Rounds on the topic: 12

Tournaments I’ve judged at (2018-2019):

Greenhill

Local Utah Tournaments

Affiliation: Rowland Hall

General Notes:

1. Yes, I want to be on the email chain madisonbark@gmail.com
2. Generally, I flow on paper.
3. I will try my best throughout the debate to make a fair decision and treat both teams with respect. I will expect you all to do the same when it comes to talking to each other and talking to me.
4. Prep should end when the email is sent.
5. Don't be mean. It’s okay to explain why the other team messed up but I’m not persuaded by “that was the worst 1AR I’ve ever heard” type comments.
6. Speak clearly and don’t spread through your blocks. If I can’t flow you then I can’t vote for your arguments.
7. I prefer depth over breadth.
8. In the 2AR and 2NR spend time on the things you want me to evaluate and vote on. Write my ballot for me in your 2AR/2NR.

General Arguments

1. K Affs – Need to have some type of advocacy

2. Performance – I’m not going to penalize a team for “dropping it” because there was no clear definition of what it meant.

3. Framework/T-USFG: My preferred strategy against K Affs along with one other argument that is a viable 2NR.

4. Kritiks – Should not morph into different kritiks after the 1NC. Advocacies can’t change in the middle of the debate. I will hold the 1NC to whatever their alternative was. I like new page overviews on the kritik. If it’s one off kritik help me figure out what you’re answering in the neg block, it isn’t as clear as you think.

5. Topicality – Tech over truth. Even if the aff might be reasonably topical I would rather vote on a team that explains why their interpretation is best for the topic.

6. Counterplans – I will judge kick them if you tell me to.

7. Specific Arguments I do not like. (As I judge more rounds I will add more to this list):

a. Agamben

b. Death Good

Substance

DA’s: My ideal 2NR against a policy aff is usually a DA or a CP and DA. Be tricky and smart about the arguments you make. Keep your evidence as updated as possible. Clearly explain the internal link, I’ve seen way too many politics debates where it’s like “republicans win the house and then extinction from nuclear war” and it’s just very unclear how we get there and I don’t like that.

CP’s: I’m sympathetic to CP theory but it’s kind of unlikely I’ll vote on it unless you spend some time there and it’s just conceded or if it is a blatantly “cheaty” cp. That being said I like tricky counterplans because I think it shows that you’ve really thought out your strategy against the affirmative.

Theory: I don’t really like theory that much but I will vote on it. I find international fiat theory and other things like that kind of annoying. I do not like things being made voters for no coherent reason whatsoever. Be judicial in the amount of theory you read and the things you make voting issues. I won’t vote for something super blippy if it’s at the top of the 2AR/2NR for one second. If you're going for theory I think you should go all in and commit to it as a strategy. I don't mind if you go for it especially if they dropped it because it makes my decision really easy but for me to vote on it you need to spend time on it.

Topicality: I like topicality. I’m willing to vote neg on T if they win the T debate regardless of whether or not the aff is logically topical. I really like T debates and I think that it’s one of the best parts about debating the topic. If you just want to throw t into the 1NC to make them answer it but have no intention of going for it that’s fine but if they scandalously under cover it just go for it. I hold a pretty firm line on no blatantly new answers in the 2AR, especially on T.

K Affs: I would prefer the aff have an advocacy statement. I'm not going to say that I'll never vote for an aff without an advocacy statement but based on my past record I am more sympathetic to framework. I have not historically been a huge fan of performances especially if they don't come with some substantive explanation of why the performance is necessary to your advocacy. The aff should not change significantly in the 2AC. I am much less likely to vote on framework if you clearly illustrate how your aff connects to the topic. Be tricky with framework. The key to winning a framework debate running a K Aff (to me) is adequately defending why the type of education you create is valuable.

Framework: I really like framework, I think one of the best parts about debate is debating how the game should be played. The amount I lean towards framework really depends on the execution of the affirmative. I am very sympathetic if the aff has no relation to the topic or if the aff is intentionally vague and changes throughout the debate in order to prevent you from meaningfully answering it. I am very persuaded by procedural fairness and TVA arguments.

K’s: I don’t know a lot about philosophy so if you want me to vote for you I need an explanation of your argument. I hate when kiritks become something blatantly different than the 1NC in the block. I prefer more concrete kritiks over postmodernism. Don't expect me to have any understanding of what you're saying if you don't explain it well. I hate giving an RFD where a team is clearly frustrated about not getting my ballot and the primary reason they didn't get it is because they got so lost in the jargon of whatever philosophy they were reading that they forgot to connect it to the debate.

Speaking Tips

1. Don't spread through blocks.

2. Speed is not the end all be all. It’s good to be fast but not good to be un-flowable. Good debaters are fast or clear, great debaters are fast and clear. Be both.

3. Organize your speeches. The easier you make it for me to understand how you see the debate the easier time I will have voting for you.

4. Points

a. 27 and below: I didn’t like something you did in the debate enough to dock your speaks for it. You did something offensive or mean. I will talk about it after the round, your coach might hear about it after the round. It may have caused you to lose the debate or just for me to be upset.

b. 27-28: your speaking style, clarity, or execution in the debate had significant issues.

c. 28-29: You spoke well and I expect you to do well in the tournament. There were some small issues but overall I think you are a good debater.

d. 29 and up: I expect you to break and or possibly win a speaker award. You killed it. I was impressed.

Other philosophies of people who influence my view on debate:

1. Mike Shackelford

2. Joey Amiel

3. David Walter Bernstein

I am traditionally a LD/PF debater. I do not like spew (it's a dumb Utah tradition), if I cannot understand you, its not going on the flow. I am a much bigger fan of the quality of the evidence rather than the quantity (THIS WILL BE A BIG VOTER). I hate K's. If you have a K on your case its most likely not going on the flow so don't bring it up. I enjoy T arguments and big on the voter overview in the last speech. I am lenient with dropped evidence and points. You may sometimes bring up dropped arguments if it fits and can prove to me that the evidence or point is inherently important to the round.

Be respectful, if you act like a prick your speaker points will suffer (don't test me).

-Consider me a lay judge, never did debate in highschool, but have been judging for couple of years. Primarily debates. (mostly policy.)

Policy

- I don't need to be shared on the email chain.

- neg should spend time defending their arguments as well. If you only have offense, but none of it is upheld in your speeches, I can't flow it through.

- Don't Tell me that because your impact is bigger then the other team and that's why you should win the round, unless you give me why you won the warrant battle first. Warrants give you access to your impacts, so if you lose the warrant battle, the impact does not matter.

- I have dealt with enough spreading to get by, but if you are terrible at it, I probably can't understand what you are saying, so I won't be able to flow it.

- Sometimes, new debate jargon still confuses me. If you are using jargon, don't just assume I know what it means.

- as a lay judge, it's easier to kind of rap my head around on case arguments a bit better. I will weigh K's and theory, but Its a risk to run them with me. ( Oh, and I hate when people use the"I'ts bad for the debate space" argument.

-honestly, I'm pretty chill with most things. Just have fun.

First and most importantly, I enjoy listening to you and watching what you can do.

Speed does not necessarily equate to superiority. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you. It is better to make fewer points that are understood and solid than lots of points that are barely understood.

No observers. It is just better for you and me.

Comments. I try to give you helpful comments, some will be positive and some constructive.

Please be kind and considerate. This is a contest of logic, speaking ability and knowledge. If you are disrespectful in any way, expect that to show up in comments and scores.

I want you to do well. Every decision is important to me. I respect your abilities, courage, and desire.

I have long experience in formal and informal speech and debate events. I debated in high school and college. I teach critical thinking and ethics at university. Perhaps you could say that I'm a traditional judge. As such, I'm very objective and will judge impartially, based solely on the merits of the debate. I generally have the following judging philosophy for Policy (CX):

Framework - Framework is necessary. Tell me where you're going and how you're going to get there. If no framework is provided, I'm left to making up my own mind what you're arguing. Impact calculus is crucial, because if the "problem" has no measurable impact, your policy is not necessary.

Topicality - For me, this is the foundation of Policy Debate. Establish, and root in the topic. Make sure all arguments have a claim, warrant, and impact. If your plan does not address the resolution, that's bad news for your case.

Solvency - Did I just say that "Topicality" is key? Okay, well, honestly, Solvency is the most important. You must convince me that your approach will effectively resolve a real problem. And when I say "resolve," I mean that real people are really affected.

Speed - I have no problem with your speed as long as you slow down a bit on identifying tags/authors for signposts. Clarity is far more important than speed. I personally prefer a slow, deliberate, thoughtful speech over a speech that is simply trying to wedge as much as possible into a short window of time.

DAs - Go for it, as long as your disadvantages are specific and topical. Nothing is worse than vague generalities.

Ks - Not a fan. But give it a go if that's your thing.

CX - Although I know other judges ignore and/or hate cross examination, I actually prefer it. A good CX demonstrates an intent to understand the opponent's point of view. Engage (don't accuse) in CX, and seek to understand. Understanding your opponent's position makes for a far more compelling debate.

Critique - I feel it's entirely appropriate to question the resolution itself. Just be sure that you can substantiate (with evidence) your critique of the resolution. The people who create resolutions are pretty smart folks, too, and the resolution deserves a fair shake.

Don't Drop Arguments - You drop, you lose.

Evidence, Evidence, Evidence - But reason, argumentation, and passion employing the evidence (quality) is far superior to a bucket-full of evidence (quantity). Substantiate all arguments with evidence.

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos - balance. Aristotle's views have persisted for 2500 years for a very good reason.

Off-time roadmap - No. Just. No. (Is this a thing in Policy?? It's a terribly annoying thing in other events.)

Bottom Line:

No Ad Hominem attacks; you must treat your opponent(s) with the utmost respect and civility, or I will penalize you. Be nice. Argue the issues, not the opponent. Speak plainly and clearly -- speed is fine, but not at the expense of understanding. I can easily see through "snow jobs"; I understand the reality of you reading a position that was originally written by someone else, but if you haven't bothered to study and understand the issue(s), the arguments, and case for yourself, you will not win and you're wasting everyone's time.

Debate:

I would rather hear a slow, clear argument than a rapid argument that is hard to follow. Chart a path that makes it easy for me to flow your arguments through.

Persuade me with reasoning, weighing, and any arguments you were able to turn to your benefit. Don't use circular reasoning or tautologies ("it's true because it's true"); instead, show evidence for your claim and attach impacts -- otherwise, I can't see a path to voting for you.

Don't try to win by criticizing the other team with minor points of order; wonky theory or K arguments will only make the round harder for me to discern. Strong reasoning, evidence, weighing, and persuasion are key for me. Still, if the other team does something that warrants mention, please do so as it could tip the scales in your favor. And I'm a big fan of Aristotle's appeals, but keep it all in balance. I won't be persuaded by a charismatic argument that doesn't have support or impacts.

For me, tech>truth, pretty much every time. However, see my note above about points of order; if you choose to critique the other team, I will judge that critique based on the merits of your argument, not your detailed knowledge of how policy debate works. Same goes for DAs and counterplans. It all comes down to clarity, reasoning, evidence, weighing, and who can convince me that their policy is best, using all the techniques of good flow debaters.

Finally, extend and weigh. If you drop a contested argument, then I'll drop it as well. Same with an uncontested argument; it flows through.

I typically don't evaluate cross, and I will reduce speaks for aggressive behavior.

Speech:

Eye contact. Eye contact. Eye contact. Try not to trail words; be confident of your delivery, and move with purpose. Show some passion if appropriate but also vary your voice dynamics. Be memorable but do not do this at the expense of a cohesive, well-styled delivery.

I have a Masters Degree in Psychology and have practiced in the social science field for twenty years. I appreciate debaters who flow correctly and offer a clear path to their arguments.

He/Him/His/They/Them

I've done forensics for 4 years in a lot of different events. I competed 3 years in high school and one year in the collegiate parliamentary circuit. Overall, I'm familiar with the mechanisms of debate and comfortable with procedurals and critical arguments.

Send Files to jeremylm21@gmail.com

Specifics:

Speed:

My first language isn't English and have severe ADD, so if you spread too quckly or are unclear I will not be able to flow you. I won't flow from the file you send me on my computer, I only do so to check evidence. Although, I will "clear" and "slow" you a few times before I stop flowing. Overall, you can go fast as long as you're clear on tags, and if you're not then I will clear/slow you. SLOW ON TAGS AND CITES. I would also prefer if you didn't spread in rebuttals.

Make the round accessible to everyone, I won't accept spreading if it's used to create a barrier against those who aren't familiar with speed. Slow or clear when your opponents ask you to.

HOW TO GET CRAZY HIGH SPEAKS:

Most of my formal debate experience comes from collegiate parliamentary where cards and evidence are not used. This means a couple of things: first is that I heavily value analysis and strong warrants, second is that I'm terrible at flowing citations. In your constructive speeches it is very important for you to label each part of the argument (i.e. uniqueness, links, impacts) in each position which makes it easier for me to flow. Thus your extensions should look like "Extend the link analysis on advantage 1," instead of "Extend the xxx card."

Theory:

My threshold for theory is relatively low compared to formal policy judges. Just like all most arguments, if you can warrant it, I will flow it. The same condition applies to reverse voting issues as well. When answering theory I use standards for measuring abuse in-round, so be sure to do sufficient analysis on them and be thorough in the voters. I'll leave the evaluation debate up to you.

Kritiks:

I think K's, K Affs, and Performance Affs are intriguing and awesome. However, I am not familiar with most of the literature base with the exception for basic critiques, like Capitalism. The best way for you to win critical arguments with me is to include an analysis that treats me like I'm 10 years old. Referring back to the Speed section, my first language isn't English and I have ADD, so when you use intricate vocabulary while speaking quickly, I probably won't be able to follow your speech.

It's important that your framework is strongly warranted. My unfamiliarity with critical literature makes it so I default to a policy framework if the framing of the K isn't explained well. You'll also have to convince me the alt is better than the plan, it's usually not enough for me to vote on the K as a linear disadvantage.

Side Note: Please don't run identity criticisms without being a part of the specified marginalized identity that you are using unless you have a specific method to engage in the discussion. Commodifying the struggles of a marginalized group won't win you the ballot.

In/Out of round conduct:

USE TRIGGER WARNINGS (sexual assault, violence/gore, racial slurs, etc.) AND TELL EVERYONE ABOUT THEM BEFORE THE ROUND BEGINS. I will not stand for malicious actions towards other competitors, if you fail to use someone's correct pronouns on purpose, call them racial slurs, or blatantly disrespectful, I will reflect it on the ballot. I understand that in-round aggression is inevitable, but please keep it to a minimum. I view debate as a safe space for debaters to voice themselves in ways they otherwise wouldn't have outside of the activity, please treat it as such.

I don't care if you sit/stand for cross. If you take too long to flash evidence I will count it towards your prep.

Unless told otherwise, I usually disclose at the end and give critiques. I also save my flows for the day, so if you have questions outside of round I'd be happy to answer them or give feedback.

LD:

Everything that I wrote above applies in this event, if it's a progressive round. Although, it's important to mention that I do not think that specific debate formats should be limited to a single style of debating, thus progressive or traditional methods of debating are both fine with me; if you want to treat an LD round like a Policy round, then go for it. I'm not super familiar with the format of LD debate so please time yourselves. Additionally, you will have to warrant the hell out of your Value/Criterion and tell me why it's more applicable to the topic and why it's better than your competitor's, I expect a lot of clash in this area.

Overall:

Speak clearly, warrant your arguments, be respectful, and have fun.

I am a very traditional judge. I don’t believe Kritiks offer anything valuable to argumentation.

I don’t like spreading. I believe it inhibits oratory and presentation skills.

I believe debate should provide students with transferable skills that can make them talented communicators and strong leaders. There is nothing about Kritiks or spreading that contributes to the big picture of competitive debate.

I don’t care about minor dropped points. Convince me through your argumentation, links, impacts, advantages and the power of persuasion and you will win the round.

EXPERIENCE:

I competed in Oratory as my main event throughout my high school career.

2 of my proudest moments include:

Sundance Nat Quals: Picket Fencing across 8 judges

2018 UHSAA 6A State: When my two novices and I broke into finals with only 5 slots. (Taking 3 of them.)

In prep for competing at Nationals, I did as much research as humanely possible.

The result is that I know when I see a National Speech and when I don't.

I competed in LD for a year and a half. Not that good, but still love the format!

Competed in one PF tournament and walked away with 2nd place... so, take that as you will.

JUDGING:

DEBATE

For whatever reason, I've ended up judging CX more than I'd like to. If that's the case, here's what you need to know.

1AC - Interested

1NC - Interested

2AC - Interested

2NC - Interested

1AR - ZZZ

1NR - ZZZ

2NR - Interested

2AR - Interested

Without fail, no matter what I do, I always fall asleep during the 1AR and 1NR. I don't mean to, but the round is so long and the topics generally confuse me.

The winner of ANY debate round will win based on whether or not I ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND what you're talking about. The team I understand better will end up winning the round. GUARANTEED.

As for LD or PF

Very traditional. I could care less about the actual debate. For me, it's ALL about the FW. If you can tie your case back into your FW better than your opponent, you WILL win. (If you tie it into your OPPONENT'S FW, BONUS POINTS!!!)

SPEAKER POINTS

30: I wouldn't want to compete against you.

29: ABSOLUTELY NO STUTTERS and captivated my attention.

28: Some stutters, and overall FANTASTIC speaker, but lacked some "National" elements that I'd expect from a champion.

27: Stuttering, and very little eye contact.

26: Lack of preparation is obvious. (Thus, didn't have good eye contact, stuttered, and may have even admitted that they weren't prepared.)

25 or less: Find a new event.

IE'S

I believe Debate is supposed to be educational above all else, and I also believe that the competitors learn the most while AT the tournament. (Not to mention my penmanship on paper ballots sucks. Might as well help the competitors in some way.)

I will give critiques after rounds much like a normal debate round.

Double entries should do their other event first if they want critiques.

These critiques include 1 positive comment and 1 critique for improvement to each competitor.

I also want the state of Utah to become nationally recognized in debate, and the only way to do that is to make sure EVERY competitor is good. No better way to do that than helping in rounds.

I prefer policy based Aff and Neg constructs. I will vote for kritical based arguments if the impact and links hold and outweigh the actual policy resolution.

Hi! I'm a very TAB judge, who's relatively new at judging debate; however I have a good amount of experience with Policy and PF as I did those two events as varsity in High School, taking state for Policy.

For Policy debate, I will judge Aff on their holding up of the stock issues (DA, Solvency, Harms, Inherency, Topicality). If AFF drops at least one stock issue, they will lose the round. I will judge contentions based on the cards presented (w/ author/date credibility), effectiveness of arguments, and number of cards and contentions flowed through. At the end of the round, the stock issues win/loss will be determined based on how many arguments flow through to the end.

I understand spewing/spreading, and I understand the reasoning behind it. BUT; if you spew/spread please ensure you slow down on the header of each card and contention, otherwise I may miss your argument and not get it flowed on my paper. If you're spewing too fast, and aren't clear on your points just know that I might miss something (and for policy you don't want your judge to miss something).

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

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

Specific things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Shackelford

Policy Coach: Park City, UT

***ONLINE DEBATE***

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

I end prep once the doc has been sent.

GO SLOWER

****TLDR IN BOLD****

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

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

- Line by Line (Do it in order)

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

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

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

- Compare > description (Compare more, describe less)

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

- Engage > Exclude

- Clarity > Speed

- Making generics specific to the round

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

- Arguments you can only read on this topic!!

Popular Q&A

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

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

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

- I flow on my computer

Want extra decimals?

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

Cite like Michigan State and open source like Kentucky

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

30-99%perfect

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

29-I expect you to get a speaker award.

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

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

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

27-You need some work

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

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

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

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

Feel free to add me to the email chain: mike_simpson@rocketmail.com

Former high school policy and 4-year NDT debater (West HS, Highland HS, and Loyola Marymount in the 90’s), now a debate dad. Call me anything you like (Mike / judge / male pronouns).

Debate is a game of persuasion. Any argument is winnable if you do it well enough.

I vote on LBL and won't make arguments for you

Core Biases (which I’m open to changing if you challenge them effectively):

Debate is an academic game with only a few rules that I won’t let you argue about (time limits, order of speeches, a resolution that I’m expecting is relevant, no biting, etc.).

I vote based on the arguments presented in the round. Won’t ever intervene beyond enforcing time limits unless something rises to the level of kicking you out of the tournament.

If you drop an argument, you lose it.

If you act like an ass, I’ll probably ding your speaker points.

Clash is key, thus (non)topicality trumps impacts, and generic critiques of society that aren’t germane to the topic will be viewed skeptically. I don’t expect debate to be ‘fair’ and won’t go beyond the arguments presented to compensate for a broken society.

I’m liberal in my personal life, but will vote for any argument you can win, my political opinion aside.

Speed- is fine, so long as I can flow your tags and sources, and your cards should be comprehensible. I’ll ask once or twice by saying “clearer” if one of us is struggling. If you don’t take the hint, you risk me missing things. 01/24/20 is/was my first tournament on this topic, so define your acronyms for me the first time you use them, and don’t assume I’ve heard your arguments before.

Topicality – always willing to vote on it. Please don’t go for ‘the’.

Counterplans – fine. But so are multiple permutations.

Theory – potential abuse is hard to win. Actual abuse is somewhat easier. Being faster, smarter, better prepared, or having a specific identity doesn’t constitute abuse imo but winnable if you argue it right on the LBL.

Performance – Everyone is performing something the entire time we’re in the room. It can help or hurt your speaker points, but I vote on the line-by-line of my flow.

K- Specific links to clash-able critiques with well defined impacts will be weighed against the impacts to everything else, and can definitely win a round. I’ll assume we’re deciding each round based on the hypothetical world where the aff can fiat federal legislation, with hypothetical pros and cons, unless you can establish otherwise. Throwing out buzzwords or asking me to vote on identity isn’t going to get you anywhere,. Prove why it matters and what happens if it's not weighed.

Tag team cross-ex is fine, but give your partner the chance to answer because it's your prep and you should both know the arguments well enough to coherently answer questions.

I usually stop prep when the flash comes out or the email has been sent.

If you have any questions about what's on my paradigm or something that's not in it, feel free to ask!

Email: coachmogab@gmail.com

Policy -

Basic rules and considerations:

Obviously the first priority is clash. I want responsive arguments. I'm fine with speed and will say clear if you are not understandable. This being said, I haven't been coaching this year so I may be a little slower listening than normal. Flashing isn't prep within reason. I am not a fan of judge intervention on the rfd, if there is a flaw in their argument or something they missed I won't vote on it unless it's pointed out. Any specific questions you have I'll answer before the round.

Kritiks and Theory:

I was all about the kritik/critical side of debate when I was competing, I think it makes for a more interesting round IF it is run well. That being said, I still have a pretty normal threshold on kritiks, I'm not going to lean towards your side just because you have one. I'm pretty familiar with a wide area of literature as far as ks go, so if you have a K you can't run against most judges, go for it!!!

I'm good with theory, but it needs to have a reason for being brought up and it needs to be articulated well. I don't like it when theory is run as an obvious time skew, it makes the argument more illegitimate than it already is. Please please please do the fw debate well on the aff and the neg if framework is present in the round at all. Apriori voters will obviously be considered first.

Counterplans and Disads:

As far as DAs go, make sure there is a good link and internal link explanation. I prefer slightly smaller impacts than nuc war because, let's be honest, not super probable most of the time unless you have a really really good miscalc scenario or something similar. I'll still evaluate DAs that have nuc impacts fairly however. Make sure you're weighing the net benefit against the case early and often.

On Case

Make sure to keep extending/cross-applying/overviewing case throughout the round. This is another one that seems really easy. It's hard for me to vote aff if case isn't ever discussed. Other than that, your aff is your choice. I'm somewhat partial to critical affs if they have good solvency. But again, I won't vote on it just because you run it.

Traditional Debate

I love traditional debate IF IT’S UNIQUE and/or specific. If it’s not the clash should be really really really good as you'll be debating the core of the topic. Don't you dare read the same tags back at each other for the whole round. Clash is the precursor to analysis, which you should be doing after the first couple speeches.

1) No aggression

2) No spewing

3) Prefer flow of argumentation vs. argument

4) 1st time policy judge

5) Feedback on tab room

thanks for 10 years and 100 tournaments of judging

:)

Friends, it has been a few (several) years--so dumb it down for me! xoxo

General Notes:

-Include me in email chains: olivia@thewhiteleyfamily.com

-Clarity over speed

-Overviews, Impact Calc, and Line by Line or else

Argument-Specific Notes:

-Kritical Affirmatives/Framework: A well-run framework argument is compelling to me. I am willing to vote for a limits/fairness argument. For kritikal affirmatives, the alt debate matters to me. Win it.

-Topicality: If fleshed out, I am willing to vote on reasonability. Fairness is also legitimate. I lean truth over tech in these debates--but tech still matters.

-CPs: If enough work is done on the theory debate, Process CPs, Advantage CPs, and PICs can be legitimate. Work means engaging with the other side's arguments; repeating your shell in the rebuttals is not enough.

-DAs: DA and case is a strat. Generics are fine. Politics is my jam.

-Ks: Contextual link work and a clear, direct explanation of how your alt works may get you the ballot. Explain your jargon. I'm not down for "we're a K so as long as we win the general thesis of the argument, it doesn't matter if we drop stuff." Dropping stuff matters. If you make that argument, you will probably lose.