v24

Casady 2021 (debated)

University of Kansas 2025 (debating)

I want the ev. (also questions) pls- alexpbarreto1@gmail.com

Conflict me if you know you're committed to debating at KU.

Follow speech times, don't clip/miscut ev, and don't be problematic.

Things

Understanding decisions is hard my goal is not to try to convince you I am right but to try and help you understand why I rendered my decisions as outlined below. Feel free to ask lots of questions/email---I'm not a very reactive person so feel free to to tell me why you think you are right---That said, time limits etc... I try to write into my decisions several ways in which each team could have improved and how the losing team could have gotten my ballot.

As a debater, I hate when I felt that judges decided based on perception/opinion rather than using the instruments presented to them in the debate. I will seek to couch my decision in your wording, your choices, your evidence, and your ethos. That said while I think too many judges rely too much on instinct, intuition, their own debate experience for decision PERCEPTION ie: how a judge perceives a debate is inevitable, and it often always is not the same as how the debaters perceive it. Two things you can do to help me with this, everything else is how my perceptions will inevitably function.

A: Ethos, or rather, the confidence "your argument" "can win". If you don't believe you can win it becomes very hard for a judge to vote for you, I believe this is largely inevitable, and though there are technical exemptions usually the team that seems like they are winning, does. Many debates exude a simple failure of the debaters to meet the above statement: if you see a pairings and give up, that might contribute to why you lose. That said on a less literal level it represents many things I inevitably perceive throughout the debate. Your knowledge of your argument, how you treat your opponents and their arguments, the quality of your evidence, your decision-making etc.. The more these things seem out of continuum I believe every judge would agree it becomes harder to vote for you---because they all represent that "your arguments" "can't win". Ensuring your arguments have internal consistency, you have met a baseline of foundation for your arguments, and set up the winning rebuttal earlier in the debate are all simple things you can do that ensure I can craft a ballot for you.

B: Framing. Tell me how I should decide, read evidence, evaluate moments in the debate etc... The more you do this the more you give me the language to the explain the debate in your terms rather than having to do so in the other teams(or mine). I find this especially important in debates about different "levels" ie: fiat, education, consequences etc... not because it's uniquely needed in these debates---Framing is important in both, how I read ev/decide portions of every debate BUT debaters seem to forget to respond to the other teams argument when they are each have a different starting point for the "what" in the debate. Don't get lost in the theoretical, by the final rebuttal you should be able to evaluate the likelihood the argument you are extending will be a winning argument and then use that estimation to implicate it out for how I should decide-often manifesting in approaching arguments with best/worse case lines of answers.

1---I will always start with my decision with “I vote (aff/neg) for x” where x is the world gone for by the 2NR/2AR debated. If it’s neg on aff bad, it’s for the squo. But almost always I will start deciding by finding where the rebuttal encapsulated why I should vote for you(ideally the start); and if I don’t understand what I’m voting for…. That will be tough. This framing is especially important in debates that operate at different scales ie: subject formation, consequentialism, fiat. Though also important in simple impact calculus, more and more debaters move to vague scenarios that fail to explain how their impacts are both external to and can implicate the other teams-which is usually the best combination for success.

2---Internal argument consistency matters for me way more than most-If the logical conclusion of your arguments seem to be that the other team is right it is gonna be hard to vote for you. You should capitalize on 1ACs that that contain evidence/mechanics that substantiate alt causes/reasons the aff is bad. Similarly capitalizing on ways 1NCs undercut themselves and the ability for the 2NR to then go on with the "business as usual" strategy. I am thus significantly more willing to grant large "risk" of arguments that has premises unchallenged earlier on in the debate and to significantly lower the risk of arguments that has even a single premise(usually it's weakest) heavily challenged throughout the debate. What this means is I much better for the 2NR/2ARs that go for 1 or 2 key issues on most arguments, and emphasizes covering weakness, than trying to put words next to everything they said. I am more willing to grant larger "risk" to well debated defensive arguments like presumption, thumpers, alt causes, no internal links even when they lack evidence if they are well debated substantiated with criticism of the other teams arg/ev. In critical debates I find this plays out the most with performative contradictions/double turns---I struggle to make internally consistent decisions when teams decide debates should be about subject formation/x issue and then simultaneously find themselves linked to an argument about said issue.

3---What you read matters way less for me than most, how you read it though... I think debate has evolved metas---that condition judges and debaters in a similar way to echo chambers. After a seasons worth of debates we feel like we've figured it all out---People dismiss evidence by author name of their read, assume teams are making arguments because they know the args better than the team making them, and essentially often interpolate debaters arguments into their mind as if they were their own arguments to make a decision rather than use what the debaters have given them. This paradigm is to represent that other things matter significantly more for me--That you have demonstrated you have thought through a win condition for the argument you are making and that you understand it enough to explain it to me in words I can repeat with confidence. I try not to read along in the doc unless I think your clipping/I miss something reasonable enough to fill in---That said I do skim the docs/evidence during the debate and read evidence noted in the 2NR/2AR. The quality of the ev, it's highlighting, and my ability to locate your arguments in it often matter a lot---particularly in debates that don't have a clear deciding issue/mechanism presented in the final rebuttals. What "evidence" is I find highly open to interpretation whether it's a standard card, art, lived experience, empiric, metaphor etc... but what I find matters is how you can use it as a base for the arguments in your latter speeches and that the best teams use that base to seemingly transition to the expansion of their argument. What that means is, it does not seem out of nowhere. If you are not saying what your card says, what you were saying earlier on in the debate, or you are substantiating claims with claims rather than ev/warrants it will become immensely harder to vote for you even if you could still win on the other teams mistakes.

4---I flow speeches and CX until told otherwise... I try to write down the words you are saying. What I don't think debaters often realize is the Sisyphean nature of this task. In lieu of perfect hearing and typing speed I use shorthand/abbreviation. When debates often come down to the specific words said---if you are speaking inordinately fast/unclearly I will not feel bad saying I didn't get it as a reason I did not vote for you. I have good memory but tangibles like Pen time and if you think your that fast, slowing down slightly, might behoove you. Effectively "flagging" your argument with titles/numbers/letters is also helpful in creating a memory of the debate in my head closer to yours. In CX this relates to your decisions of what you choose to say---or really nowadays choose to avoid saying it seems. I find I'm much more convinced cross ex is used effectively when you use it to effectively communicate both a question/answer and a perception/moment of the debate that I should be thinking about.

5---I think part of the problem with judging as a community of former debaters and current coaches is that debate thought is constantly increasingly. I often find this played out in games of diminishing marginal utility where debaters engage in practices they believe will be helpful but become ultimately so divorced from reality, they have little practical value. Focusing on your args, understanding what's wrong with your opponents args, and how to explain that in a way I get will matter exponentially more than things like not sending analytics, obfuscating your arguments to confuse your opponents, trying to gain some artificial pre round advantage. I probably spend very little time thinking about you outside of the context I'm judging you in so I would emphasize "best practices" that convince me your a good person rather than things that will not impress/likely end up hurting your speaks.

Some people I liked decisions from/try to emulate as a judge.
Tommy Snider

Especially for policy debates,

Brett Bricker, Yao Yao Chen, Ned Gidley, Ethan Harris, Hunter McCullough

Especially for k debates,

Nathan Rothenbaum, Scott Harris, David Kilpatrick, Scott Phillips, Jared Spiers

I'm primarily a policy judge, so I'm pretty tab and don't really have strong preferences. However, I don't expect nor want other forms of debate (LD, PF, BQ, WSD) to look like a policy round.

A) I tend to view myself as a judge that tries to be as tab as possible. I am willing to accept any framework argument made. If no framework is set up, I will view the round as a policy-maker. I view debate as a fishbowl. What I mean by this is that debate is a place to play with different theories and ideas to form the best possible scenario. I am willing to vote neg if the status/quo outweighs the aff, but I will not make that argument for you. If you just say that in some way the aff is bad, but don’t tell me the status quo is better and warrant it out you will probably lose. In a way, if not given a framework (that is warranted out), I will go with what I am told is good. I work very hard to not let my personal beliefs have a role in the round, but I am only human.

B) Speed is not a problem; however, you must be clear. Mumbling is not the same as spreading.

C) Topicality. and Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. I refuse to vote on potential abuse, because that can lead to a what if can of worms. I also tend to be less sympathetic to weird definitions or word pics. I am glad to listen to them and way them in round if they are warranted, explained, and not just a ten second part of the round (let’s be honest-sometimes they are just time sucks). I love to see really good theory ran by people who understand it. It is an intriguing way to play the debate game.

D) Counter Plans are fine, but make sure you can actually, legally change out the actor, etc.

E) Disads are fine. I like them as a net benefit to CPs. It makes everything pretty.

F) Kritiks are fine with me, but please realize that I do not read all of the literature in my free time. If something I hear about sparks and interest, sure, I’ll read about it. This rarely happens. I think it is ridiculous how many debaters assume that I have read all that Zizek, Lacan, or whoever the newest guru is has written or spoken. Remember that your judges and coaches have lives outside of debate. I actually really like to hear Kritiks as they can offer great offense.

G) Now onto Perms. I will vote on them, but they must be explained and not just a cheap trick thrown at the aff.

H) Behavior: Remember that this is not a time to actively work to make people feel inferior (Read: Don’t be a jerk). We lose to many students who could have thrived in this activity due to them feeling horrid after a tournament. I want to see more debaters and actors. I want to see massive inclusion of all peoples. This is supposed to be fun and educational; help us work towards that. When you face those who are less experienced that you, help make it an awesome learning experience and don’t act like you should win by default.

I) Remember that you will probably encounter the same competitors and judges throughout the year; so make a good impression.

Email Chain or questions: lawexpo@gmail.com

Speed: Any speed fine. Any argument fine.

Experience: I debated for three years in high school policy debate and two years on the college NDT Circuit. I'm educated as a philosopher and am a criminal defense lawyer. My philosophical training means I really care about logical fallacies and how arguments are posed and answered. Also, I ponder and wonder about big questions so that translates into my debate thinking. I'm a theory hack. Professionally, I defend criminals so I've developed a very thick skin. My love is trying criminal cases so I'm very focused on how folks decide and why, and how to persuade and adapt--oh just like debate. I dislike dogma which is now shockingly rampant on both sides of our current political culture.

FLOW I flow the debate specifically on a sketch pad. Cross X too. If you do not take this into account I'll miss your arguments. That means give me time to turn the page when moving to new arguments and signpost clearly where you going next on the flow (e.g. "on the states counterplan" and give me time to get there.) Connecting arguments - the line-by-line - is essential you don't want me to put the debate together myself. 'I will feel zero remorse if you tell me that I did not decode the word vomit on 2AC 5 subpoint C or the treatise you regurgitated in a 2NC overview. ..It would help me immensely if you used consistent, easily transcribable soundbites' (thanks Shree) and very clear signposting so I can make connections on the flow effortlessly. Long overviews are bad in this same way--put them in the line by line.

Judging Philosophy: Be yourself, because sincerity is transparent and convincing. No argument would cause me to automatically vote against any team, regardless of whether they are labeled politically incorrect, offensive or whatever (I hate dogma.) If a team thinks an argument is morally wrong tell me why I should not vote for it. I HAVE NO DEFAULT OR PREFERRED JUDGING PARADIGM. I'll follow what the round dictates. Nor have I any theory preferences that I apply to my evaluation. I like theory debates and listening to debate arguments about what debate or the theory should be and why. Alot. I expect the debaters to tell me how to decide the debate. I don't want to determine which interpretation is better or whether human rights trumps extinction. The best teams will compare evidence, indict arguments (qualifications or warrants), and resolve debate questions.

Online Debate: Online debate is terrible both as it deemphasizes persuasion intangibles and fails to replicate the community and support of an in-person tournament. But it is better than not debating. Judges should have their camera on during all speeches as debaters need to assess judge reactions and attention. Competitors should have their cameras on during their speeches and cross x so judges can see non-verbal cues to assign speaker points.

Subjectivity/Ks:

Both policy and kritik debates thrill me when there is clash and great intellectual battles. I'm current on most K literature but that is a double-edged sword. I'll probably understand your Kritik, but I have a higher threshold for what you must articulate. And I'll know when you superficially understand your authors or the literature base.

- - Poor DAs/Advantages/K links: More and more I see DAs and 1AC advantages with poor link evidence and then severe brink and obvious uniqueness issues. Often these go unchallenged by opposing teams in a rush to simply read their evidence blocks. A few analytics or even a well reasoned cross-ex questions could destroy some of these disadvantages. Solid analytics will be rewarded with higher speaker points.

- - Evidence Comparison: Great debaters evaluate, compare and attack evidence. There is good evidence and bad evidence; good sources and lousy sources. Quality of evidence is very important to me. I'll be reading along with your speech doc and reading evidence in your prep time.

- - Cross-x: It's not simply your partner's prep time or to get cards you missed. It's another opportunity to make your arguments. You are welcome to do cross x anyway you want but best speaker points are awarded to those who answer their own cross x. And when you find a soft spot in their answers go for the kill and savor it. It's a rare and beautiful thing...as close to a Perry Mason moment as you'll ever find because they don't happen in court, ever. In the 1994 CEDA finals, James Brian Johnston from UKMC as 2AC, questions 2NC Dave Devereux (KSU) and his questioning beginning around 51 minutes into the video is, for me, a perfectly executed aggressive and brilliant cross-examination. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7L5N3Jvg8A&feature=youtu.be

- - Speaker Points I won't give fewer than 26 for any reason. For me, 29 indicates a very good speech with few mistakes. Wake Forest University devised a speaker point scale to attempt to universalize speaker points and I tend to follow it: http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html

The best debaters I see don't simply bury their heads in their laptop and spread; they actually look at the judge periodically and persuade, particularly in 2NR and 2ar. Watch the 2002 Ceda Finals and see Calum Matheson's 2nc or Jason Regnier's 2ac or 2ar for great examples. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpU21fxfAD4&feature=youtu.be .

Debate is about winning so be assertive even aggressive. Not rude or exclusive but go after your point with passion. We are in the persuasion business and enthusiasm is contagious. Have fun. A sense of humor is priceless (and rare) in a round.

Saif Salim

Heritage Hall, Class of 2020

Amherst College, Class of 2024

ssalim24@amherst.edu (I want to be on email chains)

TLDR for Pre-Round Prep:

Be nice and have fun!

Policy aff's are great. I prefer strong internal link chains over 6 impacts. Make sure to actually clash on framing debates.

K aff's are great. Make them have something to do with the topic. Be clear about your mechanism from the 1AC.

Framework is great. Fairness is a weak impact, but a strong internal link. Please organize your speeches well.

K's are great. Make sure your links apply to the plan or reps of the 1AC.

DA's: Read specific links to the aff and detailed internal links to make me happy

CP's: Read em. Aff specificity is great, but a huge multi plank advantage counterplan that solves the whole aff is awesome if you can justify it. I hate ConCon and RegNeg, but I like topic-specific process counterplans.

T: Yes, if you actually think your interpretation is reasonable for the topic.

Top Level

Debate is a great place to challenge yourself and have fun while doing it... the first thing that I want to see is that everyone is enjoying themselves and having a good time. Some debaters think that they're too good or cool to afford their opponents respect and decency in-round: if this is you, I will not be a good judge to have in the back of your round. We are all here to have fun and get better, so if you are jeopardizing that in any way, don't expect me to be as willing to vote for you.

If you have any questions, don't be afraid to shoot me an email or ask before the round starts. I'd be happy to clarify anything on this paradigm or offer you any other insight that I might have forgotten to include here.

In the world of online debating, make sure that you are slowing down and emphasizing more. It's hard to hear arguments coming at 400wpm over a zoom call, especially if there are connection issues. Plus, I flow on my computer so I can't see you while you're speaking - all non-verbal cues will have to come from your vocal inflection... make sure you're being clear about where you are in a line of arguments.

Tech over truth, for the most part. I try to stay as impartial in every round and evaluate things as objectively as I can within the bounds of the information that the round has provided. The only time tech over truth doesn't hold up is when you have insufficiently explained your argument - if you don't have a warrant or explanation to back up your claims, I won't feel comfortable voting for something.

About me

I debated for Heritage Hall from 2016-2020, was coached primarily by Bryan Gaston, Jasmine Stidham, and Joshua Michael, won the Oklahoma state championship as a sophomore with a senior partner (Vyas Venkataraman) and won NSDA nationals in Policy as a senior with a junior partner (Sam Ring). I ran mostly policy arguments for my first two years of debate as a 2A, but started leaning more toward K debate my junior year as a 2N. My senior year I was pretty flex... we read a K aff and I went for several different K's on the neg, but I also went for Process CP's and Heg DA's. You can really run anything in front of me and I'll be pretty receptive to hearing it.

Aff’s

I really don’t have much to talk to y’all about. Just do your thing. So many teams don’t actually utilize their case, let alone their 1AC.

If you read a soft left aff (as I imagine most will on the CJR topic), make sure your framing page doesn't just look like an extension of your 1AC authors and that's it. You need to engage the other team... I've seen way too many debates come down to a wash on the framing page which is unfortunate since it guides so much of how I will evaluate the rest of the round.

Planless Aff’s

If you want to run a planless aff and actually have a legitimate reason to do so (There’s a reason you cannot affirm the resolution, not just “But Bataille!!!”), I’m here for it. I love a well thought out K aff executed strongly.

That being said, I did like to go for, and will vote on, framework. You should have other strategies ready to go, and I don’t think you can read the same framework argument against every K Aff, but it’s still a good argument to fall back on if you have nothing else. I think that I actually lean slightly to the aff on the issue of framework debates: it will take you just a bit more work, but it won’t be too much. I'm predisposed to think fairness is an impact (that's magnitude can be debated) but could be persuaded otherwise.

Planless Aff’s vs. K’s – Excellent, if there are links. These are my favorite rounds to judge when executed well. Just make sure you actually link to their argument, not just the overarching lit base the K aff comes from (Not all links to SetCol lit apply to every SetCol K aff, for ex.) Also, I know the debate of whether or not the aff gets a perm can be a messy one, so you tell me how to evaluate it. I will probably lean to the aff getting a perm, but if you tell me otherwise, you can sway me.

Kritiks

I’m a pretty big fan of a lot of K literature. That being said, if your link is “STATE BAD” without any contextualization, then I don’t want to hear it. Otherwise, if you have links contextualized to the aff, it will probably be good in front of me.

Well structured, technical K debate that emphasizes key issues in the round is vastly preferred over more nebulous "cloud clash" K debate with massive overviews. I don't think I've heard a single K that needed more than a 45-second overview. If you compartmentalize the flow cleanly into the Overview/Framework/Links/Impact/Alt, I will be very happy and it will be a much cleaner round to evaluate.

In high school, I ran all kinds of K's, ranging from vanilla cap K's to a Deleuze and Guattari K Aff my senior year. You can run almost anything in front of me, but make sure that you still explain your arguments. I'm familiar with the language and scholarship of DnG, and am familiar with the lit bases around Cap, SetCol, Antiblackness, Reps K's, etc.

You will almost never be able to persuade me that the aff doesn't get a perm. You can debate whether or not that permutation is possible or desirable, but I will almost always grant the aff that they can permute the K in some form or another. The solvency of that permutation is another question that should be debated accordingly.

Presumption flips when there is a K (with an alt) in the 2NR.

Impact Turns -

Yes. Please. Big case debates are awesome, but make sure you're doing it cleanly and clearly. Dedev is great, Heg bad is solid. Wipeout and Spark are ehhhhhhhhh... a bit more annoying, but I could be persuaded to vote for it if you debate it well enough. Just don't be cheeky about it.

DA’s

The more specific to the aff, the better. I’m not the biggest fan of the politics DA (every debate sounds the SAME) – I know they are strategically important and useful, but I just wish the debates didn’t all sound identical. Please contextualize your arguments.

I'm a sucker for a well explained internal link scenario, and good impact analysis. Make sure your impact calculus is contextualized, and specific to the internal link scenario the aff has presented.

CP’s

I think that you should craft your CP’s to be nuanced and specific to the aff. Same as the politics DA, I know there is strategic value in generic CP’s like States on the Education topic and Parole on the Immigration topic, but it’s just so awesome when the CP is hyper-specific to the Aff. You won’t be docked for reading generic CP’s, but you will be rewarded for reading specific ones.

I ran a lot of topic-specific process-type CP's in high school, so don't be afraid of running them in front of me. The key word is topic-specific: I don't enjoy process counterplans that have nothing to do with the topic like ConCon and RegNeg. Instead, read something like the Deliveries CP from arms sales or the Parole CP from Immigration. Also be prepared to defend yourself on the perm and theory debates. If you know how Stephen Pipkin evaluates CP's, you know how I evaluate them too.

Presumption flips when there is a CP in the 2NR.

T -

I love a good topicality debate, but only when the evidence is good. Make sure your authors are contextual, have the intent to define, and clearly describe what you're trying to define.

Make sure you impact out why limits are important. Too many teams just go for "their interp is unlimiting and steals neg ground" which is just an internal link to some other impact... make sure you finish your internal link chain and actually give me something to vote on.

Competing interps over reasonability, unless they're just on the right side of truth. I tend to side with the argument that abuse is based off what the Aff's interpretation justifies, not necessarily what they do.

Theory -

Filter - If it's a new aff, there is a much higher threshold for me to vote on theory because the neg has to see what sticks.

1AR’s – you gotta extend theory for a bit of time (45 seconds at a BARE minimum) if you want it to be 5 mins of the 2AR. Make sure you’re extending it strategically.

Conditionality – It’s generally good. That does not mean that the neg can be abusive, nor does it mean that I won’t vote on it if it is debated well. Probably up to 2 condo is good… more is a bit sketchy. This is the ONLY REASON TO REJECT THE TEAM.

Conditional Ethics - Usually bad. Teams don't read condo ethics as much as I would like them to... if a 1NC has both an abolition K and a process CP in it, don't be afraid to pull the trigger on condo ethics, even if you're just using it as a solvency takeout to the K.

Tricky CP theory – I generally don’t want to vote on “your CP is too sneaky.” Of course there are a few caveats to this. If the CP is just incredibly theoretically abusive, I might vote on it. Things I probably won’t vote on: Agent CP theory, International CP theory, PIC theory, Multi-plank CP’s bad, etc.

Perm Theory – I have never seen anyone actually go for severance/intrinsic theory, but I guess I would. I’m not sure. It’s not a reason to reject the team.

K Theory – Floating PIK’s are a problem but you need to address them early in the round. I think that if the Aff doesn’t make a theory argument in the speech after it was revealed to be a PIK, I won’t vote on it. Sorry.

Vague Alts theory is definitely something that everyone needs to read more. Alts are so confusing and shift-ey. Please pin them down on something that they have to defend, and if they keep slipping around, run theory, and don’t be afraid to go for it.

I think that’s all we need to go over, but if you have any questions, just let me know.

Speaker Points

I will start at a 28.5 and move from there.

29.4-29.7 - I expect you to be in late elims, if not in finals.

29.1-29.3 - I expect you to break, and maybe win a few elimination rounds.

28.7-29 - I expect you to be on the brink between breaking and not.

30 - I don't think I will ever give out one, so if you receive on from me, congratulations on being the best debater that I have ever seen compete. This is reserved solely for legendary debaters who will be spoken about for years to come.

25-27 - you have said or done something in the round that unsettled me to the point where I think you should seriously re-evaluate the way you debate. This is almost exclusively reserved for debaters who are excessively rude or hateful.

Miscellaneous:

I will not vote on anything that happened outside of the round because I cannot verify anything that I was not there for. Sorry, but it's just something I can't evaluate.

If you actively advocate for racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/transphobic/etc arguments I will tank your speaks and vote you down. I don't want to have written this, because this should be a given by now. Oh well.

If you clip cards, you will lose.

Don't steal prep. I won't vote you down immediately, but I will be pretty mad and may lower your speaks.

3 years CX at Moore High School, 1 year LD

NYU '24, NYU Parli

email chain: eveseabourn@gmail.com

be respectful of everyone in the round, bigotry is not tolerated -_-

Keep your own prep just in case!

For LD:

I am familiar with traditional and progressive styles of LD. The first thing I look at when writing a ballot is the framework of the debate. That lets me decide what impacts and arguments I should prioritize. I am open to any type of argument as long as you can defend it! Make sure to clearly sign post your arguments. Arguments should have a warrant attached, otherwise they can be difficult to evaluate. For specific issues like condo/topicality, I am open to anything, with the obvious exception that the arguments are well constructed and have a clear impact story. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

TLDR: Read whatever, just be organized and give clear voters / comparative analysis.