Clearly outline arguments

Framework is important :warranted offense + line by line defense = RFD

Updated Feb 10, 2023 - middle and elementary school, as well as non-policy debaters, most of this is not useful for you, but some might be! Do feel free to read! :)

TLDR

If you have questions before or after round, ask in person or feel free to email me. My email is n(dot)velo2000(at)gmail(dot)com. Put me on the email chain!

Worldview:
K --------------x----- Policy

Speed for tags and analysis:
Slow ------------x------- Fast

Speed for the body of ev:
Slow -------------------x Fast

Introduction

I have a BA in political science from the University of Kansas with a minor in philosophy (2021). I am pursuing a JD at the University of Kansas School of Law (2024).

I debated for Emporia HS in Emporia, KS ('14-'18: oceans, surveillance, China, education), and the University of Kansas ('18-'19: executive authority). I mostly read "soft-left" affs, though occasionally read traditional high-magnitude impact affs. Every aff I read defended USfg action. My 2NRs were a lot of T. Don't let the arguments I read determine what you read in front of me.

I try to judge when I can. Trends, community consensus, and topic knowledge are things that I am no longer up to date on. Given that the tournaments I judge are few and far between, my flowing abilities may not be where you'd like them. I often choose to flow on paper, meaning I may not make eye contact.

Deviation from my paradigm =/= auto-loss, following it perfectly =/= auto-win. I can be convinced to evaluate the round by other means than those below. This paradigm applies to other forms of debate where applicable.

Top level: Non-Debatable Rules

Be nice - you have a duty to be respectful and ethical towards everyone in the round. This includes, but is not limited to, not making arguments that could have traumatic implications. A breach of said duty will be met by a punishment I deem proportional to the breach. If being otherwise unethical/hyper-aggressive is your strategy, strike me.

Speeches, CX, prep, winning, speaker points - each debater must give exactly one constructive speech and exactly one rebuttal for their team. Each debater must be available for CX after their constructive; open CX is fine. Speech and prep times are strict. Prep stops once the flashdrive goes into your computer or when you open your email. Compiling evidence into one doc is prep. Don't steal prep. Exactly one team will win. Info on speaker points below.

Filesharing - I would like speech docs. Speechdrop > email chain > flash drive. Microsoft Word documents preferred.

Online chat box - only has been an issue for middle school/novices. Don't abuse it.

Clipping - if you clip and I catch it, you get the "4" rank and/or 20 speaker points. If you clip and the other team catches it with a recording, I will award you a loss in addition to the "4" rank and/or 20 speaker points. Don't clip. If you need to stop reading a card before finishing it as indicated by the speech doc, you should say "mark the card at [last word you read]."

General/Misc. Thoughts

Tech > Truth - within reason, a dropped arg is a true arg if there is an extension.

Clarity > Speed - slow down for anything that isn't the text of a piece of evidence, especially if the argument isn't in the speech doc.

The less work there is for me to do at the end, the better.

No judge kicks unless its explicitly an option. Make it clear that I can judge kick before the 2NR. Conditionality is a prerequisite.

The neg should disprove the desirability or scholarship of the 1AC. I struggle to vote on things that happened before the start of the 1AC or after the end of the 2NR.

I tend to lean neg on framework vs affs that do not defend USfg action. Not an impossible for the aff to win, but much harder for the aff if the 1AC content is not related to the topic.

I consider debate to be a game first and an educational forum second - fairness is an impact in and of itself.

I generally consider myself a utilitarian. Avoiding unnecessary suffering is inherently good. Unnecessary suffering is inherently bad. Death/suffering good arguments are neither true nor ethical.

Affirmative/Case Debates/Presumption

The aff should defend a hypothetical solution to a problem.

The aff cannot sever out of the 1AC advocacy.

The content of the 1AC should be related to the resolution. Any aff not related to the resolution should be prepared to justify that decision.

Defense alone is never enough to justify voting neg. Presumption does not exist absent offense. There is always a non-zero-percent risk the aff does something beneficial.

Topicality/FW

The 1NC should have an interpretation, violation, standards, and a reason to vote neg. The block should give a topical version of the aff if there is one.

The standards debate should have at least one warrant. Saying "vote neg for limits and ground" is insufficient without more analysis, and especially so in the block. The block should explain how your interpretation resolves any alleged abuse, why non-topical affs and/or the 1AC advocacy damages limits and ground, and why limits and ground are good.

I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability has never meant that "our aff is a reasonable example of the topic," but has rather meant that "our interpretation of the topic is a reasonable one, so don't vote us down."

Absent clear, egregious abuse, T is not an RVI. If there's any uncertainty over whether that level of abuse is met, it probably hasn't been.

Theory

Generally open to good faith theory arguments, but "cheap-shots" will be held to a higher threshold.

Conditionality is usually good; it's up to the aff to tell me where to draw the line, if at all.

Disclosure is good, but failure to disclose usually does not justify rejecting a team or infinite conditionality. New affs are a valid, strategic aff choice.

Disadvantages

The neg should ideally provide specific link evidence, or spin generic link evidence in a way that relates to the aff. Specific link/no link arguments are stronger than generic ones.

Impact overviews are nice. I think there is a lot of room for nuance in "DA outweighs and turns case" arguments. These arguments win rounds.

Counterplans

If you're reading a "cheating" CP, be prepared to defend the legitimacy of it.

CPs should compete through mutual exclusivity or through external net benefits (such as a disadvantage). Internal net benefits are unpersuasive and lose to the permutation.

CPs should have texts that are specific and written in a similar format to the aff plan text.

Kritiks

If this is your bread and butter, I probably should not be your highest-ranked judge.

Framework debates (fiat not real, weigh impacts of aff vs K, etc.) are important and I like them but you have to slow down. Here, the quality of your arguments heavily outweighs the quantity of them.

Speaker points

I think of speaker points as a way of grading your speech. To do so, I take the "grade" that I think you deserve, place a "2" in front of it, and move the decimal (ex: 75% = 27.5). In awarding speaker points, I consider both speech delivery and content. The standard for these scores changes with the tournament and division; novices at local tournaments will be held to lower standards than teams on the national circuit.

30 = Perfect.

27.6 to 29.9 = Above average, there are likely one or more small issues you can improve on to get closer to a 30.

27.5 = Average.

25.1 to 27.6 = Below average, there are one or more major areas you can improve on.

25 = Well below average, there are many major areas that need improvement.

20 = You clipped your evidence, displayed egregious disrespect, or created another ethical issue in the round.