks for a year and I ran theory and phil for a year. As a result, I know some range of literature, but that should not be relevant. I go to NYU now and study philosophy.

2) I aim to be as least interventionist as possible. The more irresolvable a round is, the more I have to intervene. I get annoyed when I have to do this. I view having to use defaults as intervention.

3) I make faces sometimes. I aim not to, but sometimes I might communicate annoyance or amusement. Sometimes, I might communicate deep confusion. I've been told by some people that I appear angry or like I'm glaring sometimes. At any rate, some of my faces might not be your fault, but if its obvious I'm reacting to your speech or your opponent's speech, someone has probably done something wrong or right.

4) I don’t flow off the speech doc and I’ll only check it if a) I messed up on my own and missed something or b) it’s a round where the quality of evidence matters. I'm really bad at flowing author names, so reference arguments only by author at your own risk.

5) I pay more attention to CX now.

6) Here's some stuff related to framing that I think makes sense to default to and you probably will not change my mind on:

- Tech > truth

- Truth > Tech requires tech for you to win it. I am extremely unconvinced that judges can have a role in the debate that requires them intervene based on what they think is true. The only exception I can see is when there is an obvious violation of or issue related to the safety of the students. In those cases, I will, if aware of the situation, stop the debate and report it to tab if I deem that it is appropriate to do so.

- Nothing is a voter until you've made an argument that it is.

7) Here's some stuff related to framing that I think makes sense to default to, but would heavily prefer to hear a debate about if it is relevant:

- Lexical Priority > Strength of link (this just means if a claim that “aff theory outweighs neg theory” or something of the type is made, I evaluate aff theory regardless of what is won on neg theory. I also think strength of link/modesty weighing is strange when it is different layers, so if you want to go for that weighing, please justify it.)

- Generally probably low threshold for warrants if they are conceded, but if the argument is directly interactive with other warranted arguments and you are light on your warranting in extension, I will probably be receptive to “no warrant was extended” and not be super persuaded by that argument. Light warranting is also at your own risk because if the debate gets muddled, my threshold for warrants rises as I sift through arguments in an attempt to make the debate more resolvable and if the opponent points out that there isn’t a warrant for the extension of the argument that might hurt you.

- You don’t have to bother extending paradigm issues if they’re conceded, but this might harm you if the opponent makes it an issue.

- Fairness > Education

- T = Theory

- Competing interps

K v Theory or Substance

- Non "Prefiat" Ks = Substance

- K ROBs = Ethical Frameworks

- "Prefiat" Ks = Fairness/education (on theory)

8) Here are some thoughts I believe. Most function indifferently to how I judge rounds if both debaters make good arguments.

General

- Debate's a game. I have never heard a good argument against it being so. Debate being a game is not mutually exclusive with it having other important things.

- Disclosure is good. Full text disclosure is not preferable to non-full text disclosure. Open source is good. I am, however, unsure as to whether voting on out-of-round violations is a defensible norm.

- I do not like it when people rely on ethos to win rounds. I expect you to make arguments, not assertions said in a nice way. Because of that, I will likely be decently picking when deciding between warrants.

T/Theory

- Nothing is a voter until you make an argument. Theory doesn't have an impact until you make an argument.

- Metatheory does not paradigmatically come before theory.

- A lot of theory is silly. I do not care that much about the content of your shell, but if its not strategic that will be reflected in your speaks.

- Theory/Spikes heavy affs are fine. If I didn't catch it, it doesn't exist.

- I am unsure on whether certain violations e.g. evidence ethics are good enough reasons to stop rounds. I will try avoid doing so while I remain unsure.

- I do not think I can coherently evaluate “evaluate theory after x speech” if x is the speech you’re currently giving. I have the intuition that it is additionally outside of the debater's jurisdiction to make such an argument, but I'm unsure exactly why.

Tricks

- I am not totally sure what counts as a trick, but "tricks" are a part of the debate lingo, so I figured I'd say a few things about what I think. For the sake of the paradigm, I am generally referencing to what people might refer to as tricks or tricky debate.

- Many tricks are quite unintelligent. It is silly to act as if they're intelligent. I would appreciate if you did not. I do not like unintelligent tricks much, but I find them amusing sometimes. I do not like arguments that purely exist so that your opponent misses them, but I am not sure this is unique to "tricks" as opposed to other areas of debate.

- Some tricks, on the contrary, are quite intelligent. Well-developed logical arguments that reach seemingly odd or unintuitive conclusions might be considered a trick by some, but many of these arguments are really quite fun to me. Tricks or tricky arguments that are well-developed make me really happy!

- If I didn't flow it, it doesn't exist.

Phil Framework

- In debate, ethical confidence makes more intuitive sense to me than ethical modesty.

- Probably my favorite part of debate, but also frequently bastardized.

- People who know what they're talking about are good!

- I think tech and efficiency on framework debates is sometimes my favorite part of debate.

- The NC AC 1NC makes me happy.

- I do not like impact justified frameworks.

- I am sad that phil debate is frequently seen as being the same as tricks debate.

Ks

- I am not paradigmatically against Non-T affs. I did read them in my career. I do not like it when debaters pretend to be topical when they are not. Consequently, I do not believe there are "pseudo-topical" affs.

- Many word PIKs are silly to me. People shouldn't use slurs, but I am not sure other words are significant enough to justify word PIKs. Part of the reason many of them feel silly to me is because they are very rarely taken seriously by the people who read them.

- I do not think framework Ks are voting issues. I also really strongly dislike the way framework Ks are read. I think there are genuinely interesting points of philosophical interest to consider when thinking about whether an author's personal views can be disconnected from philosophy, but this debate is never had.

- A lot of K debate can be somewhat boring. Debaters frequently only extend taglines and rely on buzzwords and judge familiarity to get away with arguments. Redundancy and lack of specificity are things I strongly dislike and something I observe on a lot of K debates.

- A lot of continental philosophy sounds and looks like actual nonsense. I do not like personally trying to make sense out of nonsense nor do I like it when other people try and do it. The more I study analytic philosophy, the less appreciation I have for the esoteric and often unnecessary language in continental philosophy. Because of that, I also have even less appreciation for the esoteric and often unnecessary language debaters use in debate as they try and replicate that philosophy.

- I am not super into the call-out culture that debate sometimes has. I think this is a particularly untenable model in the context of HS debate, given that many of these people are minors. I think genuinely serious accusations should be brought to administrative adults in the community or, if necessary, other authorities. I am sympathetic to the idea that one might not want to debate someone who has done something problematic, especially to them, but I am unsure whether rounds themselves are a productive or good channel to communicate this issue with. I am also sympathetic to many of the reasons why one might not want to approach authorities or other adults in the community, but this does not wholly convince me that rounds are the solution to this problem. If I am put in the position to resolve issues related to serious violations of personal safety e.g. things that would constitute violations of the law, I will probably contact tab unless I have a very good reason not to. For issues that do not fall into that category, if I feel qualified to evaluate them, I will do so as I would a normal debate. If I feel that your "call-out" appeared unnecessary, unproductive, and done for the purpose of strategic value or for the sake of ethos guised in trying to be good, I will, at a minimum, tank your speaks.

Policy

- These debates are cool, but I will preface this by saying that coming from the Northeast means that I come from an area that really sucks at case debate and substance.

- Making creative solves case arguments is awesome, especially against affs that one wouldn’t think could be solved by the PIC (i.e. phil affs, K affs).

- I think LDers should utilize more of some of the weighing mechanisms and rhetoric used in policy (uniqueness args, sufficiency, etc)

- Structural violence makes me sad as a framework.

Non-T/K v Fwk/Theory

- The more I think about impact turns to theory/fwk, the less I am convinced they're voting issues. To me, they're either one of two things: 1) impact turns to the literal content of the shell e.g. fairness/education bad, in which case they warrant an RVI or 2) impact turns to the act of reading theory, which is meta theory. In my experience, it is very rarely justified as either.

- I do not think education is the most important impact of debate. I think fairness is the only thing that debate needs to be debate. It being a gateway to education is just an interesting FYI, not a reason education is preferable.

- Fairness bad arguments are really confusing sometimes.

- Framework is probably true.

To Do:

1) Be nice

2) Know what you’re talking about

3) Line by line stuff

4) Explain arguments

Not To Do:

Problematic things

- Endorsing oppression

- Being demeaning to people who are obviously not as experienced as you

- Being demeaning

- I will not evaluate "give me higher/30 speaks" arguments.

Technical Debate Things

- Spreading faster than you can

- Saying “gut check”

- Shadow extensions

- Putting case on the bottom of substance

- Not giving roadmaps by flows but instead by arguments

harvard update: “let’s steamroll these bowls”

emory update: "let's seize these keys" - david basile edwards (Charlotte Catholic DE), 12/03/18

apple valley update: "let's grapple these apples" - david basile edwards (Charlotte Catholic DE), 10/29/18

Email: joshyou12@gmail.com

I did LD at Lakeville North from 2009-2013 and coached LD at Apple Valley from 2013-2017. I also did NPDA-style college parli from 2013-2017.

Overview:

• In general, I would like to hear a smart, substantive debate about the resolution that uses the topic lit. I tend to enjoy "policy" arguments and moral philosophy debates the most.
• I have only judged 1-2 tournaments a season since the 2017 school year so I might not be familiar with latest LD lingo. Minneapple 2021 is the first tournament I've judged in approximately one year.

Speed/clarity:

• I value clarity very highly, both in terms of enunciation and adequately explaining arguments. I deeply dislike judging rounds that I can't understand for one reason or another. I have more to say about this in the theory and K sections but please understand that I promise to reward clarity and punish lack of clarity, so it is in your interest to make sure I understand you.
• All that said, speed is fine per se.
• I won't look at speech docs before the end of the round.

Theory:

• I'll vote on theory if you win it. But I'd rather not hear theory most of the time, so if I think your shell is frivolous you'll get lower speaks and I'll have a low threshold for responses to it. This also applies to ACs that are loaded with spikes/paragraph theory.
• It is in your best interest to explain arguments well and not dump a lot of one-liners that I will struggle to get on my flow. I rarely catch more than half of the arguments in a theory underview, and the ones I do get down are usually unwarranted or underwarranted. "Concession" by your opponent will mean very little if anything in these scenarios.
• I'm not really a fan of the RVI despite not liking theory. If you can beat back a frivolous theory shell quickly I would prefer you go back to substance.

Kritiks/critical stuff:

• I’m fine with Ks in principle but in practice many suffer from inadequate explanations of content and function. I have very little patience for sophistry or obfuscation and I will not hesitate to discount or disregard arguments that are not sufficiently clear. If you absolutely need to read a dense or jargon-heavy card, then the tag should be in plain language, define the key words or phrases in the card, and explain the argument in enough detail to be understood.
• I won't necessarily intervene against performance and non-topical affs but I'm pretty inclined to think the aff has to be topical.
• It's totally fine to argue that a given round should be dedicated to thinking about how to combat a certain type of oppression but for hopefully obvious reasons I will not take that to mean that only impacts to a specific demographic group matter when evaluating the policy/method/whatever being debated.

Policy arguments:

• I love good util/policy-style debate. However, I find bad util debates annoying to judge since I often have to intervene to resolve them. If you want to avoid that, then develop and weigh your impacts. All util debates are math problems, treat them as such.
• Your evidence almost certainly doesn't say that you control 100% of your terminal impact and I will pay attention to that, even if your argument is conceded.
• On the same note, I tend to discount poorly-justified big-impact scenarios (note: poorly-justified and low-probability are not synonymous). I am not biased against extinction arguments (the opposite, really) but I also prefer smart arguments.
• I like plans that are reasonably balanced and representative of the topic lit. Unfortunately many recent LD topics have featured hyper-specific/unbalanced plans and I am pretty receptive to T in those cases.

Counterplans:

• I really like good plan/counterplan debates and I think the neg should nearly always run a counterplan. As for theory, I am annoyed by lot of PICs (specific interps/counterinterps are good here) and strongly dislike agent CPs (no need for specificity as they're all bad). I lean towards condo good.

Framework/philosophy:

• I'm fine with philosophy-heavy cases as long as they're well explained. I like good framework debates but I prefer frameworks that allow for interesting contention-level debates (I'm not saying you have to engage on the contention level, but it's a good heuristic for whether your framework is "tricky" or "squirrelly").
• I default to thinking that intuitively good/bad things really are good/bad. I appreciate good counterexamples/intuition pumps. Making your opponent's framework sound silly in cross-ex will help your speaks a lot.
• If the framework debate or the contention debate under the winning framework is ambiguous, I default to accounting for moral uncertainty.
• I dislike theoretical (that is, debate theory) framework justifications.

Speaker points:

• You'll get higher speaks for making good arguments, being strategic, reading original, well-researched positions, explaining argument content and function clearly, and sounding persuasive.
• You'll get lower speaks for being unclear or confusing, not engaging with the relevant topical/philosophical literature, reading frivolous theory, avoiding clash, and being a jerk.
• I'll do my best to calibrate my speaks with the overall judge pool but it's possible my speaker points won't quite keep up with point inflation now that I'm not judging very often.

Misc:

• To the extent that extensions are a mere formality (e.g. when there is no clash on an entire layer of the debate) I'm not picky about them at all and you can be extremely brief but they definitely matter if you want to do warrant comparison and weighing.

I'm a parent judge who's been judging for 3 years on the nat circuit

Please don't spread - add me to the email chain: yyan5221@yahoo.com

I try my best to make decisions off the flow, not based on rhetoric, although speaker points will obviously reflect a mix of both

That being said, please make my decision as easy as possible - I protect the 2NR from shifty 2AR's, and weighing + clear ballot stories are a beautiful thing

Feel free to run any relatively stock positions like CP + DA, etc. - substantive debate should be fine if adequately explained

I've voted on progressive arguments before, including one off K's, performance affs, etc - but these are always a tossup and I don't trust myself to evaluate them very well

I understand basic util/deont (Kant mostly) syllogisms but don't hit me with the a. action theory b. bindingness stuff - just explain it thoroughly and make interacts

Speaks average out to a 28.5 and I'll try to keep it reasonable

Conflicts: Minnetonka

Background:

Did mainly LD and some policy in college.

Update 11/27/20

Nat circuit debaters should try to make the round as accessible as possible for local circuit debaters. I will intervene on behalf of the local circuit debater.

Overview of Debate:

Debate is a competitive educational activity to me. I think you should be well prepared and polished in your augments regardless of the format or type of circuit you participate in. At the end of the round I expect debaters to have made a strategic and well articulated argument to win my ballot.

Better to ask questions before round.

Specifics:

K - These are good if done correctly. I do tend to vote often for ID politics

Plans/DA/CP - Good

Philo that isn't tricks - Good, I will probably understand at an intro/intermediate level

Tricks - part of the game but I don't really enjoy these and haven't voted off of them in awhile

Theory - Actual abuse will be most persuasive to me otherwise I'll probably buy the reasonability arguments

T - Probably should defend the topic but I'm not super set on it.

Quick notes:

Debate is a game.

Evidence quality matters.

I prefer if you run arguments that make sense.

I generally do not enjoy voting for tricks and have not in most rounds.

Other than that do w/e you feel.

I am currently a policy and PF coach at Taipei American School. My previous affiliations include Fulbright Taiwan, the University of Wyoming, Apple Valley High School, The Harker School, the University of Oklahoma, and Bartlesville High School. I have debated or coached policy, LD, PF, WSD, BP, Congress, and Ethics Bowl.

Email for the chain: lwzhou10 at gmail.com

---

TOC Public Forum

Put the Public back in Public Forum.

For the TOC, follow all of the evidence rules and guidelines listed in the tournament policies. I care a lot about proper citations, good evidence norms, clipping, and misrepresentation.

I won't vote for arguments spread, theory, kritiks, or anything unrelated to the truth or falsity of the resolution. I find it extremely difficult to vote for arguments that lack resolutional basis (e.g., most theory or procedural arguments, some kritikal arguments, etc.). I find trends to evade debate over the topic to be anathema to my beliefs about what Public Forum debate ought to look like.

I care that you debate the topic in a way that reflects serious engagement with the relevant scholarly literature. I would also prefer to judge debates that do not contain references to arcane debate norms or jargon.

Additionally, I expect that your evidence abides by NSDA rules as outlined in the NSDA Evidence Guide. If I find evidence that does not conform to these guidelines, I will minimally disregard that piece of evidence and maximally vote against you.

tl;dr won't blink twice about voting against teams that violate evidence rules or try to make PF sound like policy-lite.

Other Things

Exchanging evidence in a manner consistent with the NSDA's rules on evidence exchange has become a painfully slow process. Please simply set up an email chain or use an online file sharing service in order to quickly facilitate the exchange of relevant evidence. Calling for individual pieces of evidence appears to me as nothing more than prep stealing.

If the Final Focus is all read from the computer, just send me the speech docs before the debate starts to save us some time. I'll also cap your speaks at 28.5.

I do not believe that either team has any obligation to "frontline" in second rebuttal, but my preferences on this are malleable. If "frontlining" is the agreed upon norm, I expect that the second speaking team also devote time to rebuttals in the constructive speeches.

The idea of defense being "sticky" seems illogical to me.

There is also a strong trend towards under-developing arguments in an activity that already operates with compressed speech times. I also strongly dislike the practice of spamming one-line quotes with no context (or warrant) from a dozen sources in a single speech. I will reward teams generously if they invest in a few well-warranted arguments which they spend time meaningfully weighing compared to if they continue to shotgun arguments with little regard for their plausibility or quality.

---

Policy

Stolen from Matt Liu: "Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas."

I debated for OU back in the day but you shouldn't read too much into that—I wasn't ever particularly good or invested when I was competing. I lean more towards the policy side than the K side and I'm probably going to be unfamiliar with a lot of the ins-and-outs of most kritiks, although I will do my best to fairly evaluate the debate as it happens.

1. I tend to think the role of the aff is to demonstrate that the benefits of a topical plan outweigh its costs and that the role of the neg is to demonstrate that the costs and/or opportunity costs of the aff's plan outweigh its benefits.
2. I find variations of "fairness bad" or "logic/reasoning bad," to be incredibly difficult to win given that I think those are fundamental presuppositions of debate itself. Similarly, I find procedural fairness impacts to be the best 2NRs on T/Framework.
3. Conditionality seems obviously good, but I'm not opposed to a 2AR on condo. Most other theory arguments seem like reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I lean towards reasonability. Most counterplan issues seem best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
4. Warrant depth is good. Argument comparison is good. Both together—even better.
5. Give judge instruction—tell me how to evaluate the debate.

None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

---

WSD

My debate experience is primarily in LD, policy, and PF. I do not consider myself well-versed in all the intricacies or nuances of WSD strategy and norms. My only strong preference is that want to see well-developed and warranted arguments. I would prefer fewer, better developed arguments over more, less-developed arguments.

---

Online Procedural Concerns

1. Follow tournament procedure regarding online competition best practices.
2. Record your speeches locally. If you cut out and don't have a local backup, that's a you problem.
3. Keep your camera on when you speak, I don't care if it's on otherwise. Only exception is if there are tech or internet issues---keeping the camera off for the entirety of the debate otherwise is a good way to lose speaker points.
4. I'll keep my camera off for prep time, but I'll verbally indicate I'm ready before each speech and turn on the camera for your speeches. If you don't hear me say I'm ready and see my camera on, don't start.
5. Yes, I'll say clear and stuff for online rounds.