Affiliations:

I am currently coaching 3 teams at lamdl (POLAHS, BRAVO, LAKE BALBOA) and have picked up an ld student or 2. I am pretty familiar with the fiscal redistribution and WANA topics.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

Background

I've debated Lincoln Douglas for two years, with success varying from winning lay tournaments to breaking at bid level tournaments. As a junior and senior I debated in Policy breaking at multiple bid level tournaments. My focus in policy was on critical philosophy, particularly concerning ableism and the prison industrial complex. I am currently a student at the University of California Berkeley where I major in history and legal studies.

Policy Paradigm

1. On Spreading and Slow Rounds. It's been a minute since I've competed, and thus my ear for spreading is not as great as it once was. Please be clear when listing tagline and citations, and demarcate clearly where one argument ends and another begins. I will say "clear" or "slow" if I feel you are just not clear enough. That said spreading isn't bad, it's not overly difficult to listen to, it just needs to be annunciated to the best of your degree.

If one team requests a slow round, that request will be granted. I spread and competed at the high school level but I firmly believe debate should be accessible, especially for people with disabilities and the best debaters can win spreading or not.

2. On Ks. I really like critiques, when I debated most of my focus was on identity critiques (critical disability studies mostly, but have experience with Wilderson, fem, cap). My threshold for Ks like Baudrillard is incredibly high, meaning that if your K relies on highly complex ideas and terminology to which I'm not familiar with, it must be near perfect to receive my ballot. Don't assume I know your literature, please specify, especially when your cards use terms specific to their philosophy or use particular terms of art.

On Policy. While I love Ks, I'm familiar with straight policy analysis. Please impact frame as early as possible in the debate, and make sure you do all the work in 2NRs, 2ARs, don't force me to intervene.

TRUTH OVER TECH.

Speaker points - Signpost well (this is also crucial for your ballot, if I miss a point because you are jumping all over the page thats on you). Condescending Behavior or rude cross examinations will result in severe point loss. Just be nice.

Prep - starts when the flash drive is in the computer, time yourselves. Don't be a dick, and if the times are different by a few seconds it ultimately doesn't matter.

I'm a clean slate judge, which means that I vote based off what in argued in round and avoid judge interference as much as possible. For example, if your opponent says that "Clinton won the 2016 election" and gives me sound reasoning, it's your job to tell me why that's wrong or else it stays on the flow.

Which brings me to VOTERS. I only vote on what is fully extended to the final speech. Please make sure you do both LINK ANALYSIS and IMPACT CALC to tell me why you link into benefits and why those arguments matter. I love hearing likelihood, magnitude, irreversibility and time frame arguments in final speeches. ALWAYS remember, if you lay FRAMEWORK you must connect how your winning to that framework.

Make it easy on me when I flow. If I can't get it on the flow, then I can't really vote on it. Organization is key, if you SIGNPOST well it makes flowing and voting on your arguments so much easier. With that being said, spread if you really want to but I'll be honest I do have a hard time following it when you go full speed, so like stick to 50-70% (sorry, I didn't do policy).

Here's my background (for all you who are trying to determine if I'm lay or flow judge):

- 3 years HS debate, 1 year college

- Mainly Parliamentary Debate (first speaker) but also IX, IMP, PF, and Congress.

- 2x State Qualifier

End of the day, run whatever you want (pretty comfy with T, explain more on K) but have a REASON AND AMPLE EXPLANATION FOR EVERYTHING YOU ARGUE. Please don't waste time with arguments you know are only there to waste your opponents time and prove to me why your arguments, and later voters, matter. Remember, I'm clean slate judge so literally I will only weigh impacts that you tell me (so if you tell me your opponents cause global warming, if you don't tell me why that matters, then I won't assume that global warming is bad or that I know the effects of global warming). Work for the ballot.

Email: seanlipps01@gmail.com

I was a 2N in high school. I have little topic knowledge, so please explain stuff. Don't go for everything in the 2NR.

Aff:

If the Aff doesn't read a plan I will most likely vote Neg. Fairness is an impact, but still needs to be weighed against their impacts.

If you're reading a soft left Aff don't rely on your framing to get out of responding to DAs.

Topicality:

Evidence quality is a good link to your impacts and usually what I base my decision upon, so have a good definition.

Fairness is an impact.

Counterplans:

I'm fine for any counterplan, except ones that compete off certainty or immediacy, as long as you win the theory debate (if the theory debate devolves into both sides just repeating their arguments I will usually not vote for the theory).

Disadvantages:

I don't think I evaluate DAs very differently from others.

tech>truth, although if you skimp out on your coverage of some things (like a one line turns case argument) I probably won't evaluate it very much.

Kritiks:

I'm fine for Ks as long as there is a link to the assumptions of the aff.

Most of my attention will be on the link and alt debate because most of the K doesn't matter without first winning those parts. The aff can weigh their plan against the K.

Don't kick the alt and go for the K.

Reject the aff is not an alt.

Lay judge with some experience judging LD and dramatic events at high school tournaments in 2015 and 2016.

Rudeness is annoying to me, but clash is important. Argue the points, not the person.

On topic humor is great, if it really upholds the argument.

Very technical debate styles will probably lose me, but if you have a kritik that is well thought out and researched bring it on!

Working on flowing fast and not allowing my opinion of the issue to affect scores.

Have fun!

Updated for Economic Inequality Topic

Overview

E-Mail Chain: Yes, add me (chris.paredes@gmail.com) & my school mail (damiendebate47@gmail.com). I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.

Experience: Damien 05, Amherst College 09, Emory Law 13L. This will be my seventh year as the Assistant Director at Damien (part-time), and my second year as Director at St. Lucy's Priory (full-time). I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) are influenced by debating in the 00s.

This Year's Topic: I believe that the point of the resolution is to force debaters to learn about a different topic each year. So I think that debaters who develop good topic knowledge -- i.e., debaters who understand economics as a complex field of academic study and can analyze how different policies would affect the economy at different levels -- will have a massive advantage on internal link debating and are better equipped to win my ballot.

Debate: I am open to voting for almost any argument or style so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. Debate is a game. Rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, standards of the game (condo, competition, limits of fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate, either more fair or more pedagogically valuable, compared to your opponent's. My ballot always is awarded to whoever debated better; I will not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the round, whether that was at camp or a previous round.

I run a planess aff; should I strike you?: As a matter of truth I am predisposed to the neg, but I try to leave bias at the door. I do end up voting aff about half the time. I will hold a planless aff to the same standard as a K alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, I will "hack" out on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) are non-factors until you contextualize and justify why they are solvency mechanisms for the aff in the debate space.

Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is easier to debate well when using true arguments and better cards. In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however I read critically. Cards are meaningless without highlighted warrants; you are better off fewer painted cards than multiple under-highlighted cards. Well-explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, can beat bad/under-highlighted cards.

Debate Ideologies: I think that judges should reward good debating over ideology, so almost all of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents. You can limit the chance that I intervene by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions; the 2NR and 2AR are competing pitches trying to sell me a ballot.

Accommodations: Please email me ahead of time if you believe you will need an accommodation that cannot be facilitated in round so that I can work with tab on your issue. Any accommodation that has any potential competitive implications (limiting content or speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary.

Argument by argument breakdown below.

Topicality

Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive impact debate. You win my ballot when you are the team that proves their interpretation is best for debate -- usually by proving that you have the best internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to a terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I love judging a good T round and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses. I would much rather hear a well-articulated 2NR on why I need to enforce a limited vision of the topic than a K with state/omission links or a Frankenstein process CP that results in the aff.

I default to competing interpretations, but reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable (e.g., "The aff interp only imposes a reasonable additional research burden of two more cases") versus vague generalities ("Good is good enough").

I believe that many resolutions (especially domestic topics) are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that preserving topicality as a viable generic negative strategy is important. I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if I think that the aff is/should be topical in a truth sense. I am also a judge who will actually vote on T-Substantial (substantial as in size, not subsets) because I think there should be a mechanism to check small affs.

Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are impacted as independent voters. However, I believe they are internal links to the original violation and standards (i.e. you don't meet if you only meet effectually). The neg is best off introducing Fx/Xtra early with me in the back; I give the 1ARs more leeway to answer new Fx/Xtra extrapolations than I will give the 2AC for undercovering Fx/Xtra.

Framework / T-USFG

For an aff to win framework they must articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model. Procedural fairness starts as an impact by default and the aff must prove why it should not be. I can and will vote on education outweighs fairness, or that substantive fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but the aff must win these arguments. The TVA is an education argument and not a fairness argument; affs are not entitled to the best version of the case (policy affs do not get extra-topical solvency mechanisms), so I don't care if the TVA is worse than the planless version from a competitive standpoint.

For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or a better type of education). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for -- I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both -- it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss in the round, but why neg ground loss under the aff's model is inevitable and uniquely worse. When going for education, deploy arguments for why plan-based debate is a better internal link to positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. Empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable, or how policy-focused debate scales up better than planless debate, are extremely persuasive in front of me.

Procedurals/Theory

I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy, therefore I believe that the best iteration of debate is one that teaches people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae about process. I have MUCH less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case and the negative is entitled to test that implementation strategy. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I will hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why they should be considered competitive with the aff.

That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you absent actual line-by-line refutation that includes a coherent abuse story which would be solved by your interpretation.

Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time; you cannot spread a block of analytics at me like they were a card and expect me to catch everything. I will be very unapologetic in saying I didn't catch parts of the theory debate on my flow because you were spreading too fast.

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

- Condo is good (but should have limitations, esp. to check perf cons and skew).

- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate if they prove competition; a specific solvency advocate proves competitiveness but the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates high risk of a solvency deficit and/or no competition.

- The aff gets normal means or whatever they specify; they are not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) due to the lack of specificity.

- The neg is not entitled to intrinsic processes that result in the aff (i.e. ConCon, NGA, League of Democracies).

- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

My defaults that are UNLIKELY to change or CANNOT be changed:

- CX is binding.

- Lit checks/justifies (debate is primarily a research and strategic activity).

- OSPEC is never a voter (except fiating something contradictory to ev or a contradiction between different authors).

- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth).

- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg.

- Teams should disclose previously run arguments; breaking new doesn't require disclosure.

- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms), but specific instances of behavior outside the room/round that are not verifiable are not relevant in this round.

- Condo is not the same thing as severance of the discourse/rhetoric. You can win severance of your reps, but it is not a default entitlement from condo.

- ASPEC is checked by cross. The neg should ask and if the aff answers and doesn't spike, I will not vote on ASPEC. If the aff does not answer, the neg can win by proving abuse. Potential ground loss is abuse.

Kritiks

TL;DR: I would much rather hear a good K than a bad politics disad, so if you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid doing specific case research and brute force ballots with links of omission or reusing generic criticisms about the state/fiat, I am a bad judge for you. If I'm in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, reconsider your prefs/strategy.

A kritik must be presented as a comprehensible argument in round. To me, that means that a K must not only explain the scholarship and its relevance (links and impacts), but it must function as a coherent call for the ballot (through the alt). A link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff and/or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you cannot explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt then I will have an extremely low threshold for treating the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as there is a coherent explanation for why I should do that beyond the mere fact the aff links (for example, if the K turns case). If the alt solves back for the implications of the K, whether it is a material alt or a debate space alt, the solvency process should be explained and contrasted with the plan/perm. Links of omission are very uncompelling. Links are not disads to the perm unless you have a (re-)contextualization to why the link implicates perm solvency. Ks can solve the aff, but the mechanism shouldn't be that the world of the alt results in the plan (i.e. floating PIK).

Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to weigh the impacts vs. labeling your discourse as a link. Being extremely good at historical analysis is the best way to win a link turn or impact turn. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm, especially if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relates directly to the impacts.

Against K affs, you should leverage fairness and education offensive as a way to shape the process by which I should evaluate the kritik. I'm more likely to give you "No perms without a plan text" because cheating should be mutual than I am to give it to you because epistemology and pedagogy is important.

Counterplans

I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of your net benefit is evaluated inversely proportional to the quality of the counterplan is. Generic PICs are more vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits and carry much higher threshold burden on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias by rewarding negs who who diligent in research. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg has a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.

- Process CPs: I am extremely unfriendly to process counterplans where the process is entirely intrinsic; I have a very low threshold for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test opportunity cost. I am extremely friendly to process counterplans that test a distinct implementation method compared to the aff. Intentionally vague plan texts do not give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan (Perm Do the CP). The neg can define normal means for the aff if the aff refuses to, but the neg has an equally high burden to defend the competitiveness of the CP process vs. normal means. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases; I will vote aff on CP flaws if the neg's attempt to hot-swap between these processes produces a structural defect.

I do not judge kick by default, but 2NRs can easily convince me to do so as an extension of condo. Superior solvency for the aff case alone is sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. the aff has no competition arguments in the 2AR).

I am very likely to err neg on sufficiency framing; the aff absolutely needs either a solvency deficit or arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative (and why that outweighs).

Disadvantages

I value defense more than most judges and am willing to assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not when you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force past near zero risk. I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense.

Misc.

Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments will have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.

Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5 in speaks. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. If online please keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear through Zoom than in person.

Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.

Strategy Points: I will reward good practices in research and preparation. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Capital on a courts counterplan is a disad but CP gets circumvented is not). Negative teams with case negs (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks.

Please add me to the chain, my email is rosasyardley.a@gmail.com

Policy from 2014-2021 for Downtown Magnets High School/LAMDL and Cal State Fullerton.

thoughts

general: I will listen to anything you have to say. I need you to control how I think about what is going on in the round. Framing weighing and comparing impacts is important. Extending and debating warrants as thoroughly as the debate allows is so important to me especially in the rebuttals . Also because I feel like tech and truth determine each other. You should be able to do a lot more with less. I flow on paper so I will miss quick, short, and intricate arguments. Tell me what it is I need to be voting on and why I should vote on that thing. I am very receptive to an rfd that is straight up given to me. My rfds are broad and I don't ever really get into specifics unless asked and rarely vote on a single argument.

specifics: I like k v k and k v policy debates the most. I have the most experience with arguments about the state, racial capitalism, and the intersection of race/gender/queerness/class. I need to feel like you are politically and/or socially motivated by the world to run the k you are running for me to really be persuaded by it. I need Ks to have a strong explanation of either the world or debate. Ks on the aff need a clear method and solvency. I don't mind if this isn't as strong on the neg unless the aff makes it a thing. In k v fw rounds I need both sides to have models of debate and comparison work being done on the offense. I lean towards skills, clash, tva for the neg. Generally I need links to be as specific as possible for any kind of offense or argument. I will consider any theory argument. But if you are going for them, be as contextual to the round as possible. Frankly, 4+ off is irritating to me no shade but I live for drama so go ahead but that raises the bar for you and lowers it for the aff.

other: sorry if I get sleepy, it's probably not because of the round

To add me to the chain: csardo@polytechnic.org

Rounds on the topic: 48

Tournaments Judged: Greenhill, Jack Howe Invitational, CSU Fullerton Invitational, Damus Hollywood Invitational, Glenbrooks, Arizona State HDSHC Invitational, Peninsula Invitational, UNLV

TL/DR: Run the arguments that you think will best show your skills as a debater. Argumentation isn’t just tallying dropped arguments, but engaging in comparative and contextualized analysis. Your warrants and evaluative criteria are the most important thing. I have a Ph.D. in political theory, so I'm probably familiar with your lit base, whether it's K or policy oriented.

Background:

I completed a PhD in political theory at Northwestern and now coach at Polytechnic School, where I judge 5+ TOC bid tournaments a year. Matt Liu (then Struth) taught me policy debate in High School, and I judged and coached occasionally throughout college. I was a 1A/2N, reading both big stick policy and soft left affs, and everything from Agent CP/Politics to 1 off Ks on Neg. In my other life, I teach and write on political theory, specifically on Nietzsche, critical theory, the Anthropocene, and political responsibility.

Stuff I care about (Judge philosophy):

My biases are much less on particular substantive arguments or styles and methods of debate, than on argumentation practices more broadly. I am equally comfortable judging a round with a non-traditional affirmative as a straight up policy round. I would much rather judge the debate that you want to have that plays to your argumentative strengths than watch a debate where you run arguments that you think I want to hear. Whether that’s a 1 off Deleuze K, a performance identity aff, a flex strat with 7 off, an agenda politics disad, or an all postmodernism round, I will evaluate the round based on the quality of the debating in round. I tend to think of debate as a game, albiet one with enormous pedagogic value.

While I think I’m fairly agnostic and open when it comes to argument substance and debate style, I tend to sound like a “cranky old man” when it comes to techniques and mechanics of argumentation. A couple of things you should know:

Comparative analysis: too many rounds lack comparative link and impact analysis. Simply repeating your link cards without doing the work to compare your evidence and/or analysis to your opponent’s and giving me multiple reasons why I should prefer your reasoning is not persuasive. Debate is not just about competing claims, or even competing evidence, but the warrants that that justify those claims.

Contextual evidence analysis: Just because you’ve read a card on it doesn’t mean that the argument is true. Just because the card is more recent doesn’t mean that it’s better. Contextualize and analyze the evidence in the round. More cards doesn’t mean better: I’m looking for the warrants of the evidence not just the assertions or conclusions of the author. If you highlight the card down to only the author’s thesis or conclusion without reading their justifications for reaching that conclusion, it’s just an argument from authority and is no different than if you just made that assertion. This also means that author’s qualifications and forum of publication matter. I reward debaters that really do the work on comparing the quality of evidence in the round

Flowing, listening, and organization: nothing will annoy me more than you spending significant portions of cross-x asking which evidence your opponent read. In some cases it is warranted, but in most cases the problem can be resolved by flowing. Don’t rely on speech docs and don’t assume I’m reading along (I’m not, I’m flowing what you actually communicate). If you don’t have a good flow, you’re going to miss round winning arguments and your speeches are going to get messy and you will not be able to develop as coherent and compelling arguments.

Ethos and Pathos: Good speakers aren’t just fast or clear, they speak with passion and emphasis. A speech is a performance and persuasion doesn’t just happen on the flow it happens through your rhetoric and your speech.

Tech v Truth: I tend to lean on the side of tech because you should have to develop the better arguments not just happen to be right on accident. That being said, I’m evaluating arguments not just looking for who dropped the argument. If you’re running arguments of a questionable veracity (conspiracy theories, Flat Earth, etc) or arguments that are demonstrably false and you should know better (i.e. the bill in your politics disad has already passed), your opponent doesn’t have to do a lot of work to persuade me that your argument is bad, regardless of the amount of ink on the flow.

Stuff you care about (specific issue biases):

Like I said, I’d rather hear the debate that you want to have. I prefer well-researched in depth substantive debates. These are just some issue biases, but I often find myself voting against them:

Affs: I personally think that affirmative should affirm the resolution, but I’ve become more open as to what affirming the resolution means. I love a clever and well-crafted affirmative (whether K or policy) that shows deep research into the topic.

Framework v K Affs: My personal biases tend to lean towards framework, since I think that in general – though not always – switch side debate is good and that most literature bases can be accessed by a topical action (more so on pomo than identity Affs). But I find myself often voting Aff in these rounds, because the framework debate gets too block reliant and is less responsive to the impact turns the Aff is making on framework. I tend to think that procedural fairness in itself is not an impact. Good TVAs can be quite persuasive to me, and I would rather have one clearly developed (and even carded) TVA than rattling off a bunch of them. I don’t think the TVA has to solve the aff, but has to a) access the literature base of the Aff and b)meet the framework interpretation. On the aff, you need more than just access to your literature, but some articulation of why that literature is a) necessary for debate and b)necessarily precludes a topical action.

T v policy Affs: I default to competing interpretations and evaluate standards like disad impacts. I tend to lean truth over tech a little bit here: just because you found a weird definition that excludes the aff and sets good limits for the resolution, doesn’t mean it’s the best, especially if it’s decontextualized or from a strange source. I do think your plan text is important, as it’s what provides the stable advocacy point around which I evaluate your action. Teams should be less afraid of going for T in the 2NR when they're ahead on the flow.

Case debate: I love a good case debate. Whether the neg strat is critical or policy, I think it’s hard for you to win without some ink on the case flow.

Disads: the link debate takes priority, the more specific you can contextualize the disad in terms of the affirmative the better. Impact calc isn’t just about outweighing, but providing the evaluative criteria for how you outweigh

Politics: Most politics cards are bad, but I like a clever politics scenario with a well developed internal link story.

Counterplan Theory: I lean neg on conditionality and agent counterplans, but lean aff on process counterplans (especially ones that involve multiple agents doing multiple conditional actions).

Counterplans: Counterplan texts are important (just like plan texts), and solvency advocates are important too. Case specific advantage counterplans or pics that show in depth research are some of my favorite arguments.

Perms v CPS: just because they perm doesn’t mean that they are severance or intrinsic. The aff should be able to test the competition of the CP; if it fails I don’t think it should be a reason to reject the team, but shows that the argument is competitive. I’d rather fewer well-explained perms than a bunch of blippy perms hoping that the neg drops one.

Ks: I think critiques are good for debate; forcing the affirmative to justify their method/reps/scholarship/speech act/ontopolitical assumptions is both good in general and good for debate. I would much rather hear specific link analysis that engages the specifics of the Aff advocacy and contextualizes the thesis of the K in terms of what the Aff is doing (whether their policy action or their ontological assumptions) than a vague pre-written overview that doesn’t connect to the aff. Even if the K is a really a K of debate or Fiat, I want to hear your criticism in terms of the Aff. As a political theorist, I’m fairly deep in the literature, so you should feel comfortable running just about any K in front of me. I’ll keep my own interpretive and hermeneutic biases out of my decision, but if it’s a blatent misinterpretation of the scholarship, I will let you know in my ballot. I also want to contextualize the alternative for me, whether it’s reject the aff, an advocacy statement, or some sort of ethical orientation. Tell me what it is that you are asking me to vote for.

Perms v Ks: I tend to think that most K perms are really variations on perm do both. I’d rather you just articulate why the alternative’s advocacy isn’t competitive with the AFF with one perm, rather than read a bunch of perms with no explanation and hope they drop one. I definitely give aff leeway on perm theory since most Alts don’t get fully articulated until the block. I don’t think Perm: do the Aff is a perm, or really an argument. It doesn’t test competition; just make the alt fails argument.

Framework v Ks: I don’t like framework arguments that are either pure defense “we get to weigh the aff’s impacts against the K” or frameworks that exclude Ks entirely from debate. In general I think framework is important on the K for both sides, as it provides the evaluative criteria by which I will make my decision. I think we all know that fiat is illusory, but it’s a question of how I should evaluate the competing speech acts in the debate, and why that method is the best (for whatever reasons you articulate).

Kritiks

-a well articulated link is the difference maker on a kritik

-the alternative must solve for the harms presented by the Kritik

-all Kritik are fine but must be contextualized at some point in the block

Dis-Ads

-need to prove that the aff makes the SQUO inherently worse in order for the dis ad to make it onto my decision calculus

-also the link on how exactly the aff links to the dis ad a well articulated link accompanied with the a good internal link to really contextualize it

Counter Plans

- Needs to solve for the harms provided by the aff

-also has to have some form of net benefit to prefer the CP over the off plan

-must have less of a solvency deficit than the affirmative

Affirmative preferences

K-Affs

-Kritik or a non-traditional affirmative is fine but will still be held to the same standard of burden of proof the aff must show how exactly they solve for the harms presented

-must have a clear mechanism as to how exactly the affirmative solves what is the mechanism, actors, and solvency must be clear

-Also when you know that your aff is going to get a little confusing then slow down a bit

-make it clear if you want your analytics weighed equally against warranted evidence ex. if you choose to not use evidence because it helps strengthen your affirmative of refusal

Traditional Aff

- clear solvency and how you solve for impacts

-Also explain the solving mechanism

other stuff

-if not being clear when you spread will say clearer

-tag team is allowed but only in dire circumstances

I like Ks, but admittedly sometimes I can be a little slow. Please throughly explain them to me. Even if I am familiar with them I want a team to throughly explain their critical solvency or their alternative to me.

I don't enjoy a lot of straight up policy debates, but I'm also not against them. Run what you wanna run and don't let my standpoints deter you from your debate aspirations.

I enjoy debates with fiery clash, but I expect everyone to be respectful to one another. A debater's speaker points will be lowered if they are being disrespectful because it's just not cool and I don't vibe with it.

Spreading is fine, if it is done correctly. Please enunciate and project! Do not mumble your words quickly. This makes evaluating the debate easier because I do not need to decode the mumbling.

https://youtu.be/njoJ0VRbYzc

Please add me to the email chain.

E-mail: jessicatero16@gmail.com

Peninsula 17

USC 21

No, you don't have to have a plan.

Yes, kritiks are fine. But you better be able to explain your theory (especially high theory) well and do specific link work.

David Wells

Head Coach Bakersfield High School

dmwells101@yahoo.com

Policy Debate Experience

4 years HS policy debate 1992-1996

3 time College NDT qualifier 2000-2002  CSU, Bakersfield 

Policy and LD Judging Philosophies below

Policy Judging Philosophy

Tech vs. Truth

Truth is often determined in round by the argumetns presented so I guess I lean toward technique that has well explained arguments.  Blippy arguments are rarely persuasive and often easily grouped and defeated.

Prep Time

Please don't use the restroom right before your speech and expect it not to take your preptime.  

Prep time can be used before or after CX.

Flashing docs is not considered prep time, unless you "realize" you need something that requires prep.

Evidence vs Analysis (The lost Art of Argumentation)

Good analysis beats bad evidence most of the time.  My HS Coach was fond of saying, "Debate with your brains not with your briefs."  That being said, good evidence with good analysis is best.

AFF

I prefer Affirmatives that defend a topical policy action, preferably with a plan.  The topical case can be big impact, systemic impact or critical in nature. I can be persuaded that other ways of debating are worthwhile, but the burden of proof falls heavily on the AFF without a plan as to how they actually affirm the resolution, not just an identity or issue unrelated to the Nationally chosen topic.

I have no problem voting for performance AFFs that are well debated.  I do not care at all for Adhom. attacks.

I dislike blip theory debates.  I do like theory debates that are developed, well articulated, and impacted.  I have no problem voting on theory.  Just make it good theory.

NEG

Counterplans, DAs, Kritiks, Case Debates, and Topicality are all fine.  The more specific the evidence/links the more likely you will get weight for your arguments.

Be ready and able to defend your Neg Strategy.  2NR should make strategic decisions and no go for everything.

LD Judging Philosophy

Speed/Clarity: I debated Policy at the national level in college so speed is fine.  Let me clarify, clear speed is fine.  I determine your clarity.  So I will say clearer twice, then slower, then stop flowing if you fail to adjust.  If you do "speed" drills but not "clarity" drills, you probably should speak slower.

Strategies: I really just want to see a clash of ideas.  Arguments that avoid a directly clash can be persuasive but rarely get high speaker points.  Preferably, an actual debate about values and value criterions is preferred.  The move toward LD becoming individual policy debate is interesting...not decided if it is beneficial.  If you debate policy style, you need to be clear why that is to be preferred and how it stays germane to the Resolution.

The Topic: I like LD cases that embrace the value question of the resolution head on and develop their position.  If you run a policy it should be germane to the topic and ought to be a reasonably predictable case for competitive equity.  This can be debated out in the round.

If you have questions of me, just ask.  I'm not perfect.  I'm getting older.  You know the topic better than me.  So, teach me your position and you have a better chance of winning.  If you just read a lot without analysis, you let me be the learner with a poor teacher and who knows what I may think...?

Be Polite and enjoy the debate.

I have judged Policy yearly for the past 15 years. I prefer LD and PF, but I am familiar with the ins and outs, but I don't know them intuitively as I have never competed in Policy. I am willing to try and follow whatever you present. However, I expect you to communicate with me. I am the judge, not your opponent. What that means is this, you need to tell me what you are doing and why. Slow down and communicate with me. When I say slow down, what I mean is this:

1. I don't follow speed. I try, but I won't get most of what you say if you are going a million miles an hour. However, I understand the strategy and need. If you spread, you need to slow down and tell why I should care about what you just said. Give me a quick, slowed down summary of what you said, and why I should care.

2. Make taglines very clear! Don't assume I heard your 'next DA' when you're going a million miles an hour. If you want it on my flow, make it clear what it is and where to put it. Spread the rest, but slow down for taglines and summarize what you just said! This is especially important for the 1AC and 1NC.

3. Email chains are helpful, but not. It is nice to have an email chain, but if I have to read the email to understand what you are saying, why give speeches? Also, trying to follow evidence because I can't understand you makes it difficult for me as a judge. I will refer to reference, but will not pour over it after a round to determine a winner. Doing that means I don't need to hear from you. I could sit at home and read your evidence to determine a winner. Don't rely on chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I prefer traditional LD Debate with a Value/Criterion. I have voted for flex-negs, and other more progressive type arguments, but I prefer debates that use Value/Criterion. Don't spread! If you spread in LD, I won't flow. You can go at a crisp pace. In fact, I prefer a crisp paces, but...spread and you will most likely lose.