Affiliations:

Coaching for Seaholm High School and Oakland Debate.

Email: Jenniferantonn@gmail.com - please include me on your email chains.

The short version -

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and many forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Specifics

Non-traditional –

Not my cup of tea and my recent decisions back that up. Debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction for me. Given that, I'm a good judge for T/framework. One might even say it makes the game work. The affirmative is better off counter-defining the words in the resolution and using their offense to prove that their vision for the topic is better, rather than impact turning T. I don't think the correct palliative for inequalities in the debate community is to take a break from debating the topic. When I deviate from this predisposition, the affirmative has usually proven that there is a lack of access to the game for X group. I think these arguments are good, but not that hard for the negative to answer.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not very good for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to role playing as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest.

Kritiks –

Ks that do not engage with the substance of the aff are rarely reasons to vote negative. I'm really not here for your generic batailledrillard business and to be honest I only have a cursory understanding of it. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. You probably think this doesn't apply to your very special kritik, but I bet you it does.

Unless told specifically otherwise, I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K.

Theory –

Theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” aren't reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed.

I've flip-flopped on "judge kicking" - if the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team.

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points (updated 10/13/17 because inflation is reaching Weimar Germany levels) - My average point scale is consistently 28.2-29.5. Points below 26.5 are reserved for "epic fails" in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that) and points above 29.5 are reserved for absolutely awesome speeches. I cannot see myself going below 26.5 absent some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot imagine. All that being said, they are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks. I absolutely HATE when debaters steal prep. If I notice you're taking prep AFTER the timer has gone off, speaker points will be dramatically lowered.

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision.

Inspired by Brad (I'll add more as I think of them)

Doug Bandow ------------x-------------------------------------------- Doug Husic

brad-----------------------------------------------------x---brud

Koch Industries x-------------------------------------------------------- John Koch

Katrail x--------------------------------------------------------Jenny

horse-traders ------------------------------------------x-------------- horse-traitors

Cats -----------------------------Bats--------------------------- Insects

Monster Zero Ultra x-------------------------------------------------------- Brad

(Updated 1/13/25)

Chain Email

browndarcell@gmail.com

Darcell Brown He/Him

Operations Director - Detroit Urban Debate League

Wayne State University Alum '22 (2020 NDT Qualifier)

My debate background in high school and college consisted of both policy strategies as well as Kritikal Performance & Structural K's (Antiblackness/Cap/Securitization)

-- Top Level --

I don't care how you choose to present/perform/introduce your arguments nor do I have a bias toward any particular type of argumentation. Just read your best arguments and give an impact that I can vote on. I'm like 60/40 tech over truth. I default to my flow but can be persuaded by pathos/performance in the debate to weigh my decision. I'll vote on presumption if persuaded the aff doesn't solve anything. I heavily prefer clarity over speed but can keep up with a fast pace as long as you're still coherent. I'll vote on theory args but am not the person you want for 2NR/2AR theory throwdowns.

-- Aff Stuff --

- On the policy end of the spectrum, I don't have too many comments for the aff besides the generic ones. Have an internal link to your harms and if you're gonna go util v vtl/deontology stuff then go all in or go home. On the Kritikal side, I'm down for whatever and will vote on rejections of the topic if there's an impacted reason as to why engagement in the context of the resolution is bad as well as Kritkal interps of the topic. Be clear about what your argument is early on. It serves better to be straight forward with your claims with me instead of using a ton of jargon.

-- Neg Stuff --

- I'm fine with you reading whatever on the neg however you need to engage the aff. FW has to have a TVA otherwise I default aff. THE TVA DOES NOT SERVE AS OFFENSE FOR ME BUT IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY YOUR OFFENSE IS APPLICABE TO THE AFF! I rarely vote on fairness as an impact. There needs to be a reason why normative debate rules are good and what the off does that creates an inability for engagement with those good components of the topic/rez, not just "there are rules so vote neg". Not a fan of reading 5+ off and seeing what sticks kind of strategies especially in college debate. Any other questions you can ask me before the round.

Affiliation: Brookings HS, Brighton HS
Debate Experience: Four years of high school policy for Brookings HS in South Dakota, four years of college parliamentary for Boston University, two years coaching high school policy for New Mission HS in Massachusetts, one year coaching high school policy for Brookings HS, one year coaching high school policy for Brighton HS, four years coaching college parli for Brandeis University and Wellesley College.

I haven't judged much this year, but I'm somewhat familiar with the topic literature through cutting files for the BDL.

Judging Philosophy:
For the most part, this is up for you to determine. I try to enter the round as tabula rasa as possible, but there are a few things you can do to improve your odds:

1. Clash, warrant, and weigh.

2. Have a coherent story. Unless you set up a framework telling me otherwise, I'll default to weighing probability more than the average policy judge.

3. Tell me what to vote on and why. During your rebuttals, write the RFD for me. Be explicit: what do you have to do to win, and how have you achieved that? What did your opponents fail to do that should cost them the round?

4. As far as speed, you need to know your own limits. For me it's not an issue of speed but one of clarity; I don't care how fast you go as long as you're still actually saying words. The only time I've had trouble keeping up is when people speed through analytical blocks that pack 10 distinct arguments in a span of 15 seconds.

I'm fine with just about anything as long as it's clearly and persuasively explained. Feel free to ask me if you have any specific questions. And have fun!

Hi all! I am the captain/co-coach of the Traverse City Central team and I am in my third year of varsity debate (fourth year debating). I have been to SDI, debated on the national circuit, and overall had a lot of experience in the activity. I also prefer to be called Olivia (not judge) and my pronouns are she/her.

Here's just a quick overview of how I will likely vote...

T- This is a hard sell. If I'm going to vote on T I need to be convinced. This means you need to have the argument developed and extended in all your speeches. I am not going to piece your args together for you Typically a T win entails lack of explanation on the aff side.

DA- I'll vote on DAs all day as long as you can win the link and the impact. Impact calc is monumentally important if you're going to win this, and you need to really explain the link chain.

CP- CPs are good. Again, make sure you explain everything.

K- I will only vote on a K if you actually understand the argument you are making. If you can't explain in CX, line by line, and analytics what your argument is, you don't understand it and you shouldn't run it. I won't do the work for you or vote on you just because you trip the other team up.

I will drop you if you are abusive or discriminatory toward others in any capacity. This will not change and there are no exceptions. Debate needs to be a safe environment for everyone and if you do something to make another people feel unsafe, that completely ruins the debate experience and I will not stand by and be complicit with that no matter how well you debate technically.

I hope this gives you all an idea of who I am as a judge! This is a wonderful activity and I hope you all have the best experience possible and ensure that others have the same. Good luck and have fun! (-:

did the thing for 3-ish years at wayne state university '20 #gowarriors #d5 and qualified to the ndt twice. i now work in transportation policy so i'm less active in debate (read: capable to keep up with all things debate jargon, not capable enough to know everything about topic nuance) but am excited to watch your round. she/her pronouns.

i'm rather apathetic towards the content of debate rounds, but believe it's my duty as an adjudicator to explain how i decide rounds.

with that being said, here are some things to know about me:

-i was a 2a my entire debate career, so many of my debate predispositions are shaped as a response to being a 2a/1n -- a lot of this is seen in how i judge theory/t debates, and my preferences re: judge kick

-i'm inherently a pragmatist but believe i'm a still good judge for clash debates. with a deep knowledge of k lit due to the research i had to do to give 1nrs on case versus k affs, i believe i have the skills to adjudicate without bias. i also believe there are a lot of problematic assumptions in both policy development and in debate that need to be interrogated. i tend to strongly prioritize offense in framework debates.

-i was a policy argument-leaning debater all throughout college. technical debates are my jam, and good 1nrs on the disad are my bread and butter.

-i strongly reward nuance, argument depth, and strategic argumentation pivots. if your strategy is "we read links in the 1nc but won't really answer your questions or give you aff specific examples of the links until the block," i'm not your judge.

-because of ^^ i do not follow along in speech docs during the debate, and will always try to default to debater evidence comparison and analysis. if i think certain cards are important, i'll always read them after the debate. if you think there are cards that are important, send them in a card doc after your last rebuttal.

-i promise to invest 100% of my energy to all debates i watch and i promise to invest that same energy into helping any team improve as much as they want. i will show up to your debate attentive and ready to enjoy it - i really enjoy this activity, so i hope you really enjoy being in rounds as much as i do.

here's how i decide rounds:

-i'll do flow math as the debate goes on to try and resolve some of the core debate controversies and flag what is important argument resolution. i'm rather expressive, so if i disagree, if i'm upset with how an argument is articulated, or if i agree with you, you'll see me react during prep time or during a speech. this is why i'm not a poker player.

-once the debate is over, i'll determine what i think the main questions of the debate are. for k debates this is often a role of the ballot claim or a framing question. for policy debates this can look like solvency v solvency deficits, direction of the link, etc. having debaters flag these is nice.

-i'll take sub-arguments from the flow that supports/contradicts this question. i'll resolve them, will play devil's advocate to determine if i think how i resolved them is correct, and will thus come to an answer to the question.

-i allocate the average speaker a 28.7 and work up/down from there based on the quality of the round. i would like to think i give fair points (esp after being out of the activity for a while), but i may not be the best judge for you if you're going 5-3 and need speaker points to boost you into elimination rounds.

She/her.

My name is pronounced Ka-trail not Ka-trel.

I am a graduate from Wayne State and I debated throughout HS and college.

I am open to all forms of debate. To be transparent, I was a policy debater throughout my years of competing. All arguments/methods being presented have to be well explained and impacted out for me to be persuaded; if I find myself asking "why?" to your arguments then you have not explained/impacted it out. I'm not going to vote on anything that I don't understand.

Generally I hated debating theory and didn't find it convincing unless there was clear in-round abuse (unfair, education, ect.). Not to say I won't vote on it, but it's probably an uphill battle. This doesn't mean don't include theory in your strategies. Debate is fun to me because of strategy, not the type of arguments. So, you can utilize theory to bolster other arguments/time skew.

If you want higher speaks then I want to reiterate how much I love a good strat in debate. Make flows connect. Use weird arguments from one flow to take out your opponents' arguments, connect the dots, scrap flows to save time, use impact calculus, etc. Anyone can cut decent cards (except probably me) or read blocks from last year so do the cool stuff.

Framework is fine.

I don't really have any strong feelings about arguments or styles besides the obvi:
1. I don't vote for offensive arguments - any racism, homophobia, ableism, etc. is going to get you an automatic L
2. I will dock your speaks for obnoxious behavior towards your opponents (which is ironic given my behavior in college debate) ...unless it's funny...which I find most HS debaters not to be so you have been warned

you can contact me at katrail14@gmail.com

Duncan Donahue

Debated - 14-18 for H.H. Dow (Policy), 18-20 for the University of Notre Dame (NPDA), studying sociology + peace/conflict studies

Coached - 18-21 as Assistant Debate Coach at H.H. Dow High School

email: duncdonahue@gmail.com (please add me to the chain)

TL;DR

- my preferences don't determine my ballot - you do you and i will do my best to evaluate your arguments on their own terms

- that being said but i feel most comfortable in k v policy/fw and k v k rounds

- the framework/framing flow will decide what I'm doing as a judge in the back of the room, so please don't overlook it for the minutiae/line-by-line on other flows

- tech over truth, but every arg has to be impacted and warranted to be weighed

- affs need to defend something other than the status quo but don't necessarily need to have a plan text or advocacy statement.

- overall, explain what your arguments are and why they mean I should vote for you. see below for little specifics about how tend to evaluate different types of arguments.

- in terms of feedback/ballot, i view my role as a judge as a pedagogical one therefore i try to write detailed speech-by-speech feedback on ballots. if i leave lots of comments it does not mean you did poorly, i just know the value of judge feedback as someone from a small program and want to make that available for y'all.

Procedural Information

- Be nice and have fun! Being rude/offensive will drop your speaker points quick, regardless of whether it's in a speech or not.

- Speed: Speed is great as long as you are clear.

- Warranted Claims: an argument isn't complete unless there's a warrant for the claim. I won't vote on unsupported blippy arguments even if they're conceded. If the tag does not contain a warrant for its claim then I will not mark the tag as an analytic.

-Calling for Evidence: I will not look at evidence unless each team disagrees on what is in the card or accusations of cheating are made. It's the debaters' job not mine to extrapolate what's in the cards and argue what it means for the round.

- Immoral arguments along the lines of "Oppression Good" will sharply drop speaker points. Offensive/hurtful language directed at another debater will result in a loss, a zero in speaker points, and me contacting the offending team's coach.

- Please please please feel free to ask questions but post-rounding (i.e. arguing with me about my decision) will drop your speaks.

- Cheating: one warning for stealing prep before I dock speaks. Removing analytics from speech docs requires using prep. Proven clipping will result in being dropped and zeros.

Specific Arguments:

Case (this is more for novices) - Extend it every aff speech. When the story of the aff is missing, I'm left wondering what I'm supposed to be voting for

K affs/FW - Love them. Hate them when they're soulless and unexplained. I staunchly believe the affirmative should know their advocacy in and out and not just reread tags. Sure, K affs can just impact turn FW, but the best answers to FW usually go a bit further. On FW, it's gonna be hard for the neg to win any sort of "prior question" or apriori args in front of me and I'll probably lean toward weighing impacts on FW so tell me how to weigh them!

Ks - love them, especially creative and specific ones. Make sure you’re explaining exactly what your alt is/does, including who does it and what my role as a judge is in participating/endorsing/affirming etc. I am familiar with Cap/Neolib, Critical Pedagogy, Security, Foucault, Settler Colonialism/Postcolonialism/Decoloniality, Anthro, Queer Theory, Anti-Blackness, and Fem. I don't pretend to understand Baudrillard/DnG but you can still run it. If you're curious about my familiarity with a lit base I don't mention here, feel free to ask me.

T - I love T, but because of that I have been told I have a high threshold for evaluating T. I favor tech over truth for T, but you’re interp and violations should at least make logical sense. I default to T being apriori unless the affirmative makes args to the contrary.

Theory - isolate how the other team’s specific actions warrant me punishing them with a loss or with dropping a certain argument. Generic claims of fairness and education won't get very far unless you contextualize specifically to the round and the infraction. Also, don’t spread theory blocks please :)

CPs - no problem with CP debates but the solvency and net benefit debate need to be flushed out. I don't judge-kick CPs so if it's in the 2nr, the neg doesn't get the status quo. I will stick the negative to the exact plan text in the 1nc just like I will stick the aff to their plan text in the 1ac. Sympathetic to PICs bad.

DAs - I think a lot of traditional DA link chains and impacts are kind of comical outside of the lens of debate, but so are a lot of advantages so don't expect me to believe the plan 100% causes nuclear annihilation, just weigh the probability of your impacts relative to the aff. Politics DAs are kind of disgusting in my personal opinion (aesthetically and logically) but do your thing.

Speaker Point Ranges

27.5 to 27.9 you've likely been exceedingly rude or unwelcoming to other people during the round

28.0 to 28.3 decent job! make sure to read my notes for more info

28.4 to 28.7 good

28.8 to 29 should probably get high speaker placement, maybe an award

29.1-29.4 speaker award

29.5+ top speaker contender

Getting my PhD at Wayne State University in communication studies. Competed at Wayne State, qualified to the NDT twice. Assistant coach for West Bloomfield High School’s public forum and IE team.

Include me on emails chains please: DouglasAHusic@gmail.com

I flow on paper, please give me pen time. Start slower and settle into top speed instead of missing parts early on. I care about clarity more than who reads a few more cards. CX is a speech, I flow it in every debate format. I rarely follow along with docs.

Non-important old man yelling at cloud moment: The 1ac is an opportunity for free speaker points and sets the tone for the debate, a lot of people sound like they don't practice reading it.

----

Whoever controls the framing of how to evaluate offense in a debate generally wins my ballot. This is universally true for all argument styles and debate formats. I am very flow dependent. Specifics listed below, but absolute defense is a hard sell absent drops, strategic concessions, or the argument was poorly constructed to begin with.

Debate is a persuasive and communicative activity first and foremost driven by student research. As a debater research was my favorite part of the activity so I certainly appreciate quality evidence production on unique and different arguments. Communication surrounding the importance of evidence is most relevant to how I evaluate it at the end of the debate. A great card that is undersold and not explained and applied may get my appreciation when you bring it to my attention in the post-round, but absent you directing me to the significance of that evidence or why I need to read it won't be important to my ballot. If it’s not on my flow, it doesn’t register for my decision, and, if the warrant is on my flow and uncontested, it won’t matter if the evidence supporting it is weak. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the lengths many of my peers turn to the docs to verify claims that in my mind are just not being debated. If your arguing on the line by line in no way questions the other team's characterization of evidence, I will never go on a fact finding mission.

I expect debater's to make relevant issues on evidence known in the debate.

Debater's should answer arguments.

You don't get to walk-back win conditions you establish that are conceded.

Thoughts on framework:

Full transparency I went for this argument for the majority of my career as a debater as a one-off position, and can be compelled that there should be some limit on the topic for the purpose of predictable negative ground. So take that for what you will.

However, I am also highly sympathetic given my personal pedagogical and research interests as a scholar of alternative interpretations of the resolution for the purposes of interdisciplinary/undisciplined debates. Teams that have a well thought out counter interpretation and vision for what their model of debate looks like are often in a strategically good place for my ballot. In my mind a counter interpretation provides a useful avenue for resolving both sides offense and is often a place where I wish the negative invested more time in the block and 2nr.

That being said, I have been persuaded by affirmative teams who impact turn framework without a counter interpretation. Iterations of this argument which have been persuasive to me in the past include critiques of predictability as a means to actualize clash, critiques of fiats epistemic centrality to clash/fairness/education, arguments which emphasize styles of play over notions of fairness for the game, as well as impact turning the rhetorical performance of framework.

A frequent line in decisions I vote aff on framework, "I think the negative is winning a link on limits explosion, but has underdeveloped the internal link between limits to clash/fairness/epistemic skills as an impact, and furthermore that impact's relationship to the way the aff has framed insert X DA or X impact from the 2ac overview on case is never once articulated". I'm a big believer in if you want to say T/framework is engagement you should actually engage the language and impacts the aff has presented, I will not fill in these connections for you because you say "praxis or debate is key to activism".

Teams over-emphasize the TVA without fully developing the argument. A core dilemma for the negative in round's I judge is the TVA's interaction with affirmative themes, performances, and theories remain superficial and surface level at best. Even when a great piece of evidence is read by the negative, it is an error in execution for the negative to rely on the judge to resolve these connections. My threshold for the TVA being "sufficient" is often higher then my peers. Given the value of the TVA as a way to resolve affirmative offense it is a spot where I think the negative must dig deep(ala Jeff Probst from Survivor) to put themselves ahead in a debate. There are many ways the negative can do this effectively, but all require a more thorough incorporation of the TVA from the onset of your strategy. It's bad form and a missed opportunity when the negative refuses to give an example/or doesn't know of a TVA in C-X of the 1nc. I'm a believer that there is a benefit in the negative block introducing other TVAs in the negative block, The 2nc should tie TVA's to performances, impact arguments, and theories of the 1ac. Saying you could have talked about X thing as a performance instead often falls flat. Do research pre-round or pre-tournament into the artefacts of the 1ac, be creative, you can incorporate them I believe in you.

I am also not a particularly good judge for negative impact explanations which rely on the assumption that the values of research/clash/fairness/iteration are inherent/exclusive benefits of a limited model. The negative often debates in front of me operating from the assumption the aff will win none of their offense or has abandoned these values in their entirety, this is both a bad move and often just a blatant mischaracterization of aff debating. An example with iterative testing. A premise which is hard to dislodge me from: all research is iterative, full-stop. Even when the aff has no counter interpretation, their research practices and argumentative styles are iterative because they build upon previously written research and arguments. This means arguments like iterative testing require more specificity in their explanation. The framing of "Only the negative model allows room for teams to refine arguments to third and fourth level" often rings hollow because it is more descriptive of the strategic incentives to develop arguments over the course of a season (which likely exist in any research activity), and not describe the actual benefit of the style of iteration of your model. A more persuasive iteration impact to me focuses on the question of quality and utility of each models style of iteration, tending more to questions like: is there an insurgent/epistemic benefit to maximizing iteration of state based politics vs negative critique? Instead of saying "the aff always goes for the perm in K v K debates," delve into questions of how affirmative models might distort the capaciousness of K v K debate? Or shutdown debates that are meaningful in the literature through standards and practices of debate's offense/defense paradigm? Are there moments where the aff contradicts their model or counter interp performatively? What is the significance of these contradictions? Are there potentially negative effects of the aff model for subjectivity? All of this is really my way of pleading with you burn the blocks of your predecessor, make some new arguments, read a book, do something.

Creativity and negative argument development on framework has plateaued.

You all sound the same.

I will be extremely frustrated if you opt to go for framework over any argument that is clearly well-developed and clashes with the aff that they blow off. There are many rounds where the 2nr decision to go for framework shocks me given 1ar coverage. Don't include A+ material if you are not prepared to go for it.

K’s vs Policy teams:

I’m a fan. I like when there is a lot of interaction with the case. I'm an ok judge for specific philosophical criticisms of the plan. I'm a substantially worse judge for "you defend [use] the state." The alternative tends to be the focus of my decision (is it competitive, what does it do to resolve the links, etc). I'm a pragmatist at heart, I believe in real-world solutions to problems and I'm often persuaded that we ought to make the world a better place. How your alternative deals with affirmative attacks of this genre matters a lot to me. I've voted for more pessimistic or alt-less Ks, but, again, mostly due to technical errors by the affirmative. I find myself caring less about alternative solvency when the negative team has spent time proving to me that the aff doesn’t solve their impacts either.

Aff teams are most successful when they have a clear approach to the theme of the negatives K from the 1ac. Either be the impact turn alt doesn’t solve team --- or be the link turn plus perm team --- wishy washiness just gets the aff into more trouble then its worth often allowing the negative a lot of narrative control on what the aff is or isn’t about.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K. You're better served making arguments which elevate the importance of the impacts you've described and undercutting the ability of the aff to resolve their own. I'm totally open to disproving the affirmative's model of predictions - I just think you have to do the work to have my skepticism outweigh their narrative. I don't think its a particularly hard sell for me when the work is done. But I rarely see teams engage the case enough to decrease risk.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go

DAs:

Links control the direction of the DA in my mind absent some explanation to the counter in the debate

You should invest neg block time into the link story (unless it's impact turned). A compelling link argument is very powerful, and can cover holes in your evidence. "Impact turns the case" is a bit overrated, because it normally lacks uniqueness. Not making the arg is a mistake, but banking on it can also be a mistake.

I miss straight impact turning and link turning strategies from aff teams.

Theory:

theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” aren't reasons to reject the team. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Performative contradictions matter less to me in the 1nc especially if they’re like a reps K (stuff like the Econ DA and Cap is more suspect). Performative contradictions carried through as a position in the block grinds my gears and should be talked about more. Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to.

New affs bad as a policy argument is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals:

By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. I will say though lack of specification often annoys me on both sides have a debate, cut some offense, defend something please. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - My average point scale is consistently 28.2-29.5. Points below 27.5 are reserved for "epic fails" in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that) and points above 29.5 are reserved for absolutely awesome speeches. I cannot see myself going below 26.5 absent some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot imagine. All that being said, they are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style.

Cheating - I won't usually initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. but if i notice it i reserve the right to call you out when especially egregious If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

Ethics challenges brought up pertaining to fabrication or out of context evidence submitted into a round end the debate for me. If it is determined that the ev is fabricated or meaningfully out of context then the team who introduced the evidence receives a loss and the low end of my point scale.

Pronouns: Any (They/He/She/Them/Him/Her)

E-mail: loganedward77@gmail.com - put me on the email chain

Updated in October, 2020.

Experience: 2 years high school debate at Mona Shores High School, 2.5 years college debate at Wayne State University, 1 year coaching at Mona Shores High School, 2 years coaching at Detroit Country Day School, and a long judging history over that time to present, for both high school and college-level debate.

I'll give a short version: I'll listen to just about anything, minus overtly problematic arguments (racism good, sexism/gender discrimination good, fascism good, etc.), which will at best lead to tanked speaker points, at worst an automatic loss (and I lean that way).

I have a fair amount of experience debating both traditional policy and K frameworks but find myself being more entertained in K v K rounds. It's a T/Framework thing, it's boring and I don't trust the government to do anything right. Read more below, I definitely still do like a policy v. policy round, I just hate voting on T.

I expect everyone to be timing themselves. Please don't call me "judge," I don't like most of them IRL. "Logan" is fine.

Virtual Debate: I don't care whether or not your camera is on, regardless of what the tournament rules are saying. If your virtual workspace is anything like mine, it's improvised and ugly. Also, it feels like I'm invading your privacy on some weird level when you're debating from your bedroom. 2020 is weird enough without trying to force you to show me your house. Also, if you're experiencing connection issues, turning the video streaming off can really help. On another topic, CX is kind of tough right now due to talking over one another by accident. I don't really have a solution for it other than trying to stick to the model of whoever's not speaking next asks, the person who just spoke answers. That being said, if you can tag-team effectively virtually then go for it. When the questioner tells you to stop answering, stop answering.

Dropped arguments are usually true arguments (save for the above), you must make the argument early enough in the debate for me to vote on it (outside of theory/common-sense or evidence-based analysis). That being said, I vote on arguments I understand. If I don't understand, that's on you, this is a speech activity.

More probabilistic impacts outweigh bigger magnitude ones for me, on almost every level. Establishing probability is most important to me and I think the overemphasis on existential impacts is making policy debate stale (as well as literally untrue, I have not yet died in a nuclear war).

A lot of the longer version below doesn't really apply in high school debate outside of Open division.

The long version (ask specific questions before the round if anything is unclear):

T/Framework - T needs standards and voters on the neg and counter-standards and -voters on the aff or you probably won't win it. Framework is also fine, but you should do it right (when I didn't go for Cap, I went for framework). You need to have impacts to Framework that you can weigh against the aff (or another off-case argument you can weigh). "Fairness" is not an impact I'm going to vote for. Framework can be defensive if you want to go for the other off, and this is usually the best way to use it in front of me. I don't find skills arguments very convincing at all and I find them very easily turned as the only skills I learned in debate either A. weren't transferable or B. were skills that help the government murder people more effectively (this is definitely more for college and I'll definitely vote on skills args at the high school level). I have a high threshold for this line of argumentation and I'm not ashamed to hold you to that, but I will vote on them if they're mishandled or you've found one of the few I believe (here's a hint: research probably isn't inherently bad). Explain the impacts to the generally accepted ones like fairness (research burden, ground loss, etc.) Probabilistic impacts matter more here too: Does the aff you're running framework against stand a chance of modifying debate culture? What specific fairness/skills loss was there? The most probabilistic impacts happen in-round, in front of my face, and this is how I weigh T. I default to competing interpretations, as do most, but my threshold on reasonability is comparatively low, because for me to vote on competing T interpretations, you're going to have to convince me beyond a doubt that the way they violated the topic was uniquely bad for you debating in this round. That means if you're reading a CP or DA that clearly links, you probably shouldn't run T as I will probably buy the "but their DA links" arg.

The Aff, in general: I was a 2N and when I was double 2s I hated being aff, so I don't have much advice here. Most teams who are aff lose in the 1AR, but the 2AC is close behind. Time allocation is much more important on the aff (which is why I hated being a 2A, I'm slow), so identify which arguments are the biggest threat early on and adjust accordingly. The biggest mistake newer debaters make is forgetting about all that evidence you read in the 1AC, which should have embedded answers to your weak spots.

Policy Affs: Cool. You should probably kick some of it by the end of the debate at the college level, free up some time for that 1AR and 2AR. Left-policy affs are usually weaker than both their policy and K options (standard policy follows the rules better, helping you out in a framework debate, and the K probably solves better), so try not to read them unless you have really good ideas for how to use it.

K affs - Fine by me, be prepared for the framework debate, win the impact turns to framework and I'll vote for you. That being said, I still have to understand. These weird "every theorist ever" affs are kind of getting out of hand (at least at the high school level), but if you can explain it, run it. No plan text or advocacy statement required if the mechanism is clear. If you're going to run a left-policy aff, you'd might as well just run the K version in front of me, I'm good for it. I prefer K v K debates in these rounds because I hate listening to framework/T (it's just boring), use it as leverage and time-skew instead. I also think they're more useful and educational because waxing poetic about how a team broke the rules for 4 speeches is not only extremely boring, it's self-fulfilling and frankly only useful for institutionalized debate (which isn't a real thing IRL). They should probably still be tangential to the topic, but I can be convinced the topic should be ignored in favor of something better.

The Neg, in general: The more specific the strategy to the aff, the better chance you have of winning. General topic links are usually not enough and need some analysis to make them compelling. That's not to say I won't vote on more general links/uniqueness evidence, but that the aff is probably winning your DA/K/CP coming out of the 2AC and you'll need to develop the arguments a lot more in the block.

DAs - fine, run them, explain them, win them. Winning a link (and the internal links) is more important than totally winning the impact. I'll vote on risk, depending on how things are going on the case flow.

Theory - I've become a bit more open to theory but the only theory I find automatically compelling is conditionality bad (and that's if the neg runs too many condo off-case args, "too many" being determined by the skill level). If theory is dropped and is a reason to reject the team, that is super bad for the team that dropped it, keep track of the line-by-line. Best case, I reject the argument, worst case I reject the team (if they've dropped it but you haven't explained it well, I'll probably just reject the arg, be prepared to lose if your 2AR is 5/6 on theory). Theory about generally accepted and common args is probably useless (50 states fiat, neg fiat, limits on aff fiat, etc.), but I'll vote on it if it's explained well and is mishandled by the other team, or you can convince me an actual offense was committed (a long shot). Your theory should have warranted impacts, just like any argument ("They did a bad thing that's bad because...").

CPs - See above for how I feel about conditional advocacies. I can be convinced of most counterplan theory (again, see above). The best PIC/Ks are when no one knows that's what they are until the 2NR, usually that's an immediate neg ballot. PIC theory is usually a wash after you read your blocks at each other. I love a good advantage CP and I hate a bad one.

Ks - I went for the Cap K in almost every 2NR of my college/late high school career. Ks should usually engage something specific about the aff. Specific links are good. However, I don't think you necessarily need them, your general ones probably do the job well enough, paired with explanation. Ks should prove the aff is a uniquely bad idea/influenced by bad ideas and prove the alt can solve the impact. They should prove the perm doesn't work (preferably just being able to cross-apply case offense and prove it still links) and that the impacts outweigh the aff. This means you have to win the framework debate too, unless the K has existential impacts). I'll vote on risk of alt solvency if there's enough defense/risk on the case flow, probably at a lower threshold than most, given the framework debate basically has to be won (unless you kick the alt and go for structural impacts, which means you're probably having a bad time anyway). Fiat is illusory. It just is. Good policy-prone teams know this better than the K team.

More specific thoughts, as I did debate the K:

Cap: Honestly, I have a slightly higher threshold because I went for it so much when I debated. I'm an anti-capitalist in "real life" and familiar with most theoretical arguments contained within and if I think it's a dumb argument (not even in the round, just generally) I might have some bias, but I promise I'll try not to. I love great Cap rounds, though, so, if you're confident in your strategy (and maybe more importantly, theoretical basis), go for it!

Queerness: Read this for maybe a year as well, but wasn't as heavily invested or well-researched. That being said, I am passingly familiar with the field and like the line of argumentation, but it must be explained well, both for my sake and your opponents', as Edelman can be basically incomprehensible at times.

AntiBlackness: I find this and Cap most compelling when talking about debate writ large, which AntiBlackness debaters frequently do (not so much on the Cap side, but you should, debate is classist). I have found the best AntiBlackness rounds I've spectated or watched (or, rarely, was a part of) directly tied their impacts to the round or the topic (governance writ large isn't as good of a link/internal link, but use it anyway). However, I also think that many AntiBlackness debaters have a hard time encountering a Black policy debater, when they really shouldn't. The strategy should NOT be to attack or cast doubt on this debater's Blackness, but the structure of policy debate that incentivizes skewed topics, interpersonal violence, resource skewing, and bad rhetoric. I'm fairly read on the subject of AntiBlackness but, as a white person, I'm always listening closely in these rounds (not to imply I don't otherwise). Also, as a white person, I CANNOT be trusted fully to adjudicate these rounds, which AntiBlackness debaters would do well to keep in mind for all of their white judges. I find alternate root cause arguments fairly unconvincing on most Ks, but this one even more so (although there are TYPES of arguments I can find convincing in this realm, such as the totalizing description of oppression that some AntiBlackness teams make; It's complicated). I (and if "we" were being honest, most white judges and debaters) am usually pretty uncomfortable adjudicating these rounds as I feel whiteness is inherently moderating in these cases. That being said, I think white debaters should be very careful with these arguments (to the point of maybe considering not reading them), ESPECIALLY in reading prewritten tags. Don't call yourself Black or imply that you are a part of the "Black Body" if you are not.

Anthro: I can be convinced, but it's been a running joke to me (and pretty much anyone who isn't a die-hard) for years. I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons, so I'm probably more persuadable than most people on this one. Animal death matters and anthropocentrism definitely defines our relationship to the environment, but I'm gonna find it really annoying if you equate animal death to human death, as I feel like this has some... implications. The better impacts here are rooted in environmental destruction, but there are easier ways to that impact.

Ableism: I am very easily convinced that the root cause of ableism is capitalism. Other alt causes could probably convince me too. Always open to hearing your way around that, though.

Beaudrillard/Symbolic Exchange/"The Real": I gotta be honest, this usually isn't helpful without being combined with theory that evaluates an axis of oppression under this theoretical framework. Another point of honesty: Tough to understand, especially being read at Mach 5 in a debate round. Explain yourself well, impact it out, and explain how the alt resolves the impact. The link debate is less important with this type of K (at least to me), but it should still be there.

Rhetoric more generally: Should probably contain a justification for the self-link here, but other than that I can be pretty easily convinced that debate is bad and the rhetoric we use sucks too, read further on for details.

Speaker points - I generally try to think as little as possible about them, as speaker points are subjective and largely useless except for tie-breaking. I am a chronic stutterer, empathize with speaking difficulties, and they obviously won't affect speaks. Doing things like using problematic language, misgendering, stealing prep, being generally rude, etc. will at worst get you dropped (malicious or ignorant use of problematic language or misgendering will get you dropped 100% of the time), and at worst will get you docked speaks. However, I understand mistakes happen, especially in the case of misgendering, and as long as it doesn't become a reoccurring/malicious issue, I won't be very heavy-handed with the docking. Get to know your competitors and asking for pronouns never hurts. The way you earn the most amount of speaker points is good STRATEGIC decision-making. I don't really care about your style, but the way you manage the round. Also, if you're not using all of your prep/speech time, it better be perfect or you'll probably lose speaks for that too.

One caveat, definitely more for college-level - My debate experience has been complex and frankly, frequently negative in university. The community is toxic and often overworks students to the point of serious mental health issues. I am thankful for what I learned and what resources debate gave me, but some of the behavior in this community is inexcusable and leads to the sort of institutional abuse (verbal, emotional, and sexual) that plagues politics, which makes debate a good microcosm for government (which, if it's not clear, I hate). I take extreme issue with anyone that uses institutional power in debate to give themselves or their team an edge and will make that clear if I think you or your team is doing so. Of course, this is an unsolvable problem, as more wealthy schools have inherently better access to resources and, thus, better win rates. I encourage every debater to remember that debate does not happen in a vacuum and to respect your fellow debaters no matter their skill level, style, or status because at the end of the day, your skill level, style, and status are all dependent on luck and environment. I also especially encourage coaches to take this into consideration and help your students understand this, as you are ultimately responsible for not just their careers and health, but everyone else's in this community (especially because it is usually coach ego causing these issues). All of this being said makes me sound like I have a heavy bias against policy debate (versus the K), which I'd like to think I don't, but I may have one. I suppose what this all means for your rounds, besides the obvious decorum I expect, is that I likely have a higher threshold for arguments that assume policy debates, and to some extent government and statehood, are inherently good. I believe some of the skills arguments, but any argument about upward mobility (gross), political understanding good (which "political understanding?"), or literature knowledge (again, what "literature knowledge?") I may chuckle to myself over, but begrudgingly vote for if the other team drops the ball. I think it's pretty proven that most former debaters either become bureaucrats or other government (gross) or debate coaches (due to lack of time to pursue literally anything else in college), which makes me basically not believe most policy debate education arguments. All of that being said, K affs focusing on debate bad still have to win. I know these perspectives in debate are rare, with many viewing policy debate education as being worth power, time, and energy trade-offs, but I've only seen these issues exacerbated in recent years. Policy snobs (myself included) need to either modify the activity to help with these issues or embrace other forms of debate. That likely makes me more malleable to arguments that break "the rules," such as form or content differences, because anything else is debate fascism.

Policy Debate Judge (Novice)

Suki Johal: Social Studies Lead & Debate Coach

Debate should be educational and display critical thinking. Understand your argument so that it can be explained clearly and not just through the cards/evidence that you’re reading. Persuading me with a well thought out argument whose benefits outweigh the opposing team is how to win. Frame your argument well in rebuttals. Be clear on why your side’s argument is better than the opposing side. Slow down on the tags. If you spread through them and I can't flow them, this can be harmful to your speaks and the overall round. Any CP used must solve the harms and must be extended throughout the debate.

You can e-mail me at ian.kimbrell.debate@gmail.com.

I coached for Saint Ignatius High School for 10 years in the 90s. I coached for Case Western Reserve University from 1995-2006. I started coaching again in 2016. The teams I coached were 75% policy and 25% Kritik debaters. I am fine with any type of argument, but I tend to enjoy fast, evidence intensive, traditional policy debates that collapse down well to a few clear reasons for me to prefer.

I do my best not to interject my opinions or perspectives into the decisions. I like being told how to sign the ballot and will try to pick either the 2NRs or 2ARs interpretation of the round. I like the analysis of warrants. The clash between competing warrants makes for the best debate.

Bravado is encouraged as long as it is done within the confines of fun, friendliness, and fairness.

DAs: Analysis of the evidence, comparison of evidence, and clear articulation of uniqueness, link, and impact are important to me.

TOPICALITY: I like topicality debates but rarely see them. I look to compare two competing interpretations. I probably have a lower threshold than most for having to justify it as a voting issue.

KRITIKs: They are fine. I treat them like any other argument. The more specific the link evidence and link story is to the affirmative, the more engaged I will be. Multiple links are exponentially more persuasive. Permutations need to be clearly explained. I am open to K is bad arguments. I am not deep into all of the literature.

COUNTER PLANS: Counter Plans are fine. Permutations need to be clearly explained. Solvency for counter plans matter.

FRAMEWORK: Clarity on Framework is helpful early on in the debate.

I have a bias towards new/odd arguments. Especially creative DAs and Counterplans. If you are looking to test something out, I may be a good judge to try it on. I'll make sure I give you all the feedback you need.

The most important thing to know about me is that while I would like to be included in the email chain, I will not read evidence during the round. I believe it risks too much judge bias even from the most experienced judges. I will read evidence at the end of the round if things are close or if the one of the debaters convinces me I need to look at one or two key pieces of evidence. Ultimately, I will vote on my flow. This means a minimum level of speaking articulation, clarity, and general ease of flowing does matter. If I can not understand a speaker I will verbally give a warning or two with no penalty.

Offer a good story that contains harms and a plan of action to resolve the harms indicated in the story. I think it would behove you to provide a framework for evaluating competing stories for me to determine who has done the better debating.

Role-play or don't. Either way, be persuasive.

Debate how you'd like, and I will be an active listener in the conversation.

Bias: I have a personal conviction to praxis that is grounded in theory which makes the concept of "theoretical praxis" far less persuasive to me.

1) Did you debate in high school? X Yes ☐ No

Number of years 3

2) Did you debate in college? ☐ Yes X No

3) How many elimination rounds have you judged on this topic? 0

4) How many preliminary rounds have you judged on this topic? 8

5) List tournaments where you have judged this year: Blue/Silver

6) Please choose the following that applies to your judging criteria:

C I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

a. Communicative skills are more important than the resolution of substantive issues.

b. Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.

c. Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

E II. Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

a. Skills emphasis (Who does the “better job of debating”)

b. Stock issues emphasis

c. Policymaker emphasis

d. Hypothesis testing emphasis

e. Tabula rasa (judge adopts perspective according to standards in the round)

f. Other

E III. What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

a. Slow and deliberate – conversational pace, speed discouraged.

b. Moderate contest rate (e.g. – extemp) faster speed discouraged.

c. Fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long as the presentation is clearly enunciated-very rapid speed discouraged.

d. Very rapid delivery preferred.

e. No preference regarding speed.

D IV. Counterplans are:

a. Never acceptable

b. Rarely acceptable, and only if specifically justified by substantive plan mandates.

c. Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach.

d. Acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative.

C V. Topicality is:

a. Very important in my decision; I consider it a paramount issue.

b. Fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

c. Rarely important; violation of topicality must be fairly blatant to win my ballot.

d. Almost never or never important to my decision-making process.

A VI. I find generic disadvantages:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real-world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

C VII. I find kritiks:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real-world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

A few additional notes:

• I generally expect debaters to be kind and respectful folks. Disagreeing on a policy issue shouldn't become personal within a debate round.
• I don't allow tag-teaming during cross-ex.
• I expect a clear outline on why I should vote for you, but if it's not provided, it's not the worst thing in the world.

I am the Co- Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate for 49 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3.5 years and coached at Michigan for one year (in the mid 1970s). I have coached at summer institutes for 48 years.

Please add me to your email chains at johnlawson666@gmail.com.

I am open to most types of argument but default to a policy making perspective on debate rounds. Speed is fine; if unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate the content of arguments and evidence and their implication or importance. As of April 2023, I acquired my first set of hearing aids, so it would be a good idea to slow down a bit and make sure to clearly articulate. Quality of arguments is more important than sheer quantity. Traditional on- case debate, disads, counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non mainstream political philosophies (Marxism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern philosophers and psychoanalytic literature. If your kritik becomes an effort to obfuscate through mindless jargon, please note that your threshold for my ballot becomes substantially higher.

At the margins of critical debate, for example, if you like to engage in "semiotic insurrection," interface psychoanalysis with political action, defend the proposition that 'death is good,' advocate that debate must make a difference outside the "argument room" or just play games with Baudrilliard, it would be the better part of valor to not pref me. What you might perceive as flights of intellectual brilliance I am more likely to view as incoherent babble or antithetical to participation in a truly educational activity. Capitalism/neoliberalism, securitization, anthropocentrism, Taoism, anti-blackness, queer theory, IR feminism, ableism and ageism are all kritiks that I find more palatable for the most part than the arguments listed above. I have voted for "death good" and Schlag, escape the argument box/room, arguments more times than I would like to admit (on the college and HS levels)-though I think these arguments are either just plain silly or inapplicable to interscholastic debate respectively. Now, it is time to state that my threshold for voting for even these arguments has gotten much higher. For example, even a single, persuasive turn or solid defensive position against these arguments would very likely be enough for me to vote against them.

I am less likely to vote on theory, not necessarily because I dislike all theory debates, but because I am often confronted with competing lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other on the basis of fairness and/or education. In those cases, I default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Specifically regarding so-called 'trigger warning' argument, I will listen if based on specific, explicit narratives or stories that might produce trauma. However, oblique, short references to phenomena like 'nuclear war,' 'terrorism,' 'human trafficking,' various forms of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the abstract are really never reasons to vote on the absence of trigger warnings. If that is the basis for your argument (theoretical, empirically-based references), please don't make the argument. I won't vote on it.

In T or framework debates regarding critical affirmatives or Ks on the negative, I often am confronted with competing impacts (often labeled disadvantages with a variety of "clever" names) without any direct comparison of their relative importance. Again, without the comparisons, you will never know how a judge will resolve the framework debate (likely with a fair amount of judge intervention).

Additionally, though I personally believe that the affirmative should present a topical plan or an advocacy reasonably related to the resolution, I am somewhat open to a good performance related debate based on a variety of cultural, sociological and philosophical concepts. My personal antipathy to judge intervention and willingness to change if persuaded make me at least open to this type of debate. Finally, I am definitely not averse to voting against the kritik on either the affirmative or negative on framework and topicality-like arguments. On face, I don't find framework arguments to be inherently exclusionary.

As to the use of gratuitous/unnecessary profanity in debate rounds: "It don't impress me much!" Using such terms doesn't increase your ethos. I am quite willing to deduct speaker points for their systemic use. The use of such terms is almost always unnecessary and often turns arguments into ad hominem attacks.

Disclosure and the wiki: I strongly believe in the value of pre-round disclosure and posting of affirmatives and major negative off-case positions on the NDCA's wiki. It's both educationally sound and provides a fair leveling effect between teams and programs. Groves teams always post on the wiki. I expect other teams/schools to do so. Failure to do so, and failure to disclose pre-round, should open the offending team to a theory argument on non-disclosure's educational failings. Winning such an argument can be a reason to reject the team. In any case, failure to disclose on the wiki or pre-round will likely result in lower speaker points. So, please use the wiki!

Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't like than intervene directly with my preferences as a judge. Generally, the check on so-called "bad" arguments and evidence should be provided by the teams in round, not by me as the judge. This also provides an educationally sound incentive to listen and flow carefully, and prepare answers/blocks to those particularly "bad" arguments so as not to lose to them. Phrasing this in terms of the "tech" v. "truth" dichotomy, I try to keep the "truth" part to as close to zero (%) as humanly possible in my decision making. "Truth" can sometimes be a fluid concept and you might not like my perspective on what is the "correct" side of a particular argument..

An additional word or two on paperless debate and new arguments. There are many benefits to paperless debate, as well as a few downsides. For debaters' purposes, I rarely take "flashing" time out of prep time, unless the delay seems very excessive. I do understand that technical glitches do occur. However, once electronic transmission begins, all prep by both teams must cease immediately. This would also be true if a paper team declares "end prep" but continues to prepare. I will deduct any prep time "stolen" from the team's prep and, if the problem continues, deduct speaker points. Prep includes writing, typing and consulting with partner about strategy, arguments, order, etc.
With respect to new arguments, I do not automatically disregard new arguments until the 2AR (since there is no 3NR). Prior to that time, the next speaker should act as a check on new arguments or cross applications by noting what is "new" and why it's unfair or antithetical to sound educational practice. I do not subscribe to the notion that "if it's true, it's not new" as what is "true" can be quite subjective.

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

Although I have guest presented at public forum summer institutes and judged some public forum rounds, it is only these last few weeks that I have started coaching PF. This portion of my philosophy consists of a few general observations about how a long time policy coach and judge will likely approach judging public forum judging:

1. For each card/piece of evidence presented, there should, in the text, be a warrant as to why the author's conclusions are likely correct. Of course, it is up to the opponent(s) to note the lack of, or weakness, in the warrant(s).

2. Arguments presented in early stages of the round (constructives, crossfire) should be extended into the later speeches for them to "count." A devastating crossfire, for example, will count for little or nothing if not mentioned in a summary or final focus.

3. I don't mind and rather enjoy a fast, crisp and comprehensible round. I will very likely be able to flow you even if you speak at a substantially faster pace than conversational.

4. Don't try to extend all you constructive arguments in the final stages (summary, final focus) of the round. Narrow to the winners for your side while making sure to respond to your opponents' most threatening arguments. Explicitly "kick out" of arguments that you're not going for.

5. Using policy debate terminology is OK and may even bring a tear to my eye. I understand quite well what uniqueness, links/internal links, impacts, impact and link turns, offense and defense mean. Try to contextualize them to the arguments in the round rather than than merely tossing around jargon.

6. I will ultimately vote on the content/substance/flow rather than on generalized presentational/delivery skills. That means you should flow as well (rather than taking random notes, lecture style) for the entire round (even when you've finished your last speech).

7. I view PF overall as a contest between competing impacts and impact turns. Therefore specific impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame, whether solving for your impact captures or "turns" your opponents' impact(s)) is usually better than a general statement of framework like "vote for the team that saves more lives."

8. The last couple of topics are essentially narrow policy topics. Although I do NOT expect to hear a plan, I will generally consider the resolution to be the equivalent of a "plan" in policy debate. Anything which affirms or negates the whole resolution is fair game. I would accept the functional equivalent of a counterplan (or an "idea" which is better than the resolution), a "kritik" which questions the implicit assumptions of the resolution or even something akin to a "topicality" argument based on fairness, education or exclusion which argues that the pro's interpretation is not the resolution or goes beyond it. An example would be dealert, which might be a natural extension of no first use but might not. Specifically advocating dealert is arguably similar to an extratopical plan provision in policy debate.

9. I will do my level headed best to let you and your arguments and evidence decide the round and avoid intervention unless absolutely necessary to resolve an argument or the round.

10. I will also strive to NOT call for cards at the end of the round even if speech documents are rarely exchanged in PF debates.

11. I would appreciate a very brief road map at the beginning of your speeches.

12. Finally, with respect to the presentation of evidence, I much prefer the verbatim presentation of portions of card texts to brief and often self serving paraphrasing of evidence. That can be the basis of resolving an argument if one team argues that their argument(s) should be accepted because supporting evidence text is read verbatim as opposed to an opponent's paraphrasing of cards.

13. Although I'm willing to and vote for theory arguments in policy debate, I certainly am less inclined to do so in public forum. I will listen, flow and do my best not to intervene but often find myself listening to short lists of competing reasons why a particular theoretical position is valid or not. Without comparison and refutation of the other team's list, theory won't make it into my RFD. Usually theoretical arguments are, at most, a reason to reject a specific argument but not the team.

Overall, if there is something that I haven't covered, please ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to answer. Best wished for an enjoyable, educational debate.

I am fairly new judge and find myself generally apathetic towards many things, as such I have very few strong opinions about most topics usually covered in these pages.

I debated for 4 years at Dexter High School and currently debate at Wayne State University

At Dexter I read exclusively traditional policy affs and at Wayne both traditional policy aff and more left affs.

I may make faces during the round that may either mean that I am not a fan of what you are doing or I am tired and cursing myself for getting out of bed that morning. Regardless don't let that deter you from "doin' you."

Short version:

Do whatever you want (there are exceptions dictated below), explain it well, tech over truth, and if both sides have similar qualities of evidence I default to spin.

Longer version:

As an important note to begin that while these opinions may influence how I perceive and think about the round, they are not the end of the discussion. I will do my best to evaluate the round as it happened based on my flow. Just do whatever it is that you want to do, your goal is to convince me that your line of argumentation is best and that as a result I should vote for you.

I tend to default to an Offense/Defense paradigm due to reasons of laziness, however I tend to think it is not a particularly useful way of thinking about things. A simplified version of what I think may be better is to consider risk. This involves a threshold where I think that sufficient defense can convince that something is just as likely not to happen as it is to happen. Slightly more bluntly, a reasonable to high risk of a non extinction event can outweigh a low to minuscule risk of extinction. This also means that with sufficient defense, a more nebulous ontological impact can outweigh even the aff's "seven extinctions."

Case -

Love big case debates - perhaps my favorite strategy while debating is the super specific case turn or the generic but classic impact turn - these debates show off your research, indepth topic/aff knowledge, and are super clash heavy. Pulling this off successfully is to me very impressive. For the aff - I expect y'all to understand the strategy of your aff - I am sure that you put together the 1ac the way you did for a reason, now use it throughout the rest of the debate. My single pet peeve on this front is when 2As just read a large block of text to extend their entire 1ac rather than taking the opportunity to point out strategic points like concessions or flow interactions/tricks - unless you are making good strategic arguments or nuances this overview extension is probably just on my flow as "extend 1ac." Other than that I assume that y'all will just be doing whatever it is you normally do so just do it well.

T v. USFG Plan Action -

I have not really judged many rounds where an attempt was made to turn T into a viable strategic option. In the instance that some attempt was made, it has been too surface level. Given that I haven't seen many of these debate really play out, I don't know exactly what I find compelling - I think that the impact portion of the T debate should be handled much like a disad. You have internal links to an impact based on an interpretation of a word/s of the resolution. This is basically always Fairness or Education in some form. K's of T are fine is handled along the lines of my other thoughts on Kritiks. In this instance though a way I am probably more persuaded by an explanation of how the Kritik of their interpretation affects their Fairness and Education claims.

Also here are one of the above exceptions to the "Do whatever you want" rule - NEVER attempt to make T a RVI (you smirk, you laugh, but enough have tried it in front of me that I feel the need to mention this), the aff has the burden to prove that they are topical is the neg brings it up - I am leaning toward the not even requiring negs to answer it - you will lose speaks, end of discussion.

T v. Not USFG Plan Action -

Similar story as above but I tend to err aff as most neg teams seem to be too whiny or simply lack sufficient defense to aff offense - I find that the most compelling args have to do with policy simulation (not roleplay) good and am potentially willing to buy a big fairness push if it moves beyond the usual tagline "but it is unpredictable and makes it impossible to be neg," this will also require that you answer any access arguments the aff may have. Agonism based Framework arguments are also becoming something that I tend to agree with, but I am still trying to organize my thoughts about this.

In the instance that the aff chooses to K the negs interp, I simply ask that you impact it in a way that makes sense for a procedural question of "whether this debate ought to have occurred." (Yes obvious, but again teams have read them and never explained why it actually answers the negs interp).

Ks -

I have begun to enjoy these debates more now that I am out of high school - I still am not a perfect judge for these debates given that I am not super well read in the various literature - I do know some of it, but it would be better if you assume that I don't get it and then explain arguments rather than blast through with buzz words and other jargon. I tend to think that the neg is well suited by using specific parts of the aff speeches and evidence to help their link/impact story. Framework is very important for both sides, I am lazy, so with out it I find that I default to "well extinction is super bad and stuff." I also can be fairly easily convinced that the K doesn't need to prove that it solves all of the real world issues of X but that it is a better understanding of X and proves that the aff doesn't access said good stuff thus the aff should lose.

DAs -

Super awesome - I think the Link and Internal Link are the most important and often under-utilized part of the debate (I have certainly been guilty of this myself). Not much else to say, I think.

CPs -

Also pretty great - I tend to think that most CPs are fine, this however depends on the topic/aff. CPs like Word PICs and the "Do the aff minus 1 person/penny" are also usually stupid/probably illegitimate. Specific literature goes a long way toward proving CP legitimacy in my mind, at least in terms of Consult and Conditions CPs. In terms of other sorts of questionably legitimate CPs I don't really have many thoughts but in general the further away from aff/topic specific literature the more accepting of aff theory/perm legitimacy I become.

In terms of competition I don't have a ton of thoughts assuming for all other intents and purposes that the CP is legitimate. I think that it is burden of the neg to prove a meaningful opportunity cost to voting aff, which means y'all definitely have to win something more than just a nebulous "solves enough of the aff and I guess makes a sad child slight less sad."

Theory -

I think one or two conditional options are acceptable, any more and I am more receptive to theory arguments. This is magnified if they contradict. Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument or a justification for some other potentially objectionable argument. However conditionality is always a reason to reject the team, the "reject the arg not the team" is nonsensical to me.

Misc -

I really don't want to be at all responsible for timing anything - time yourselves, be honest, I will be upset if have to find a timer or use my phone's timer (it kind of sucks)

Ethics stuff - less serious, stealing prep, first time it is a warning then it comes out of your prep time (which the other team gets to time) and hurts your speaks - more serious, clipping and the like, I will not tape nor call you out on it. If the other team thinks you clipping they can challenge you on it, I will stop the round and ask for a recording and speech doc to determine the validity of the challenge. If I think that you are clipping (consistent, lines - not just you didn't say a word like "a") you will lose the round and recieve zero speaker points, and vis-versa if I think that you are not clipping.

Offensive actions or language or any other type of harassment will also not be policed by myself but the other team may ask to stop the round to address it. It can/should be remedied (in terms of the ballot) with an apology (also assuming it was not intentional/severity) - if the language continues then you may face consequences depending on severity of the action/language.

Be nice (or at least professional/courteous toward your partner and opponents), be smart, and have fun.

he/him

Coach at Michigan State University 2019-

Coach at Wayne State University 2010-2019

Debater at Wayne State University 2006-2009

Debater at Brother Rice HS 2000-2004

BruceNajor@gmail.com

--

Below is a compilation of thoughts. Some are argument related, some are decision-making related. I update it periodically to keep it fresh, but nothing important has changed since you last read this.

-General-

- I used to judge 80+ debates a year, and now I probably judge less than 20. As with anything, skills atrophy, and I find that I'm a bit slower in terms of argument processing, both in real time and in decision time. It would behoove you to narrow the debate and explain the winning arguments as early as the negative block, treat the 1AR like a rebuttal, not a 3AC, and make connections on the line x line, instead of emailing me a plethora of cards and expecting me to sort it out.

- I flow. I don't follow the speech doc while you're talking. If you are unclear I won't be able to get what you say down and I won't vote on it.

- Slightly more truth > tech than the median judge. Once indicts are made your rejoinder burden grows depending on the strength/weakness of the original argument. Bad arguments can lose to bad arguments. Your argument got what it deserves.

- I value my decision time, and I'd hope you do too. Judges normally get around 30 minutes assuming everything in the round ran promptly. This is not an unreasonable amount of time, but ask yourself if the minute(s) it takes to get that marked copy before CX, or the "econ decline doesn't cause war" card before starting prep > subtracting those minutes from decision time. Please be prompt in making and sending a post-round doc.

- I carry the try-or-die flag higher than anyone else in the judge pool. I find I get sat on this argument more than any other. This probably won't bother you on a panel, but may be a tad more frustrating in a prelim debate. Ensuring that the world you're advocating for has a chance at sustainability is important. This isn't applicable to how I think about impacts generally (see below), rather, I think of it as a win condition of the game. If voting for you means there's a 100% chance of everyone dying, but voting for the other team means there's a 1% chance of everyone staying alive you lose, regardless of solving an impact. I'm open to teams who find themselves in a try-or-die trap arguing for rejecting this as a win condition, but debated out equally, or not debated out at all, well, you can't say you weren't warned.

- A bit inconsistent with the above, but once the conditions for try-or-die are not met, I find that I put greater emphasis on the link than many of my colleagues. When I get sat for non try-or-die reasons, it is often because I thought the link was small despite the impact being large.

- I don't flow "stream of consciousness" well. I encounter this a lot in 2NRs where the 1N typed up a thing for the 2NR to blitz through. I don't have an issue with speedy delivery communicated in a way that allows for the listener to digest the content, but if you're just speed reading through a long chunk of text I'm probably missing 50+% of it.

- We don't "debate out" accusations of unethical behavior/practices. If you want to stop the debate and have me adjudicate whether a debater/team was unethical, the debate ends. We cannot restart the debate from the alleged unethical practice, and the winner of the debate cannot be decided on "who did the better debating." I think a fundamental standard for "unethical" must be obfuscation for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage. This doesn't mean the team in question had to know they were gaining a competitive advantage (i.e. they didn't have to have cut the card), but that the way the evidence was presented gained the team a competitive advantage they wouldn't otherwise have had if the evidence was presented properly.

-Critical / Critique-

- I generally understand impact turns to topicality as "counter-standards" that support a counter-interpretation, so I struggle as a judge to get to an aff ballot when the "critical aff" (broad interpretation) fails to provide a counter-interpretation to the resolution. I equally struggle when that counter-interp is self-serving and not grounded in defining resolutional terms (i.e. "affs can affirm or negate the resolution").

- Most critical debate is too fast for me. If these arguments are your thing, you will benefit from slowing down over-explaining.

- I struggle to understand critiques of "fiat." I find that most of them rely on an interpretation that is divorced from what I understand "fiat" to mean. Absent a tech disaster from one team, I have consistently been persuaded that the aff gets to weigh the benefits of implementation versus the impacts of the K.

- A critique argument still needs to engage the case. Trying to simply outweigh the case or framework it away has empirically been unlikely to persuade me to vote neg.

- Critiques of "impact magnitude" are generally unpersuasive to me. "Critical affs" are much more successful in front of me when they focus on challenging the link.

-Evidence-

- My decision will probably reflect evidence quality / evidence specificity more than the median judge.

- I value good evidence with coherent highlighting. Nonsense highlighting makes me want to read for flaws in your evidence and have it reflect in my decision making even if not brought up in round.

- I don't have an issue with "insert re-highlighting" as long as its accompanied by an actual argument, and the insert has merit. If your "inserting" is actually just mis-readings on your end, I won't care if it's "dropped". Likewise, if you're inserting stuff but haven't introduced context for an actual argument, the other teams burden of rejoinder is low to nil.

-Theory / Competition-

- More neg than the median judge on conditionality.

- 50/50 on judge-kick but presumption is 2NR = one-world. This means if neither team addresses the judge-kick contingency, I will not do it and vote aff if the neg fails to prove a NB and/or competition, even if I think the NB links to and outweighs the case.

- Slightly more neg than the median judge on neg fiat (states, international, multi-actor). I can't see myself ever rejecting the team for non-conditionality theory arguments, even if dropped in every speech.

- "Perm do CP" means the plan and the CP can be the same thing. "Perm do both" means doing the plan and CP at the same time resolves all the NB, or enough of the NB that the solvency deficit outweighs. If you are making a different perm than either of these, you need to say more in the 2AC than "do both" or "do CP"

- I'm not going to vote on disclosure args (not disclosing the 1AC is a voter, you disclosed to us wrong, you're not on the wiki, you only gave us a paper copy, you only read this in X spot, etc.). Disclosure is a privilege, not a right, and I'm here to judge a debate, not be the disclosure police. That said, poor aff disclosure can be persuasively used to justify leniency for the neg on theory args, like conditionality or judge kick.

-Speaker Points-

- I don't really have a model. I suppose my scale goes from 28-30, but realistically my range is probably 28.5-29.5. That doesn't mean if you get a 28.5 you're the worst debater I've seen, it means you did an adequate job and I expected debaters I judged at this tournament to fall in that range. #BringBackTies

About Me

I competed in policy in high school and college at Copper Hills under Scott Odekirk and then at Weber under Ryan Wash. Both coaches heavily influenced my views of debate. For reference on what I'm most knowledgeable about, I always read a K aff that focused on the experiences of migrant women, but read a diversity of arguments on the negative, ranging from performance-based K debate to classic DA/CP/T strategies. I don't support the exclusionary and uneducational practice of deciding rounds based on one's ideological preferences. I am willing to listen to any argument and will judge it based on the competitive framing done in round.

Since graduating high school, I have coached and judged Policy, LD, and Congress on and off. 2023 - 2024 will be my fifth-year judging.

Congress

There are four things I evaluate when ranking, in order of importance:

1) Quality of your content: Construct your arguments effectively and efficiently. I define effectiveness by the ability to use credible sources, FRAME YOUR IMPACTS, display strong evidence analysis and introduce new claims and warrants for why we should pass/fail. After the first two speeches, each speech should have some matter of refutation. Efficiency is shown through clear and concise verbiage, sign posting, and only using repetition strategically.

2) Speech delivery: The best congress folks recognize that body language is more than half of our communication. The speech triangle works because it makes us use intentional movement in our transitions. If you don't understand the reasoning behind why it works and apply it to other parts of your speech, you are limiting yourself to the culture of "doing things because that's what other people do" found so often in Speech and Debate. Being cognizant of your hand motions, foot movements, posture and facial expressions and then using them to your advantage will set you apart for me, particularly if you demonstrate a large range. Project your voice. I strongly prefer that students do not read off of their laptop, particularly if they are doing it because it is the best way to have the most pre-written content available. In general, only reading pre-written content cuts you off from your audience in body language, doesn't translate well to spoken word, and limits the possibility of vocal emphasis. I've noticed that these speeches also tend to not be timed well.

3) Cross ex: Use your questions to establish presence and style in the round. Maintain control of the tempo of the discussion, meaning that you don't try to give a speech in cx or try to speak for your opponent. In my opinion, the goal is for you to get them to say what you want them to say without saying it yourself. Defend your points or set them up effectively, depending on when you give a speech in the session in relation to the cx at hand.

4) Round awareness: Demonstrate that you are capable of assessing when to speak, what arguments are important on the bill in discussion, and most importantly, what refutations or framing will be most convincing. I think all three of these are dependent on you asking yourselves questions throughout the round that determine how you change your behaviors from session to session. What hasn't been said? Who are my judges? If that representative has already said "these framing is going to clarify the debate," then should I do the same thing because I always do? What other formulaic behaviors do I need to adapt?

Policy

debatewrecksmyinbox@gmail.com

Add me on the email chain now rather than later (if there is one)

Basiz Biz

Time yourself. Tag teams fine. Don't be explicit about your racism/sexism when interacting with your peers if you don't want me to evaluate it. Evaluations tbd.

"Anyone not ready?" doesn't work in online debate. If my camera is off, then you can presume that I am not ready.

Clarity is a prerequisite for me flowing the debate. If I have to say clear more than 3 times, I will stop. Any instances of clipping will stop the round and be an auto loss.

Card quality is important in the sense that it shouldn't be cast aside as a) author credibility only being something PF discusses b) overcharged tag lines being accepted as fact and c) presumably having warrants for each of the claims that you are asserting. I will read the cards that are referenced in the last speeches.

Affirmatives

I think I have a lower threshold for presumption arguments. I usually believe going into a round that most affirmatives don't solve as much as they say they do, nor do they have internal link scenarios that are as cohesive as their tag lines would suggest. The first thing I look at after round is whether the burden of proof (however that is defined based on the framework of the debate) for the aff has been met.

If you are reading a kritik, I believe having a method is necessary.

If you have a topical plan - please write out the full version of acronyms under tags if they are not in the body of the card or your tags themselves. I don't usually research the topic prior to judging at a tournament, so there are some terms that may not be familiar to me even if they are a common phrase under the topic.

Framework vs K Affs

I view these debates as competing models of the activity. Debate is inherently competitive, but how we compete is also important. I am not easily persuaded by "you destroy the activity" impacts. I prefer arguments centered around creating better interactions, whether that be a dialogue, political, accessible, fair, educational, etc, and default to how that affects debaters. If you want me to default to something else, please tell me in your speech.

Kritiks

Connect the theories to events / experiences / history and the affirmative if you want to make it more compelling for me. Connecting it to the affirmative may seem self-evident with the K requiring a link and all (at least if you want to win), but in most debates I find myself not being told how the K relates to the answers the aff has given or certain parts of the AC. I'm not saying you need a link for every word they say, but that a link to the story of the affirmative is important sans an explanation of why the part you are critiquing comes before or outweighs other parts of the aff.

Counterplans

Be explicit about the NB in the 1NC. I do think some CPs cheat more than others but have not seen enough tricky counterplan strategies to have a strong opinion on whether some are just bad for debate. Feel more than welcome to inform me through a theory debate that has clear explanations of your impacts.

Disadvantages

I have a very vague understanding of Politics DA theory, so if you're going for it you should contextualize it to the round (ex. winding way, bottom of the docket, anything w fiat).

Theory

Enunciate as much as you can or slow down on your blocks for theory. It always seems like going bloop bloop bloop fairness and education is a common practice, and like I said at the top, clarity is a prereq to me flowing.

Everything is up for debate as far as what should be done in debate.

Topicality

My third-grade knowledge of grammar is not thriving. Any standard relying on English grammar tests runs the risk of my Google interpretation being incorrect.

Oakland University - PhD Applied Mathematics (2017)

U of M - Dearborn - BSE Computer Engineering & Engineering Mathematics (2011)

I debated for Groves High School for two years, U of M - Dearborn for one year, and I debated for U of M - Ann Arbor for one year. I have been coaching at Groves High School since August 2007, where I am currently Co-Director of Debate.

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

Please also add the email grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com to the email chain.

Top Level: Do whatever you want. My job is to evaluate the debate, not tell you what to read.

Speed: Speed is not a problem, but PLEASE remain clear.

Topicality: I am willing to vote on T. I think that there should be substantial work done on the Interpretation vs Counter-Interpretation debate, with impacted standards or reasons to prefer your interpretation. There needs to be specific explanations of your standards and why they are better than the aff's or vice versa. Why does one standard give a better internal link to education or fairness than another, etc?

CPs: I am willing to listen to any type of CP and multiple counterplans in the same round. I also try to remain objective in terms of whether I think a certain cp is abusive or not - the legitimacy of a counterplan is up for debate and thus can vary from one round to the next.

Disads: Sure. There should be a clear link to the aff. Yes, there can be zero risk. The overviews should focus in on why your impacts outweigh and turn case. Let the story of the DA be revealed on the line-by-line.

Kritiks: Sure. I enjoy a good kritik debate. Make sure that there is a clear link to the aff. This may include reading new link scenarios in the block. There should also be a clear explanation of the impact with specific impact analysis. Spend some time on the alternative debate. What is the alt? Does it solve the aff? What does the world of the alternative look like? And finally, who does the alternative? What is my role as the judge? The neg should also isolate a clear f/w - why does methodology, ontology, reps, discourse, etc. come first?

Theory: I don't lean any particular way on the theory debate. For me, a theory debate must be more than just reading and re-reading one's blocks. There needs to be impacted reasons as to why I should vote one way or another. If there are dropped independent voters on a theory debate, I will definitely look there first. Finally, there should be an articulated reason why I should reject the team on theory, otherwise I default to just rejecting the argument.

Performance: Sure. I prefer if the performative affirmation or action is germane to the topic, but that is up for debate. I am certainly willing to listen to your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

Paperless Debate: I do not take prep time for emailing your documents, but please do not steal prep. I also try to be understanding when tech issues occur, but will honor any tech time rules established and enforced by the tournament. I will have my camera on during the round. If my camera is off, please assume that I am not there. Please don't start without me.

Other general comments:

Line-by-line is extremely important in evaluating the rounds, especially on procedural flows.

Clipping cards is cheating! If caught, you will lose the round and get the lowest possible speaker points the tournament allows.

I do not feel comfortable voting on issues that happen outside the round.

You should read rehighlightings.

Don't change what works for you. I am willing to hear and vote on any type of argument, so don't alter your winning strat to fit what you may think my philosophy is.

Cross-x is a speech - it should have a clear strategy and involve meaningful questions and clarifications.

Have fun!

Email: shannonnierman@gmail.com

I debated for Wylie E. Groves High School for four years, debated for 3 years at MSU, and currently coach at Groves.

Topicality: I’m not opposed to voting on T, but rereading T shells is insufficient. There needs to be substantial work on the interpretations debate from both teams, in addition to the standards and voters debate, i.e. education and fairness. As long as the aff is reasonably topical and it is proven so, T is probably not a voter. Also, if you are going for T in the 2NR, go for only T, and do so for all 5 minutes.

Counterplans: Any type of counterplan is fine; however, if it is abusive, do not leave it for me to decide this, make these arguments.

Disads: Any type of DA is fine. A generic link in the 1NC is okay, but I think that throughout the block the evidence should be link specific. When extending the DA in the block, an overview is a must. The first few words I should here on the DA flow is “DA outweighs and turns case for X and Y reasons.”

Kritiks: I will vote on the K, but I often find that in the K rounds people undercover the alternative debate. When getting to this part of the K, explain what the world of the alternative would look like, who does the alternative, if the aff can function in this world, etc. I am well versed in psychoanalytic literature i.e. Zizek and Lacan and I do know the basis of a plethora of other Ks. This being said, I should learn about the argumentation in the round through your explanation and extrapolation of the authors ideas; not use what I know about philosophy and philosophers or what like to read in my free time. Read specific links in the block and refrain from silly links of omission.

Theory: I am not opposed to voting on theory, but it would make my life a lot easier if it didn’t come down to this. This is not because I dislike the theory debate rather I just believe that it is hard to have an actual educational and clear theory debate from each side of the debate. Now, this said, if a theory argument is dropped, i.e. conditionality bad, by all means, go for it!

Performance: An interesting and unique type of debate that should still relate to the resolution. As long as there is substantive and legitimate argumentation through your rapping or dancing and whatever else you can come up with, I am willing to vote on it. Even if you are rapping, I would prefer to have a plan text to start.

*As technology is vital in our life, many of us have switched toward paperless debate. I do not use prep for flashing, because I have also debated both off of paper and paperlessly in debate and I understand that technology can sometimes be your opponent in the round, rather than the other team. I am being a nice and fair judge in doing this, so please do not abuse this by stealing prep, because I will most likely notice and take away that stolen prep.

FAQs: Speed – I’m okay with speed as long as you are clear!
Tag teaming - I’m okay with it as long as it’s not excessive.

Things not to do in rounds I’m judging: go for RVIs, go for everything in the 2NR, and be mean. Believe it or not, there is a distinction between being confident and having ethos vs. being rude and obnoxious when you don’t have the right to be.

Current coach for Traverse City Central High School.

Paradigm: I want you to frame the round and tell me where to vote and why. A well developed framework on which I can vote is key. I will not create your arguments for you, so explain them well. As a teacher, it is most important to me that you understand your arguments and learn from the process, so if you can create a framework that convinces me I should vote on it and is well argued I will vote on any argument.

Speed: I come from Policy Debate, so I can handle speed, but please enunciate. Be sure to be clear on your tags and subpoints. Do not use speed as a tool to confuse. I would rather hear quality arguments and clash than spreading just for the sake of confusing your opponent.

Arguments: I generally want the arguments you make to be in the round, not just in cross fire, and I want you to extend them throughout the entire round. If you don't mention them in the last speeches, I will consider them "dropped". 

Procedure: Be polite! This is an educational process and should be respected by all competitors. Regardless of your experience level in this community, we are all still learning.

I strongly prefer that you do your own Crossfires. Each team member should be able to articulate the arguments and should not rely on the other(again learning is the key). I will let you know if your tag-team gets out of hand.

Politeness and respect in the round is a TOP priority. I do not find any flashy behavior appropriate, and will take speaker points for rude interruptions during constructives or rebuttals, cursing or inappropriate language, racist/sexist/classist/xenophobic/homophobic comments to other people in-round, arrogant or insulting comments even if you believe you are winning the round.

Other:

-Line by line! I am super type-A, and if you are not organized my flow is not in your favor.

-Having a card on something doesn't always beat good analytical arguments

-I will not assume dropped arguments are true if you haven’t done the work to extend it.

-Good analysis needs to make it all the way through to the final speeches.

-I need to be able to understand and find your arguments to vote on them, be organized!

I'm always working on learning as a judge and updating my paradigm. I think all types of debate are interesting and enjoyable as long as you do it well. Ask me questions, make good arguments, and help me understand why it is important to vote for you on any argument. Have fun.

Add to me to the email chain: poluskathryn@gmail.com

Email - robbpluta@gmail.com - please include me on the email chain!

As an FYI, I don't coach for any teams currently, and last debated as a senior in high school, so I probably have a little less experience with the intricate details of a lot of arguments than other judges, especially as the season is starting. Explaining everything out to me, no matter how obvious it might seem, is a great way to earn my ballot.

Judging Philosophy - My default position is that debate is an educational competition, and that by exchanging arguments in this space we gain knowledge on the topic, the world, political mechanisms, activism, etc. I can be convinced out of this reasoning but sans framework it's where I default.

I am adamant that I vote only on the arguments presented to me in the round. If an argument is clearly abusive, doesn't link, makes no sense, has no supporting warrants - I am counting on YOU to be the one to point it out. This is a test of your skills, not mine. I've voted for DAs that clearly don't link simply because the Aff let's Neg get away with it - always call out the other team and don't count on me to do it.

A dropped argument is a conceded argument - but you need to point out why this wins you the round.

Slurs or abusive language/arguments designed to hurt others (racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc), is an auto-ballot against the violating team. "Fascism good" arguments fall under this category as well.

Sans above, I will be willing to vote for any argument, but historically, I've noted what I find more persuasive below.

Topicality - I'll be honest that I have rarely voted on T's that were not dropped in whole/in part. The neg needs to make the argument that T is a priori (as I will not assume this). The Neg should attempt to prove what education/ground has been lost by the aff with actual examples, otherwise I tend to be unconvinced. If you're going for T, make it the whole 2NR.

DAs - always cool (Unless you're going for "climate change good / isn't happening" in which case I will laugh you out of the room)

CPs - always cool - Neg run what you want, aff run theory it's abusive. Arguments that tell me "this is what debate will look like if we allow ______" are a must if you're arguing abuse.

Ks - cool if explained well. A layperson's explanation is a must, especially on psychoanalytic Ks. It's not necessary for K's critiquing Aff's specific plan epistemology to have an alt, but is never a bad idea. Ks that critique the resolution/general format of policy (IE 'state bad') should absolutely have one. Aff - always question the link.

FW - super cool - needs to be in every round.

Theory - cool - I'm probably in the minority of judges who think so. But debate is a competition, and debating best practices that allow everyone to play the competition are intriguing to me. Statements like "Debate becomes _______" or "Debate will look like ________" are essential.

Performance Affs - cool, but should still be "topical". At minimum, a "plan text" that states "We [do the resolution] by ________".

Impact Calc - absolutely necessary. Probability / questioning the link always seems neglected in favor of magnitude, which would be a mistake for me.

General Things I like:

- SLOW DOWN on your Tags! and tell me NEXT when moving on!

- Explicitly contrasting FW/Role of the Ballot.

- Explaining the benefits or drawbacks of the world of the alt

- Questioning the warrants of cards

- Reading more than just the T or Theory shells.

- Theory debates where we are having honest discussions on game theory/what is best for debate, and moving beyond shell arguments.

Things I'm not the biggest fan of:

- Running Condo with less than 4 off case

- 5 or more off case

- Elections DAs more than 6 months before an election

- Sticking ONLY with T or Theory Shells

- Reading off standards/voters in T/Theory without explaining what they mean (What the heck is "reasonable"? Or "education"?)

- Not explaining the warrants/alt of the K to me.

- Heck, reading any K and not being able to explain it with current / relevant examples outside the space of the round

I'm healed now run it all back

Please put me on the e-mail chain: peanutdebater@gmail.com

**Highschool peeps: I've been told by my coach friends, my debaters, and students I've judged that I come off mean in RFDs because of how blunt I am. I don't mean to be rude or anything like that but if that seems like I am, it's most likely not you.

***Well done*** Naruto references get you speaker point boosts.

Background

Greetings Comrades, I debated four years of varsity debate in high school at East Kentwood competing nationally and then debated for five years at Wayne State. Now I'm a grad assistant at Baylor. I have been almost exclusively a K debater. Some of the areas include anti-blackness, settler colonialism, cap, Edelman, and Chicanx arguments but I also have read and coached policy arguments so throw em at me. (Random impact turns like bootlicking China).

The Topic:

College: Oh wow nukes can't wait to hear all the same impacts from the last five years.

High School: BIG MOOONEY

In round:

Evidence sharing and disclosure is good. Do it.

As of this moment I am not evaluating anything out of round unless I see it or you have physical proof (screenshot, recording) that your opponents did something violent messed up etc. I'm not gonna play detective again nor am I going to make value judgements on peoples sincerity or honesty.

Tag teaming is okay but I'd rather it kept to a minimum or zero.

Did you read a? Did you skip b? What cards did you read? Are cross ex questions I will enforce that time on a one judge panel. Don't like it? Get good at flowing, sorry but I'm not sorry, like at all.

Don't be oppressive or violent in the round, don't say that mess we are too old for that. If you do I'll let the other team roast you in their speech if they want to dunk and gain speaker points, if they don't take the opportunity to do it I will do it post round including lower speaks and an L.

I've noticed now more that I am an expressive judge so you will often know how I feel about something in the debate. So do with that as you will.

I've started to hate large overviews because honestly most of that work can/should be done on the line by line portion of the debate. I am also personally fine with the 1AR or block foregoing and overview and just tear up the opponents arguments directly.

More hostility in debate. Like why are we treating bad or silly arguments and the people that run them as serious. This isn't like be mean and call people names, but like you just called their epistemology racist and you're friends or cordial with someone reading that racist stuff? That's weird... Enter the room with that mamba mentality, that's all.

***Online Debates. I would love and prefer your cameras on at all times as I think it checks back cheating, helps me see you and allows you to use non-verbal's to persuade me and absent that build a sense of community and friendship :). If you can't or it's important to your argument and/or have another reason for not using a camera I get it, just my preference.

Args

If you have a fringe argument that some deem as silly, funny, goofy, weird, and/or obscure read that ish I like weird impact turns and all kinds of funky DAs. Spark, rouge AI, aliens, or whatever have fun.

I think post-rounding is silly because debate is communicative and if you failed to articulate your round winning argument then I’m sorry but I’m not going to go crying to tab changing the result. But waste our time if you really feel that way I won't think about the round ever again likely so no clue what you want to be the result of it. I've only had this problem once twice thrice so let's keep it that way.

If I wanted to hear just the truth I'd go to therapy. In other words the tech on the flow matters

Perms need a deeper explanation than you just rambling off four perms in hopes that the neg drops one it likely won't be developed enough by the 1AR/2AR to get my ballot

Aff

Aff has the burden of proof, prove a change is needed or what you do is the change + is good. Neg has the burden of rejoinder respond any way you want. Lots of times I feel that I vote neg because I lose sight of what the aff does as the 1AC slowly decomposes into nothing-ness at the end of the round. Explain what your aff does, why you are doing it, and how. Neg people don’t let affs shine light on their arguments and you have a hot shot at getting a win or a presumption ballot at the least.

T

First slow down on the violation, standards, and voters people blaze through it at top speed please relax let me flow it, damn. I feel like well done policy affs vs. T debates are some of my favorite but also could be really really generic and mid debates. So don't be boring. The impact level needs to come down to what specific abuse or education loss happened not something abstract.

FW

Borrowing from Pirates of the Caribbean, "The [Resolution] is more what you call guidelines, than actual rules."

Aff teams should prove a reasonable way, form, and or model of engagement or have significant impact turns to the neg arguments, I'm not convinced by some generic bs like "policy bad" we can do better y'all. Neg teams not gonna hold you IDGAF about fairness in the abstract. You need to prove the specific abuse in the round not just some lofty fairness claims. You need to contextualize your offense to the specific aff you debate and if you can do that you'll most likely be good absent something external in the round.

K Affs

Rez connection is appreciated and desired although not mandatory ig, please make sure you have thought through why you have completely rejected it. If you are just gonna say debate bad but have no other juice aside from that why we here?

Theory

So I've come around and like a good theory debate so go for it. I'm most open to disclosure theory, condo in a world of 4+ off (i.e. time skew claims and ability to generate offense on the net benefits). I also will flow on paper so like depth over breath for me. Y'all really need to levy perf-con against teams that read Ks and then have some policy defense/args. In a world of two perf con policy CPs I'll lean more neg flex but in a world of K v Policy stuff it shows bad K debating and I lean aff.

D.A.’s

TBH not a fan of most politics DAs because they seem boring and repetitive. If I had a dollar for every time something was supposed to shift a vote or election I would have more money than Bezos so you either need really good specific link evidence or you should read something else. If you decide to read a new disad in the block make sure you have a warrant as to why you did.

CP’s

Make sure you outline the net benefit pretty please? However, how much fiat the teams want to grant the CP will be up to y’all. I love a tricky PIC but don't love 4 plank long counterplans.

The K

Real world impacts are good and are grounded in more reality thus I feel are easier to believe than most. In addition to the arguments I mentioned in my background I dappled with a broad range of other arguments but that does not mean I'm neck deep in all the literature of everything so explain. Going for alt? Explain how it solves the links. No alt? Fine K’s can also function as disads without alts and be a reason to not do the aff but you will have to win how the aff increases said bad thing not just they use the state. In general I think the state link is probably the weak “link” of k links, see what I did there ;). I’d rather you contextualize your argument to the aff. Or to win the K you need a good FW/epistemology connection so make sure to have that if you aren't going the material route.

Ummmm... why ain't we fiating alts around here we really letting the policy crew have a monopoly on the tools of imagination?

**HS in particular: Please don’t be like “He’s a K debater so reading the K is how we win” If you would like feedback I can probably provide that for you as an educational opportunity but don’t read it just for the sake of it. I don’t like buns K debates and if you think you have that FW or DA fire instead just read that.

Zachary Rich

Affiliation: Wayne State University

Long story short - I like debates where there is clash on both sides. Give me a road map and follow it. Please be sure to signpost so that I know on which flow I am looking/writing. Give me the line-by-line and tell me when your opponent has dropped an argument. If you are rude to me, I can let it go pretty easily. If you are rude to the other team, I will get upset. If you are rude to your partner, I will be livid.

Spreading is fine as long as you are sure to enunciate important parts of arguments and do not lose your clarity. I will give one verbal warning per person throughout the debate, but that is it.

Topicality - T is always a voter, but only if there is a good argument on it or it is dropped by the AFF. If you are just throwing out a T argument for funsies and to waste the AFF's time, I will not like that.

BTW - no voters read = no vote on T.

Kritiks - I need a link in order to vote NEG on the K. I do not want a flimsy card as your only part of the link, I want a solid argument on it. A good link debate can change my mind on the K. However, if the AFF does not address the link at all, I will give it more weight.

Theory - Theory is a voter if it is not addressed by the other side. Just... do not drop theory. While I will vote on it, I will not like doing so. Conditionality: One conditional K and/or CP is not too much for a 2AC to take care of. Anything more than 4 is REALLY pushing it. 5-off is abusive.

Speaker Points - I typically give points from 27 to 29.5. I echo Brad Meloche when I say that, "Points below 27.0 are reserved for 'epic fails' in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial[, and other,] slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that)". Puns and pop culture references are cool. While this will not affect my overall decision on the round, it makes the debate more fun and will incline me to give you more speaker points.

Time Keeping - I urge you to keep your own time, however, I have the official clock for the round. I will start CX time as soon as the speech is over and will start prep time as soon as CX is over. If debating paperless, I will not take prep time for flashing or email, but I need to know when this is happening. Finally... DO NOT STEAL PREP.

Any other questions, please just ask.

Bee Smale

They/Them pronouns

4 yrs - East Kentwood High School

4 yrs - Indiana University

Grad Coach @ Wayne State

Yes on the email chain: wayneCXdocs@gmail.com

Debate is a game but the only rule is that I have to submit a ballot at the end with one winner and one loser. I expect debaters to try to win the game. I'd rather you make a controversial and innovative argument then suggesting that there were other debates or conversations to be had. I find that ethos is often much more important to my decision then the flow.

I dislike judging debates about the character of individual debaters, but will obviously do so if that's what the debate is about. My decision will ultimately rest on who did the better debating, and any judgement rendered is not final nor is it a judgement on the character of individual debaters.

·      I debated at Okemos High School in Okemos, MI. I have helped with the Okemos debate program since graduating in 2014. I currently attend Michigan State University and I am not debating in college. I’m a Neuroscience major and a Philosophy and Cognitive Science double minor.

·      I like T, but I want to see clash over definitions, voters and standards. Why is your definition better? Having a list of cases that would be topical and would not be based on your definition helps. Simply restating your standards and voters without clash isn’t good enough for me.

·      I like being told what to vote for and how I should make my decision.  I don’t want to be left to decide what matters in a round and what doesn’t, it’s also bad for you!

·      Speaker points are based on cross x heavily and substance of your speeches. Please be polite, there’s no reason to be rude, and it’s unprofessional. Tag teaming in cross x is perfectly fine, I would prefer it not be excessive.

·      Ks and CPs should be read slower, if you don’t want me to miss anything. I can handle spreading, but I can only write so fast, I consider myself in the middle regarding speed. There needs to be an alt to the k and that cannot be simply voting negative. 

·      If you’re asking if you can run _____, the answer usually yes. I’m reasonably familiar with the topic, but please explain your arguments.

·      Feel free to ask me question before the round.

I debated at West Ottawa in Holland, MI before attending UM.  I teach English/coach debate for Detroit Cristo Rey.

There is a ten year gap between when I debated in high school and my recent return to debate as a coach/judge.  But I have no issues with speed, as long as the speaker makes sure to read tags clearly (i.e., if I can’t understand you, I won’t be able to include it in my flow).

I’m a pretty straightforward policymaker judge, but with a touch of tabula rasa.  I prefer content to style, but remain open to kritiks and topicality as long as they are well-reasoned and clearly connect to the specifics of the round.  If you do a good job of convincing me that I should vote on an issue, then I will.  That said, I do tend to vote more on disadvantages and counterplans, and I prefer a well-organized debate/flow.  The more logically the debate is structured and the more substantive the arguments, the happier I will be.

As for performance, I am fine with tag-teaming but I expect everyone to contribute during CX (no hiding behind your partner).  I will not accept rudeness.  If you feel the need to rattle your opponent with brusqueness, then you cannot have much faith in your argumentation.

I base speaker points on both clarity of speech and strength of argument.  Don’t simply speak - draw my attention to important connections and evidence, and emphasize what you believe to be key voting issues during the round.

Email: rtimm4341@gmail.com (went years opposing being on the email chain on the grounds that it removes the debate from what is actually claimed by the debaters, but zoom debate being what it is, maintaining a purist stance is not practicable)

I have been involved with debate since 2003. As you might suspect of something I've been doing longer than most people reading this will have been alive, I'm here because I genuinely believe in and enjoy the activity. Hopefully you feel the same way! Happy, fun teams make happy, fun judges make happy, fun, high point rounds.

Tech > truth. There's virtually no argument that can't win if argued well. The places where truth matters more are generally structural issues with debate, e.g., barring a drop, you can't tech uniqueness arguments into controlling the direction of the link or a non-competitive advocacy out of the perm. Other than that, I judge with the least possible intervention whatever my (often strong) thoughts on the argument may be. I tend to read VERY little evidence, as few teams actually make sufficient use of their evidence for it to be relevant to my decision. Evidence is an argument support system, not an argument itself, meaning that you need to actually flag a card and focus on its warrants for it to stand a chance at directly coming into my decision.

Far too much impact calculus is incredibly shallow. The majority of rounds, impact calc consists of noting an untouched extinction impact and asserting then asserting an immediate timeframe and 100% probability. This is as silly inside a debate round as it would be in the real world. You're much better served making specific, probabilistic arguments drawing on carded warrants and comparing them to your mitigation of their impacts. Relatedly, too many teams simply let impacts stand untouched, hoping instead to mitigate at the link and uniqueness levels. This tends to result in me having to grumpily parse whether to vote in favor of the side claiming two extinction events that may not be unique or the side claiming three extinction events that may not link. Impact defense and (be still my beating heart!) impact turns therefore tend to result in cleaner, more fun rounds.

CPs: I am extremely aff-leaning on most questions of competition. If your CP competes off the definition of normal means or certainty, it doesn't. That goes for consult, delay, condition, what have you: if perm do the counterplan is in the 2AR, you will almost certainly lose. No, perm do the counterplan as a response to your sweet consult Turkmenistan CP does not sever out of anything. Yes, that does make your CP almost impossible to run.

States CPs are often theoretically illegitimate, but I'm actually unusually sympathetic to them this year. The vast majority of our criminal justice system is controlled by states rather than the feds, meaning that there is an unusually rich literature supporting state-level solutions.

Critiques: I'll openly admit to being one of the least sympathetic judges on the circuit to the theory behind most critical arguments in debate. There's tons of great and interesting philosophy being written and read every day. Unfortunately, almost none of it is what we as a community have decided to use to write our Ks. The vast majority of "high theory" authors are embarrassing hack frauds. Every time I wind up being exposed to Zizek or Baudrillard or the like reminds me of Schopenhauer's famous comments that Hegel "was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense" and wrote "such stuff as madmen tongue and brain not." (Note: if you don't know what I'm talking about, you almost certainly do not have a strong enough background in philosophy to actually understand the arguments you are making.)

That said, I have a slightly above 50% lifetime voting record in favor of the K. Good K debaters make their argument as specific to the aff as possible, something especially easy on the criminal justice topic. You will always be better off engaging with the substance of the aff. Good K debaters also try not to let the round devolve into a seeming stream of consciousness in no particular order. The average high school K 2NC/1NR seems to skip up and down the flow with no regard for structure or responsiveness. Structureless speeches result in messy flows result in frustrated judges trying to parse implicit clash after the round.

Non-traditional/performance: Debate is a game, and the only rule that can't be disputed is the length of your speeches. However, I'm never going to be a particularly good judge for performance affs. All things being equal, the neg will usually have the advantage on T/framework for two reasons: 1) empirically, almost every performance debate is a meta-debate with almost no topic-specific education after the 1AC; and 2) especially on a topic like CJR, virtually everything done by non-traditional affs could also be done topically, requiring actual engagement with your performance. That is to say, no, the aff saying "the USFG should" is not the same thing as roleplaying as the USFG.

Theory: theory arguments outside the "conditionality bad" family are almost never reasons to reject the team. This goes double for blippy little nothing arguments in the middle of a block being labelled an independent voter. However, arguments like severance or floating PIKs are often extremely useful. If you go for a CP/K, I will not compare the plan to the status quo without an extremely compelling argument why I should.

Topicality: Unless told otherwise, I default to evaluating T through a competing interpretations lens. A-spec and similar arguments are rarely a winner.

Greetings!

Hi! I am Stefanie Zin.

Please add me to the e-mail chain: zinst4364@gmail.com

If you don't read ANYTHING else, please read the following:

1.PLEASE SIGNPOST

2.PLEASE PROVIDE A ROADMAP

Okay, now that I've said that:

While I debated in high school for four years, and in college for two, it was a while ago. I have VERY LIMITED familiarity with most Kritiks and definitely not as fast a flow as I used to be. That said, you needn't act like you are giving an "after dinner speech". Related to speed, I also appreciate intelligibility. My motto is, "If I can't understand what you said, I can't flow it and if I can't flow it, I can't vote on it." To borrow a statement from my Ex-Husband, David Zin, "Debate is still a communication activity, even if we rip along at several hundred words a minute."

I am a bit of a traditionalist: I tend to have a stock issues approach to the AFF, I like clear and succinct tags on evidence. You can read the evidence as fast as you want (assuming you are intelligible). I appreciate it when the 2NR/2AR not only provide me with justification as to why they win, but contrasts their position to the other team and explain how they outweigh.

Tag team CX is okay, within reason. I award speaker points based on the quality/content of the speeches as well as CX performance. I want all of the debaters to be able to think on their feet and not rely solely on their partner to "carry them through the round". Please demonstrate your independent understanding and mastery of the material (this will be rewarded).

Finally, I have a deep and profound respect for civility in a debate round. Your goal should be to prevail based on the content and quality of your argumentation, not on your ability to subject your opponent to abject misery and totally debase them. (This type of behavior will NOT be rewarded and you will NOT be happy with your Speaker Points as a result).

Please consider the following elements with an "X" denoting my position with respect to the spectrum of characteristics.

No Tag Team CX---------------------------X---Tag Team CX okay (within reason

Tech---------------------X----------------------Truth

Policy--X---------------------------------------Kritiks (As stated above, I have very limited experience with Kritiks.)

Theory--------------------------------------X------Substance

I'll read no cards----------------------X-----------I'll read all the cards

Lots of so-so cards ---------------------X-------- A few good, longer cards

Debate is about ideas--------------------X-------------------Debate is about people

Debate is good/valuable -X--------------------------------It's not

Conditionality bad-------------------------X--------------------Conditionality good

No process CPs ------------------------------X---------------Lit determines legitimacy

Politics DA not a thing --------------------------------X-------------(Good) Politics DA is a thing

Running Kritiks assuming I am infinitely UNFAMILIAR with them-----------------------X- Explain the K and the Alt and Framework

Framework with respect to Kritiks - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOUR FRAMEWORK IS PREFERABLE and how I should weigh it!!!

Clarity--X-------------------------------------------Unintelligibility (Trust me on this!)

I'm a robot-----------------------------------------X-Slow down on tags/cites/analytics/theory

Aff Ground--------------------X-------------------------Limits

Long overviews-----------------------------------X----Articulate positions, line by line

2NRs that collapse ---X------------------------------- 2NRs that go for everything

2ARs that assume I will vote AFF regardless------------------------------X-2ARs that tell my WHY to vote AFF.

I look forward to an enjoyable experience judging you and your team!