Logistics…

1) Let's use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If you are the first person to the room, please set it up and put the code on the board so we can all get the evidence.

2) If, for some reason, we can't use speechdrop, let's use email. I want to be on the email chain. mrjared@gmail.com

3) If there is no email chain, I’m going to want to get the docs on a flash drive ahead of the speech.

4) Prep stops when you have a) uploaded the doc to speechdrop b) hit send on the email, or c) pulled the flash drive out. Putting your doc together, saving your doc, etc... are all prep. Also, when prep ends, STOP PREPPING. Don't tell me to stop prep and then tell me all you have to do is save the doc and then upload it. This may impact your speaker points.

5) Get your docs in order!! If I need to, I WILL call for a corrected speech doc at the end of your speech. I would prefer a doc that only includes the cards you read, in the order you read them. If you need to skip a couple of cards and you clearly indicate which ones, we should be fine. If you find yourself marking a lot of cards (cut the card there!), you definitely should be prepared to provide a doc that indicates where you marked the cards. I don’t want your overly ambitious version of the doc; that is no use to me.

** Evidence sharing should NOT be complicated. Figure it out before the round starts. Use Speechdrop.net, a flash drive, email, viewing computer, or paper, but figure it out ahead of time and don’t argue about it. **

I have been coaching and judging debate for many years now. I started competing in 1995. I've been coaching LD debate for the last 10 years, prior to that I was a CEDA/NDT coach and that is the event I competed in. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I can be persuaded to evaluate the debate in any number of ways, provided you support your arguments clearly. You can win my ballot with whatever. I don’t have to agree with your argument, I don’t have to be moved by your argument, I don’t even have to be interested in your argument, I can still vote for you if you win. I DO need to understand you. Certain arguments are very easy for me to understand, I’m familiar with them, I enjoy them, I will be able to provide you with nuanced and expert advice on how to improve those arguments…other arguments will confuse and frustrate me and require you to do more work if you want me to vote on them. It’s up to you. I’ll tell you more about the particulars below, but it is very important that you understand – I believe that debate is about making COMPARATIVE ARGUMENTS! It is YOUR job to do comparisons, not mine. You can make a bunch of arguments, all the arguments you want, if YOU do not apply them and make the comparisons to the other team, I will almost certainly not do this for you. If neither team does this work and you leave me to figure it out, that’s on you.

The rules have changed for LD, however, that does not change my paradigm. The important change to the rules says this - "judges are also encouraged to develop a decision-making paradigm for adjudicatingcompetitive debate and provide that paradigm to students prior to the debate."

The paradigm I'm providing here should not be understood to contradict "the official decision making
paradigm of NFA-LD" provided in the rules.

Topicality is a voting issue. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I will vote neg. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules to resolve any procedural/theory violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won't make sense, so I'll end up voting on it. Topicality is a voting issue. This is VERY clear. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I vote neg. I don’t need “abuse” proven or otherwise. Not all of the rules are this clearly spelled out, so you'll need to make arguments. Speed is subjective. I prefer a faster rate (I can flow all of you, for the most part, pretty easily) of delivery but will adjudicate debates about this.

Attempts to embarrass, humiliate, intimidate, shame, or otherwise treat your opponents or judges poorly will not be a winning strategy in front of me. If you can’t find it within yourself to listen while I explain my decision and deal with it like an adult (win or lose), then neither of us will benefit from having me in the room. I’m pretty comfortable with most critical arguments, but the literature base is not always in my wheelhouse, so you’ll need to explain. Particularly if you are reading anything to do with psychoanalysis (D&G is possibly my least favorite, but Agamben is up there too). Cheap shot RVI’s are not particularly persuasive either, but you shouldn't ignore them.

History: I have debated for six years. Two years of high school policy and four years of LD at Lafayette College.

Delivery: I can handle speed, explained a little more below, but I do ask that if you are going to speed read please be clear on tags and authors. However, i do think that a debater should be sensitive to the speed threshold of their opponents. I think debaters should feel free to say "clear" or something like that to let the other debater know that they are too fast.

I approach a round being a blank slate, that means that the debaters can put me into a framework if they like (stock issues, policy maker, etc…) by default I will pick policy maker. I am able to keep up on the line-by-line debate however, in the rebuttals I like to see debaters identify the important arguments and attempt to win those rather than get bogged down by the line-by-line.

I do not have a preference for certain types of impacts, good ones are appreciated and encouraged. Debaters should strive to have good impact analysis, probability, timeframe, and magnitude. Discuss why you win or if you are losing one of the three points explain why your impact still matters.

Topicality debates that have competing interpretations are what I consider good topicality debates. Using the interpretations, the standards debate becomes much more interesting and meaningful. To win topicality, the negative must show clear violation of the interpretation and win that the interpretation is a good one. The affirmative must show that there is either no violation or that the interpretation is not a good one.

I have a background in policy debate and believe that the students define the debate space with their arguments. I follow the flow and evaluate the debate in the manner in which the debaters prescribe. I have a relatively high threshold for topicality namely because I see it often used as a time suck which detracts from the substance of debate. You must articulate clear abuse or potential for abuse and provide a clear image of what ought to be topical and why it provides the best framework for debate. Many debates shadow extend standards and articulate few ways in which the affirmative either sets a bad precedent for debate or abuses the negative team in the round. I believe it is up to the debaters to articulate the benefits and costs of a deontological or consequential framework and make the explicit connections between framework analysis and the implications for the way I perceive the impacts within the round. I enjoy both policy based and more critical arguments and will not throw out your arguments because of my own personal political beliefs or affiliations. I see debate as much more than just a game and hold the educational purpose and intent behind debate in highest regard. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

NFA 2024 UPDATE:These are the FIRST debate rounds I have judged on this topic and since last NFA. PLEASE SLOW DOWN. Argument or strategy complexity isn't a problem, but spreading will be. My resolve to keep NFA-LD debate accessible has only strengthened. I will give verbal warnings and your ability to heed these warnings will factor into my decision and speaker point allocation. As has been true in the past, I will find it very difficult to vote for "bad" arguments, even if they are substantially under-covered or in some cases even conceded.

Past Affiliation:Lafayette College
Years in Policy Debate: 3 years HS Policy, 4 years NFA-LD, 1 year coaching CEDA/NDT, 20 years coaching NFA-LD

Props:

-The NFA-LD rules
-Using standards to actively demonstrate why I should prefer your interpretation
-Reading a plan text and defending its implementation as a policy in good faith
-Even/if statements in rebuttals
-Moderating your speed
-Slowing down during analytics so I can actually flow your warrants
-Weighing and comparing impacts
-Comparing warrants in cards
-Internal Link arguments
-Unique impacts
-Doing the work to actually apply the framework to the impact discussion
-Slower rebuttals because you collapsed
-Case specific CPs and DAs
-Explaining and annotating where the Kritik links are on the aff flow

Slops:

-Excessive speed
-Card dumps with no contextualization
-Being rude and overly aggressive
-Using language and/or tactics intent on excluding your opponent
-Factually incorrect arguments about the topic
-Completely ignoring inherency
-BS theory arguments, like "perms are wrong"
-Conditional CPs/ALTs

Other things:

-I won't vote for an argument just because it is conceded, you have to justify WHY that argument is relevant to my ballot and decision. Arguments that are 'bad' don't get any better because they are conceded.
-I prefer rounds that are quick and smart to rounds that are fast and dumb
-I think the 1NR should collapse a lot - you should have time to say why you win the argument, why the argument is relevant to the round, and why it deserves consideration for the ballot.
-If you go for everything in the 1NR, I will NOT do extra work for you to answer the questions above. I will also be more likely TO do work for the 2AR as they struggle to keep up and cover everything.
-I believe that in NFA-LD, Topicality is primarily jurisdictional and prefer competing interpretations. Using standards to adjudicate which interp to apply is more important to me than proven abuse. If you win that your interp should be preferred AND that they violate it, I will vote on T without abuse.

I competed in LD for Lafayette college for 3.5 years. I am very much into the stock issues debate. I expect debaters to tell me how to weigh what though because I won’t do the work for you. I will listen to pretty much any argument. I do expect Ks and critical affs to have impacts though. Giving me a clear reason to vote/weighing calculus is most important.

I am fine with speed as long as your opponent is fine with it. I will say speed/clearer if I don’t understand you. I do think debate should be inclusive and that your opponent should also be able to say clear/speed if they don’t understand. I will also listen to arguments against speed if one is purposely trying to exclude his/her opponent from the debate.

I don’t love Ks that have nothing to do with the topic area/are super generic and can apply to any case, but I’ll listen to anything.

Don’t be rude during cross-ex. This means let your opponent answer your question without cutting them off, but also don’t purposely waste your opponent’s cross-ex time if he/she has more questions.

Background: I debated for one year in college, and competed in speech events for all four years.

Delivery: My main delivery preference is for you to please speak at a conversational pace, or at most slightly faster than that. I
won’t understand if you speak too quickly.

I am skeptical of arguments that rely on terminal impacts like nuclear war or extinction, especially if the impact does not seem plausible outside the round. That doesn't necessarily mean I'll always reject them. But it does mean that you have higher threshold on fleshing out your impact analysis, timeframe, and probability.

I’m happy to answer any questions before the round starts.

I spent four years competing in LD for Lafayette, then two coaching LD and Parli for University of the Pacific. I then went to law school at Columbia and work as an insurance defense attorney.

Things you should know about my paradigm:

I tend to search for comparative advantage among the debaters' advocacy positions, but will follow the debaters into any paradigm they instruct me on. I also will follow debaters into paradigms they appear to both imply I should follow.

I can probably handle as much speed as your opponent can handle, but I have not been coaching or judging in a while, so please focus on clarity. I do not know the resolution or virtually any of the case literature, so please slow down on card tags. I want a fair debate on the merits, so it is important to me that you are clear and forthcoming to your opponent about your positions. Aside from that, I'm comfortable on any topic, any procedural, or any form of debate you articulate with clear warrants.

Here's the tl;dr

Specifics > Generics

Substance and T > Rules and fake procedurals

Competitive PICS > Everything

Defending what you do > Aff Framework and Nonsense Perms

Link > Uniqueness

Offense > Everything

Always a risk > Terminal defense

Doing what you do best > Over-adapting

Things to know when debating in front of me:

1) I’m highly suspicious of arguments that have been debunked by contemporary debate theory or demonstrate weakness in preparation or strategy. I’ll vote on these if you win them clearly but my threshold is relatively high. Some examples include: Inherency, vagueness or any other non-topicality procedural, one conditional position bad, PICs bad, Aff framework against the K, non-evidenced analytics, and random NFA LD rules violations (the last one basically never). Otherwise, any argument is fine.

2) That being said, I love a good T debate. Sometimes topicality is the strategy. I default to competing interpretations.

3) I flow carefully. Technical drops are considered true in a relative sense.

4) Go as fast as you want, I can keep up as long as you’re clear. Speed is never ‘exclusionary’, it’s part of the game. You can critique the game, but in the absence of a well developed critique of debate practice, you should be able to cover. Smart and slow beats fast and nonsensical.

5) I have a strong preference for specific arguments and stories. The K and DA might turn case, but how?

6) I decide policy debates in the following manner

a. Decide the relative probability of each position in the debate. This means that you need offense on the major positions in the debate because I will almost never assign 0% probability to either a disadvantage or advantage. This also means that you should never assume you’re winning 100% probability of an argument. “Even if” statements are your friend. The amount of time you spend on a position will help me determine its relative probability.

b. Weigh the relative probability and magnitude of each position. This can get complicated in CP and DA debates, but I consider the degree of CP solvency to determine the probability of the affirmative’s advantages.

c. Attempt to describe the world of my decision. In other words, if I have a hard time wrapping my head around the world that either side describes in the last rebuttal, that’s a problem. I have enough argument critic in me that making sense (in debate’s already skewed and open world) is important.

7) I’m pretty open to any argument style. Love the K if done well, I’m likely familiar with the literature base. In K debates, I'm usually not into the perm unless it makes sense. If you're reading big impacts, it's probably best to impact turn and debate the alternative.

I don’t expect the aff to have a plan, but they probably need to talk about the resolution. I do, however, expect planless affs to defend their practices. You can go for T/Framework in front of me on the neg but you need persuasive answers to the impact turns. In planless aff debates, and K debates more generally, controlling the framing of the ballot is really important. I need to know what’s going on and what voting for you does or means.

8) Hate speech and racist arguments are a no-go. I’m good with weird extinction good arguments, however. Just don’t exclude individuals from the debate because of their identities.

My name is Christopher Hachet, and I am an assistant debate coach and judge from Capital University in Columbus Ohio. I competed in debate during high school and was the novice state champion for Indiana in 1982. Then I judged high school debate when I was in college. Working part time with collegiate debate for about five years now and a bit of back story is in order.

I graduated from Taylor University with a bachelors degree in education in 1989 and decided that I did not want to teach. After a short career in commercial sales, I decided that my real passion was working with my hands and building things. Thus I became a master licensed journeyman electrician and refrigeration mechanic. This proved to be a fabulous career choice for me , and I moved up to become a foreman running all sorts of interesting projects from a neurosurgery clinic to a large middle school.

As the economy slowed and my later forties loomed large, I decided that I wanted a change of pace and took a job at Capital in the Facilities department. My father had worked in higher education for most of his adult life, and I felt a strong desire to give back to the field of higher education. Dr Koch was kind enough to also let me assist with the debate team, and I have had a blast driving all over the country with CEDA, IFA LD and NEDA debate as well as various speech events. Your fifties can really be the best decade of your life, and I still love debate 35 years after my last round of actual competition.

My judging philosophy can perhaps be best summed up by a very short analogy. Were you to be at my work bench struggling to make a strait cut in a piece of wood with a hand saw, I would look at the most simple and immediate items to help you be a better sawyer. Your posture, how you clamped the work piece to the bench, and how you held the saw would be much more important than an esoteric discussion about how to set rake and fleem while sharpening a hand saw. In a like manor, I look for debaters to focus on a strong basic ontological understanding of the concepts they are working with, careful argumentation and analysis, and keen cross examination skills.

Follow Ockham's Razor with Ockham's aftershave and we are all set!

In terms of what my actual voting criteria are, there are perhaps 5 different models of looking at a debate and I borrow from all five. They are;

The Stock issues Paradigm;

Topicality seems to be the defacto concern regarding stock issues. Will vote on topicality with a fairly high threshold because I believe in Affirmative presumption and the right of the aff to approach the topic in whichever route they find pertinent. If you are claiming abuse on the Neg side I will be much more sympathetic to your topicality claims if you attempt to clash with the Aff in good faith. Most topicality debates fall down on the neg side in my experience because of inadequate in round work on why I actually should prefer the neg interpretation. Multiple forms of T arguments in the same round are not abusive IMHO but I often find them counter productive.

The Policy making Paradigm;

This most closely resembles how the older hairy guy sitting in front of you as your judge is going to view the next rather intense hour or so of your life. My personal philosophical world view is based in existentialism and realism, and I tend to view the world and judge policy through that lens. Student analysis and reasoning is much more important to me than evidence. Convince me that you understand the policy issues at hand and have done some original critical thinking on the debate resolution. Debate is not a clash of evidence cards, it is a clash of ideas. Bring me yours. I just drove a few hundred miles to hear them.

The Hypothesis testing/Social science paradigm;

I do allow multiple negative positions to be run even if they are contradictory in order to test the resolution and the Aff's interpretation of the resolution. If I grant the Aff presumption in terms of interpretation I also have to grant the neg presumption on how they will answer the Aff. If you disagree with this, please see Tabla Rasa and Game Theory below.

Tabla Rasa;

The driven sands of the Sahara and the emptiness of a blizzard are my models of thought in terms of both link story for things like negative disadvantage claims and aff solvency claims. I am neither Greek nor Tabla Rasa but I think there is much to learn from both schools of thought. If in doubt, spell it out. It would be unethical for me as a judge to to sit in the back of the room and make assumptions about the actual impacts of implantation of Affirmative's policy proposal. Also unwilling to concede anything along the lines of giving agricultural subsides to Bolivian beet farmers causing nuclear winter and extinction without some sort of plausible explanation.

Your approach to how you wish to approach the round is completely up to you. I have no preferred style of presentation.

Game player theory of debate;

Keeping it fair regardless of school being represented or reputation of debater is a top priority for me as a judge. I have a bad habit of voting down good debaters when they get sloppy.

I expect you to be highly focused on the flow of the debate and make arguments that lead to a proper clash of ideas. Several previous debaters would describe me as shameless at dropping a team on a ballot if a key argument is dropped and the other side catches it. You probably don't want to be that person.

Final notes;

Speed is fine...I have only ever had to ask a debater once to slow down. If you are in round and your opponent is speaking too quickly please get my attention by saying "clear" loudly enough for me to hear. I will acknowledge your request and signal the other debater to slow down a bit. If it is obvious a debater is using speed in an abuse way I reserve the right to down vote this as a form of abuse.

I am open to different philosophical approaches in debate. Upvoting or down voting things like Kritiques based upon actual in round work and explanatory power of ideas presented keeps debaters working hard and tournaments interesting. Most of all I enjoy it when people think hard and challenge my own thinking. By no means am I Elijah sent from on high to be the prophet of debate.

"The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas." - Linus Pauling-I prefer that you pull as much forward into the final rebuttal as reasonably possible. If you are winning an argument and do not bring it forward as a voter clearly I will not upvote you on that idea.

Do not be afraid to disagree with me, and I also am open to any questions before or after the round.

I did NFA-LD debate for 4 years, and since then have judged occasionally.

I try to keep a careful flow and will weigh arguments based on how you tell me to prioritize them. Impact calculus is very important. When there is clash between evidence making competing claims, tell me why I should prefer your evidence.

I'll listen to / vote for anything, but if I had to express a preference it would be for policy focused debate and DAs and CPs rather than Ks, however if you want to read a K, it's totally fine. You're probably better off reading what makes you comfortable and plays to your strengths rather than trying to prioritize my preferences. For DAs and Ks I want to see a clear link, more specific to the case is better, and you should explain how I am weighting your impacts (impact calc or framework). For CPs and K alts I want to understand what you are advocating - I'm not a fan of ambiguous CP text or vague alts.

A note for the affirmative, when you only have 3 minutes for the 2AR you should make them count. You don't need to spend 1:30 reading a pre-written overview reminding me what your advantages were. Effective 2AR time allocation is one of the most important skills that separates top competitors. I vote on the flow, make sure you're covering key points and not dropping half the NR.

My educational background is in math, physics, and engineering rather than anything related to political science or philosophy, which I am mostly exposed to through debate. As such I am unlikely to be familiar with the thesis of some more abstract K arguments based on block titles or authors last name, so if you are going for such a position it is important that what you reading is clearly explaining the key ideas in round. On the other hand, if the topic lends itself to scientific discussions, I may be more familiar than most with scientific / technical arguments and evidence.

I'm fine with conditional arguments in general, but not if they are being used abusively. I don't really care if you kick a CP with a bunch of defense read against it and go for the status quo, but I might care if you read some contradictory positions which you intend to kick out of when collapsing latter in the round.

Any procedurals are ok. If the procedural is a rules violation, then I don't think showing abuse is necessary. For other types of procedurals my default position is also that showing abuse is not necessary, but I'll consider arguments to the contrary. The standards debate is how I evaluate these arguments. I like competing interpretations. I much prefer a few well developed standards with impacts over a bunch of blip taglines.

Having said that, your procedurals still have to be logical and persuasive. My default position is condo is generally fine, your opponent running weak arguments isn't an RVI for some reason, and poor time allocation on your part is not a form of time skew.

Speed is fine, as long as you are clear, but would prefer if you went at a pace where your opponent is able to keep up. When reading analytics (such as standards for theory arguments) you should go at a pace where I can flow your warrants and impacts, which may involve slowing down compared to when you read evidence. I do tend to follow along with your speech doc, so you can probably go a bit faster if you give me a well organized doc and roadmap, and go a bit slower if you're jumping all over the place or making analytics not in the document.

Evidence quality is important to me. I want your cards to clearly support the taglines you give them, and the language should be comprehensible to a general college educated audience. I tend to be skeptical of cards where what you are reading is a few disjointed sentence fragments spread out over pages of minimized text - make sure you are not changing the essence of the original or creating new arguments. I will look at key cards after the round, but I expect you to actually read the important parts, I'm not going to go hunting for your warrants if they're hiding in the middle of the page in size 6 font. When cards clash in the round, I will be really happy if you compare evidence quality and warrants.

Background:

I been involved in debate since my sophomore year of high school. I competed at Cameron University in undergrad and I am now the GA at Central Michigan.

I should also add that I am a very expressive judge. I will have several nonverbals that will tell you how I feel about an argument. Don't take it personally, I do it to everyone in basically every round and it might help you win a round.
Voting:

I will vote basically anywhere you tell me to. I like to keep an open mind about most things. The thing I love the most in debates is the impacts. I enjoy big impacts and I enjoy hearing them blown up (no nuke war pun intended) in the round. Small impacts are not immediately shot down, but I will say that it would be more persuasive to have evidence that tells me to prefer these impacts.

Topicality/Procedurals:

I have a moderately high threshold on T arguments. I would prefer in round abuse but I can be persuaded to vote on potential abuse. It is up to you as a competitor to impact out that potential abuse and explain why it is important especially if you have no ground loss in the round. This applies to all other procedural arguments. I have an extremely high threshold for disclosure theory. So high in fact I would recommend not running it in front of me.

Kritiks:

I'm open to K's. However there are two conditions: first that it's clear what the K is doing and how it functions in the round/with the topic. The second condition is for K AFFs: you must have a policy action. Not only is it in the rules, it's also a personal preference because I feel AFFs in NFA LD should have a policy action. If this is not the case for your K AFF then you will be very open to losing the round on a NEG procedural.

Speed:

I'm ok with most types of speed and I will let you know if I can't keep up. I will say that if you do speed, please be clear. Also, DO NOT USE SPEED AS AN EXCLUSIONARY WEAPON. That is the worst and your speaker points will reflect that.

Also: I hate it when people refer to cards by the author's name and year (EX: my Johnson in '18 evidence says....) I would much rather have it be that you say something like "they drop the third card that I read on their solvency." It makes for a less confused me and that is something that you want.

Disclosure:

I will disclose results based on tournament policy.

I am willing to discuss any specific questions you have in the round.

GLHF

My judging philosophy is centered on reasonability: while I judge the debate on its own terms, I assume that all of us are going to approach it as reasonable people. Below are a few specific preferences I have, but do recognize that I am happy to hear most arguments if they’re well-reasoned.

My experience competing/coaching/judging: Competed in HS public forum/LD/CX and college parli. Coached and judged parli, IPDA, and LD for the past few years, including at national tournaments.

Speed: I can hang on with a bit of speed, but I prefer slower speed for the spirit of the debate.

Likelihood vs. scope in impacts: I generally prefer impacts that are high in likelihood, but I am willing to hear arguments otherwise.

Topicality: I’m fine with good T arguments. That said, I prefer judicious use of T and find it especially problematic if your T attacks contradict each other.

Theory: Go for it; just argue it well.

Evidence: I just prefer that we don’t get bogged down in evidence wars all day.

General: Keep the big picture in mind—don’t spend the entire debate fighting about one tiny thing. Clash over substantive arguments.

I have been involved in debate for about 15 years. I debated for 2 years and have been a coach/judge for about 13 years. When I judge a round, I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. I tend to view the round as a court, where I am an actual judge, and the affirmative and negative are presenting me with a case. It is my job to judge the evidence and arguments as they are presented in the round. I am to assume no outside opinions or evidence which is not presented in the round. Under this theory, any argument can win. I will listen to and vote for any argument in the round, provided that it is well-evidenced and argued. Also, I tend to be a very standard judge, your average judge will probably vote the same way I do. The only thing you need to win is good evidence and impact calculus.

I feel as though debate rules are more like guidelines than a list set in stone. Proper debaters should strive to meet the rules or guidelines in front of them. However, unless there is a clear argument in the debate that the other team is violating important rules, I will not vote a team down for it. I believe it is up to the debaters to point out those rules and explain their importance in the debate. I will vote on properly laid arguments for or against the rules based on how the debaters handle these issues.

I will vote for any argument that a debater places in the debate, if I’m given a good reason to do so. Also, although I do like Topicality, it is a harder argument to win. The negative must really go for it and prove their violations, standards, and the impact it has on the round. Also I don’t like it when someone makes a bunch of Topicality arguments and then drops them with no given reason. Try to use Topicality strategically, and if it needs dropped, explain why and what that means for the round.

In the rebuttals, I expect debaters to give me clear voters and tell me why I vote on these issues. When a person does not give me clear voters, it is up to me to interpret the round and I don’t like doing that. I prefer clear cut reasons to vote for each side. If one person has clear voters and the other does not; the person with the clear voters and impact stories will usually win.

Prepping outside of prep time and being disorganized is not okay.

Basic Overview:

I believe it's your burden to tell me how and WHY (very important part) I should vote. If you give me a reason to vote on an RVI, and it goes dropped (I have a very low threshold for beating an RVI), and you go for that warranted RVI in your last speech... I will vote for it, regardless of how icky it feels. If neither team does the work to tell me how and why I vote, and I have to do a lot of work for you, don't be mad if that vote doesn't swing your way.

On LD rules:

For the sake of consistency, you have to tell me if something is in the rules if you want me to vote on it. So if you're going for "that type of counterplan isn't allowed in LD," then you obviously (and inherently) tell me that it's in the rules. The same thing goes for T... I don't NEED other voters, but you do have to tell me it's the rules. Also, I guess you can tell me the rules are bad, but you have to warrant it well.

Speed is also addressed in the rules, but I think that "conversational rate" is an arbitrary term. I'm fine with speed but I prefer that you annunciate. If your speed costs you your clarity, then slow down.

On Theory:

Absent you telling me, I defer to competing interps and potential abuse. That's just how I see debate, and is how I find myself evaluating rounds where no one tells me how to vote but the round clearly comes down to theory.

On Stock Issues:

It's technically in the rules that you have to have these stock issues, so if you're going for "no inherency" or "no propensity to solve" all you really have to do is cite the rules. Refer to my take on the rules.

On the K:

I'm comfortable with critical arguments. I often find that the Alt isn't explained well, and it's a pretty important part of the K because absent the Alt, your K is a nonunique DA. I still think you can claim K turns case absent the Alt, but of course that can be refuted back and forth so it's better to try to win your alt.

On 1AR/1NR/ Theory:

I never see it debated well because of time constraints in LD but sure, I'm open to it. If you're going for it in the 2AR, I imagine you'd really have to go for it.

I competed in debate during high school and college in India. I currently work as a GA and this is my second year coaching/judging. The most important part of the debate for me is clarity and structure. I love a constructive speech that is well organized and everything flows seamlessly. I will only consider your contentions if they're supported by some sort of evidence and/or examples. Time yourself and don't go overtime. I will take most arguments at face value unless reasonably challenged by the opponent during rebuttal. Good luck!

I'm autistic and strictly speaking have a lower audio processesing speed. This only ever really impacts me on theory arguments happening at speed and in especially background noise-ful online debates. Prioritize clarity please. Make it very clear where you're at and what you're doing. I've been doing just fine recently (I think I became accustomed to online debate) but it never hurts to disclose these sorts of things

An update on the above, I honestly have begun to beleive that the shift to speech docs has shifted students AWAY from emphasizing clarity.

I only vote on what I hear you say, not whats in the speech document. I also do not read cards for you unless there is debate on what a card says.

About Me and Debate: I have been doing competitive debate in some capacity since 2007. In terms of reading me: Generally if I look confused, I am. If I am holding my hands in the air and staring at you that means I think you're making a brand spanking new argument in the NR or 2AR that I have no idea what existing argument to put it on. So if that's happening, please make sure I understand why this isn't new (so why its an extension of an existing arg or in the NR's case a response to an Aff arg). Reading your judge is a good skill to have. Ultimately I think the debaters are in charge of their own destiny and I’ll vote wherever/however you tell me I should. I like offense. I am willing to vote on defense, but I will be unhappy about it.

Good line by line argumentation is always awesome. Good analysis will beat just reading a card (a good card PLUS good analysis is even better). I prefer not to read cards after a round unless there is contention on what that cards actually says.

Speed: I am fine with speed, but (especially in this activity) clarity is KEY, if both your opponent and myself can understand then we're all good. I have judged too many rounds where debaters will try to go quickly not because they can do it clearly/efficiently, but because I'm fine with it so why not. That is a terrible reason to spread and I will dock speaks accordingly. Additionally please slow down on your theoretical positions, no one can write that fast. If I don't get all those sick T arguments you're making then my ballot will probably reflect it. Most important thing is everyone in the round understanding you, but don't be that person who says 'clear' just so slow someone down then go that speed yourself. No one should be winning rounds strictly because one person was much quicker than the other or because one debater can't understand the words another is saying.

I will say clear once, and that it all.

Ethos: For the most part, your ethos will only effect your speaker points and not whether or not you win the debate. Just because I think you're a jerk doesn't mean you're not a jerk who won. Though keep in mind that often the things that ruin your ethos ALSO lose you rounds (like assuming arguments are stupid and not explaining why or not finishing your argument because the implications are clear enough to you). I will usually let you know if you have done something that damaged your ethos.

There is another surefire way of damaging your speaks with me in the back of the room: I can get a bit angry when debaters I know are smart make stupid decisions.

General Theory: The voting issue "The NFA-LD rules say X" holds exactly no weight with me. I do not follow/enforce rules simply because they are rules. You should at least explain why that particular rule is good. In fact, if you wish for me to judge based on what the rules say, then I can. Please disregard the entirety of this paradigm, I am now a stock issues judge. If you want me to the follow the rules I will.

There are SO MANY other reasons T is an a priori issue and I never hear most of them.

Topicality: Topicality is my jam. It is quite possibly one of my favorite arguments in debate. I have fairly low threshold for voting on reasonability on marginally topical affs. I think debaters are the ones who set the realm of the topic. Tell me why your aff deserves to be topical. Tell me why your definition is the best one for this topic. Tell me about it. If your aff deserves to be considered topical, TELL ME WHY. For my negatives, remember to tell me why the Aff is taking the topic in the wrong direction. Make sure you think through your position and all of its implications. Make sure you tell me why this aff hurts you. Try to force them into showing their true colors. Run that DA you claim they will No Link out of, worst case is they don't make that argument but now you have a DA with a conceded link. My brain breaks when you refer to things as limits DAs or education DA. Say links.

Kritiks: The Kritik is a special animal, in my opinion. If you run the K like the NDT/CEDA people do I think you’re doing it wrong. In fact, there is a good chance you will lose the debate if you just pull an NDT/CEDA K out of some backfile and read it. Keep your implications tied to policy action and try to avoid flowery and long tags on evidence.View the K as if you are a lobbyist for X cause and you want to convince congress (me) to vote against a policy currently on the floor (the aff) due to a negative assumption that policy is making. Explain to me what happens when we keep making policies that make this bad assumption. Reject the Aff is a fine alt, just keep the above in mind. If you start reading a K and look at me and I look extremely annoyed, its probably because you aren't adapting to me. Not an auto loss, just a rough go. DO NOT RUN LINKS OF OMISSION. I am extremely partial to the 'we can't talk about all the things all of the time' argument.

To my K Affs: Kritikal affs are my favorite thing. I think they're a lot of fun and are super educational. If your K aff doesn't have a plan text that is relevent to the rez you will never get my ballot, preferably it should be fiated but I have softened on that issue. However, I do not listen to Topicality Bad. Consider my position on the K in the paragraph above this one. There are plenty of excellent examples of this. Once I read a position that changed the definition of torture to include mental anguish as a form of torture as a staunch rejection of Cartesian Dualism. This both helped the people we're doing terrible things to in Gitmo and other places, but also began the break down of dualistic rhetoric in the government (and yes, my card did say that. It was a sick card). What I'm trying to stress here is that we are a policy making role play activity. To defend a position you do not believe in is to become more educated on that position. Debates about the political are important and I think the way we do them is especially important.

Please note all of my personal views on competitive equity and having topical and preferably fiated affs can be ignored if your opponent should not even be at the tournament. See: Is a predator.

Roles of the Ballot: The role of the ballot functions as a round framing and a focus. If you think that a particular minority group is underrepresented within the topic and you'd like the debate to be solely about their betterment, make THAT the role of the ballot. Use it as offense on that generic nonsense test the neg didn't bother to make more specific to your position. We can have the debate on whether or not that framework is a productive one. Hell, the neg can agree that you're right about that minority group and tailor their position to operate within it. And isn't that what we should all want, assuming we truly care for said minority group and the role of the ballot is not simply to box the neg out of all of their ground?

Speaker Point Assignment: My speaker point assignment system is mostly gut based to be perfectly honest with you, but there are a couple tips and tricks I can provide to get your 30. Ultimately the assignment is a combination of debate style, organization, ethos, and clarity of speech. A perfectly clear speaker with poor organization won't get a 30, but neither will an unclear speaker with perfect organization. In terms of priority, I suppose, it goes Clarity, Ethos, Organization, Style.

My Flow and You: I would describe myself as a good flow. If you have any experience that statement should ring a few alarm bells and I get that. I have trouble getting cites at times, especially if you're of the 'full citation' mentality where the author and the date are 20 seconds apart. To be honest I prefer people actually extending their positions instead of "Cross apply XY in ## " and it definitely helps with my flowing. If you're flying through things like theory or don't clearly enunciate your tags I will miss things and you may lose because of it. You have been warned.

Things I think are dumb/Pet Peeves: Disease extinction impacts, "The rules say so", State links, Kritiks without impact D, "99% of species that ever existed are now extinct" logical fallacies, the rest of the logical fallacies, Putting the burden of proof on the negating position, blatantly asking your opponent how they'd respond to a potential argument you may make in your next speech (like come on, have some nuance), caring about white nationalists and their feelings. "Just read my evidence" in cross ex.

You'd have thought living through a global pandemic would have put the kabosh on disease extinction impacts. It has not. :(

Other Thoughts: Debate is my favorite thing and happy rounds full of debaters who also love debate is my other favorite thing. Remember, THIS IS A GAME. As the great Abe Lincoln once said in a fictional movie "Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!"

If you're reading this before a PF round consider: skip to the bolded "this is a note for PF" which is about my views on evidence. Otherwise do what you want in round; have fun, go crazy. Read the rest of the paradigm if you have time, but it's mostly about LD/Policy.

General Thoughts:

1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can. If you have questions that are going to determine or guide your strategy in round then ask them! But I'm not great at summarizing all my thoughts for you on the spot.

2. Tech over truth in nearly every regard, I want to see your arguments and responses to opponents'. Give me clear, evidenced links to support impact scenarios and narrativize them well. I will avoid judge intervention in almost all cases and to the extreme. That is to say, to put yourself in the best position to win I want to see you clearly defend and weigh your points because I will not weigh them for you. I will not automatically default to one position over another when given no reasons to prefer. From a strategic standpoint, it is in your best interest to give me a framework by which to evaluate your impacts even if that framework is localized to weighing your impact.

3.Extensions through ink are usually okay- if it's something critical to your round strategy, especially if it interacts with your opponents' case (e.g. a turn) you shouldprobably be doing at least a little more than this. If you're making an argument that I should invalidate or eliminate entire components of what your opponent has read/said in round, it makes sense to give me at least a brief warrant for why each clust of arguments should be dropped- why does your defense apply toall the things you say it does? Why would I group those arguments that way? Make sure you're implicating and warranting effectively here.

4. I'm always happy to answer questions and listen to concerns/criticisms of my decisions afterwards. I want to get better and so do you, why not help each other. However, I will not change my decision, even if you convince me I've made the wrong one- the best you'll get is a "huh, you're right."

5.THIS IS A NOTE FOR PF. If it takes you longer than 15 seconds to find a card that you claim to have, I will ask you if you want to run YOUR prep time to find it. If you say "yes" then carry on, but maybe consider familiarizing yourself with your evidence so you can find it quicker. If you say "no" then that evidence won't "exist" until you demonstrate that it's real (which could include reading it in the next speech, though that might be too late if your opponents speak between when you cite it and then). Obviously I will be understanding if there are technical difficulties (IE internet cutting out, computer crashing) which I have been made aware of.

Also, while we're on evidence in PF, sending just like, a link to a website isn't great. If your opponent doesn't interact with it I will probably take you at face value, but know that there is a chance (slight) that I will, unprompted, click your link and read the article and if it says something other than what you claimed then I will intervene to vote against you because of this. I won't do this with a cut card unless someone in the round makes it an issue. TL;DR: If you're sending just hyperlinks to articles make sure they say what you claim.

Speed: Sure. I can keep up as long as you are able to maintain clarity. I will call speed if you go too fast, and I encourage you to call speed on your opponent if they are going too fast for you. I will begin docking speaker points on the third time I have to call speed, and if your opponent calls a third time you should expect a good hit to your speaker points. This isn't necessarily a voting issue for me (unless your opponent makes it a voting issue). I definitely want to be on the speechdrop/email chain (though I prefer speechdrop). mightybquinn@gmail.com.

AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T then I guess run whatever you want, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text). I don't like the idea of "reserve the right to clarify" but I understand it's functionality given time constraints. Don't clarify in an utterly unreasonable way (my threshold is pretty high here).

T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. That being said, competing interpretations has been doing well in front of me recently so I would hardly call it unviable. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want, but there needs to be an articulated voter on T for me to vote on it. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters. NOTE: My threshold for voting on T is lower than it was my first two years judging, if you happen to remember/have heard that I would not vote on Topicality.

Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument if you don't read a warrant for why I should drop the debater, but I believe fundamentally that theory comes first, so it doesn't need to be a great warrant. Clear in-round abuse stories tied to theory arguments, especially those focused on research burden and unfair ground have been successful in front of me in the past, but I don't perceive myself as being uniquely drawn to them. I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Affs, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Affs running Disclosure Theory against Negs is a viable strategy in front of me if the Neg DOES run a CP or Alt then suddenly Disclosure is a viable aff position. (NOTE: this is for LD, for PF aff's can run disclosure theory, it is viable in that realm).

Disclosure in PF is a fine theory position to run in front of me, but I will not vote for it on principle alone. I DO generally think disclosure is a good norm that should be adopted into PF, but that being said, you need to have clear standards, voters and weighing on a theory argument to win. My desire to not intervene in a round far outweighs my desire to punish teams for not disclosing. A role of the ballot framing is also a good strategy in any context if you're going for theory and if you're defending against a position like this then having a counter framework is also a good idea.

I will vote on conceded RVI's but the threshold for voting on an RVI that's been effectively defended against is probably fairly high. "Don't vote for an RVI" is not enough defense. Explain to me literally any reason to not vote for the RVI.

CP: I don't have a strong personal predilection to voting on conditionality one way or the other, but I conceptually dislike conditional CP's a lot- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. "Condo Bad" arguments are viable in front of me but by no means will they always win. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.

K: I love critical arguments and I was a critical scholar professionally, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link; I need one or the other to be strong for your K to have a chance in a round. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world (which can include within the debate round at hand, but might have more). Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to simply drop the AFF in-round, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me.

Clarification: K debate is not the absence of tech- you still need to demonstrate a link an impact even if those things take a different form or are about different things than they would be in a more traditional arg.

DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff. DA's with no weighing are only a little better than no DA at all.

Solvency: A terminal solvency deficit is usually enough of a reason for me to vote against the aff BUT I need this extended as a reason to vote. You can always say that it's try-or-die, tell me there's a risk of solvency and sure, I'll still grant you that begrudgingly (unless you've really lost the solvency debate). If you're getting offense somewhere else good for you, I'll still vote on that; so like, if your case falls but you have a turn on a CP or an RVI on T or something those are still paths to the ballot. This note is here because I've seen a few rounds where the aff just sort of says "they have at best a terminal no solvency argument" and like- that's enough for them. That's what neg needs at the minimum to win the round.

History: This is my sixth year out from undergrad and my second year judging NFA-LD on the regular. 2 years of CEDA/NDT debating, 2 years of NFA-LD debating. High school; Congress and Mock Trial.

Dear Trans Debaters (and judges): Please feel free to approach me at any time over any medium for any reason. I am happy and honored to give any support you may need. Seriously, do not hesitate or think you are being a bother or a burden. You are important and deserve support.

NOW LETS TALK ABOUT DEBATE

New Thoughts: I feel in the last few years Ive gotten a better idea of where I lean on a few things.

In round: You should generally ignore faces I make, I make them a lot. The one thing you should not ignore is if I make a point to lean back in my chair, cross my arms, and frown at you. I am making it obvious that I am not flowing because you are either a)making a completely brand new argument when you shouldn't be b) repeating yourself or c)being offensive.

KRITIKS: Kritiks to me are about questioning and attacking the assumptions inherent in the 1AC and proving that those assumptions cause policy failure and/or significant harms. Note that this does not mean I think the K needs to solve for the case. In fact, most Kritiks that attempt to do so *usually* have terrible Alternatives. Your evidence probably turns case, takes out solvency, or outweighs on impact on its own. Your alternative should be well supported by your evidence. Reject Alts usually don't. I prefer Ks to be as focused on policy making as possible.I probably won't vote for Ks based on links of omission 99.99% of the time, they put an obscene burden on the aff.

COUNTERPLANS: Counterplans are great for education and fairness in debate. Topical counterplans are BEST for these things. If you run a counterplan, you should probably go for it because they take a lot of time to just not go for in an LD structured round. That said, if you somehow have another viable position, you should be able to kick the counterplan as long as you don't use the affs own answers to it against them ? Thats abusive and the one thing I will vote you down for regardless of how poorly the aff explains the abuse.

THE AFFIRMATIVE: I love both traditional policy affs and kritikal affs. K Affs should keep my K section in mind as it applies to them. You should be topical and you MUST specify an actor within the resolution. Technically its not impossible to get me to vote for an untopical aff, but you should be relevant enough to be able to pretend you're topical, and defending yourself as such, or at least that the educational importance of your aff justifies the deviation from the topic. But it needs to at least incorporate some core aspect of the topic, like bare minimum. If you aren't relevant enough to do that, you shouldn't be running this. If you're not heavily involved in the topic, and/or you are refusing to use the USFG, you are blocking your opponent out of the round. Switch side debate is vital for fairness and education and rejecting the USFG cuz its evil is firmly neg ground. This is a game. Without fair rules it devolves into madness and national tournaments where Affs win 90% of their rounds (lookin at you CEDA (yeah that actually happened)). Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, there is always radical lit discussing these issues within the topic, and that radical lit does not preclude USFG usage/topicality as much as everyone thinks it does.

Ultimately running the same thing every round is only robbing yourself of the educational value of switch side debate and learning about the system we are stuck in right now (valuable knowledge for a radical as well). If your opponent does not want to go for the arguments Ive stated preference for here, or doesn't actually win that debate I will still vote for you. It is very easy though to get me to vote on switch side debate good, fairness k2 debate survival. The fairly low number of statism/reject usfg affs does not justify my intervention on this matter, but I will definitely re-evaluate that position if it starts to crowd out topical traditional affs.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT: Roles of the ballot can be used as a great way to open up debate about priorities and whats important. They can also be used to box the neg out of their fair share of ground. The neg should be able to critic it's productiveness and/or work within it. Forcing the neg to run a counterproposal probably means I hate your FW/Role of the Ballot

TOPICALITY: The best way to get my ballot on topicality is a really good brightline and a really good argument on the lost ground and why you should have it. You MUST talk about fairness and education and the topic as a whole. Refer back to General Theory below. If you are going to run it, you should probably mean it.

GENERAL THEORY/PROCEDURALS: In order to vote for a theory/procedural and treat it as a voter I need a clear description of what they did wrong, a brightline/what they should have done instead, and why it matters. It should detail exactly why it is abusive, and how it effects fair/equitable ground and education in this round and debate as a whole. I am not against voting on potential abuse and in fact, you should probably have some examples of it in your impacts. HOWEVER, it is more of an uphill battle.

If all you say is "its abusive and a voter" with no abuse story and no impact on debate as a whole I will not consider it a voter and you couldn't convince me to vote for it even if they drop it. If you can't make a full procedural for whatever reason, don't be afraid to use the word abusive though. It could still make me more likely to drop the arg if you do it right.

Don't rely on the Da Rules. It will eventually come back to haunt you because the rulebook does not distribute ground fairly and is outdated (#sorrynotsorry). Its also a lazy non argument that doesn't develop your critical thinking skills and will lose you speaks.

FLOWING: My flowing capability is decent. I will write everything you say down, and will *probably* put it in the place you want me to, but you should *definitely* be clear about where that is just to be sure. I do not always (or often) catch citations (ya'll mumble them...I did too tho) so you probably shouldn't use just the cite and assume I know exactly which card you are referring to. Tags/Parts of the argument are preferable.

SPEED: I will understand most of what you say no matter how fast you go, but don't push my mediocre flowing to the brink ESPECIALLY if I am flowing on paper. I can only type/write so fast. If I can not understand you its probably an issue of clarity not speed. If I say CLEAR you need to CLEAR. If that requires you to slow down so be it.
You have the right to ask your opponent to slow down, but do not abuse this. I expect you to be able to keep up with above average conversing speed at bare minimum. If you ask someone to slow down, do not dare go any faster than that.

SPEAKS: There is not a very consistent speaker points range in this community. I am probably a bit of a fairy in this regards. Good oration skills will get you higher speaks. Good clear fast talk will get you higher speaks. Making it easy to flow will get you VERY good speaks. Best way to get good speaks is debate well and show you read this paradigm (or at least skimmed it).

michels.browne@gmail.com

I competed in policy debate many years ago for Kansas and coached Lincoln Douglas debate for Penn State the past five years. This is my first year as a CEDA/NDT coach/judge. As an argumentation instructor, I value the quality of evidence and arguments. So, if challenged I will examine the evidence (all of it including the unhighlighted and minimized sections) in the round—best say what you claim it says. I also want to hear warranted arguments, not labels –i.e. just saying “education” on topicality is not sufficient. I, to the best of my ability, adopt the perspective of tabula rasa and will listen to any argument presented in the debate, EXCEPT I still retain common sense. If you tell me the sky is green with orange polka dots, I won’t buy it.

As mentioned, any types of arguments (Ks, counterplans, topicality, etc.) are accepted and can win you the debate, if you convince me why your position is best. I expect to hear an explanation for how you have won in your team’s final rebuttal. Plan-less affs are not my favorite, but I will listen. Not fond of PICs, but again I will listen.

I don’t view debate as a “game”. I perceive it to be an educational activity in which the participants demonstrate their acumen, analytical and argumentative abilities.

Be smart, be civil, have fun.

Affiliation: Lafayette College

Experience: 4 Years NFA-LD (judge 1-3 tournaments a year since graduating 5 years ago).

Happy to answer any questions pre-round, but below are my thoughts/answers on the common questions. If a debater and/or coach want to reach out to me to discuss an RFD or a round, I am all for that, and can be reached on facebook (Ryan Monahan; In NFA-LD community group) or by email monahanr435@gmail.com.

FAQs

Speed - I have been out of the activity for a bit now, so that certainly affects my ability to keep up in high wpm rounds - I'll yell speed if its real bad, but most often I will yell clear because that is commonly the real issue. Opponents (especially those who may have less experience in debate) are encouraged to also yell speed and clear if it is at a rate that is exclusionary to them.

Kritiks/Critical Affirmatives - I was a nonkritikal debater in my 4 years, which to a certain extent informs my willingness to vote for them. Ultimately, its an argument that I will view as any other in a round, but my two most common reasons for not voting for a kritik/ca are: (1) it fails to articulate why I should operate outside of Fiat (reading a framework card that says "we exist in this Framework now" is insufficient) and (2) assuming we are operating outside of fiat, the consequences of a W/L and why the ballot is relevant.

Proven Abuse: Not necessary on T, although helpful, a bit more necessary for a non-stock issue based procedural (Vagueness).

Dislikes: Card dumps; blocked out NR's that don't respond to the nuance of the round; aggression/rudeness; noncontextualized buzzwords (e.g., Biopower).

Likes: Case Specific CPs and DAs; Rebuttals that collapse; impact calc; Affs that actually solve; writing the ballot for me.

Final thoughts: The round is what you make of it; so don't take anything I say (except actively exclusionary strategies/bad arguments) to be an indication that you shouldn't debate in a way that is most likely to set you up to succeed.

I'm a tab judge, I'm never going to intervene or complete arguments for the debaters in front of me. What's made important in the round is what I'll make important on my ballot. I'm fine with speed, as long as the debaters articulate. I understand K and rhetorical arguments, and am willing to vote for whatever makes the most logical sense in the round, regardless of morals (i.e., I'll vote for an argument that kills more people if the debater can tell me why that makes the most sense).

I know debate theory and will always point out an error in link chain, though I won't vote there unless opponent also points it out.

I like voters, clash points, and world comparison.

Background: I competed in policy debate for four years in college at the University of Mary Washington. I coached policy debate for seven years, public forum for one year, and LD debate for five years.

Despite my policy background I am committed to the spirit of LD. This means that while you can speak quickly, you should be comprehensible and both debaters should be ok with going fast. I have seen too many debates where a varsity debater unnecessarily spreads out a novice debater.

Topicality is a voting issue. I am unlikely to vote on a reverse voting issue on topicality even if it is dropped. Arguments about why topicality is problematic may be reasons to include your affirmative, but are rarely reasons for you to win the debate. It is probably best in front of me to frame these as expanding the interpretation of what the topic can be, rather than rejecting a topic all together.

The citation rules are so widely disregarded that I would feel uncomfortable enforcing them, especially if there is no conversation between the debaters about reading them prior to the first speech.

Winning topicality or any other theory issue requires more work than winning on a substantive issue. This is to say, if both teams go for substance I have to pick a winner, but if one team goes for theory I can assess that they have not surpassed the burden required to reject the other team. This does not mean that T and theory are unwinnable arguments in front of me. In order to win you should clearly explain your interpretation, explain how the other team has violated it, explain why your interpretation makes for good debates, explain what the opponent does or justifies, and explain why that is bad for debate. This is not code for I do not vote on theory. I will vote on theory.

Negatives should narrow the debate in their second speech. Pick the arguments you are winning and go in-depth. I will give affirmative’s wide latitude in debate where the negative goes for everything in a messy way. Going for T and substance is usually a mistake, unless one or both are such a clear win that you have extra time (this happens rarely).

Presumption goes to the status quo, which means that ties go to the negative (in the world of a counterplan presumption is up for debate). A negative can sometimes make a persuasive case that the affirmative has to prove solvency, which is a separate issue from presumption.

Many debate arguments can be defeated without cards by making smart, warranted, analytical arguments. I wish I saw more of these types of arguments.

I don’t subscribe to an offense defense paradigm; good defense is in many cases enough, especially with theory debates.

I am increasingly willing to intervene in theory debates. Two speeches does not allow for proper theory development and gives both sides the ability to simply block out every speech. Counterplans like consultation and 50 state fiat require a very low threshold to defeat on theory. I am not a fan of conditional counterproposals in LD. Negative arguments like the affirmative doesn’t get permutations are generally nonstarters.

I will vote on kritiks but prefer them specific to the topic and with a hardy dose of explanation about why it relates to the specific claims of the 1AC. I am not a good judge for generic backfile checks with one card that is semi relevant to the topic area. Some additional clarification. Changes to how the round should be evaluated (moving from the question of the desirability of the policy) need to be made explicitly and early and should include substantive justification about why the change excludes or makes undesirable the aff.

Final speeches need to make choices and clearly identify their path to the ballot. One part of this is the order you present ideas in your speech.

Things that will get you lower speaker points/make it hard for you to win.

1. Be rude to the other team.
2. Not answer or be evasive when answering cross ex questions.
3. Be unclear in CX about the status of counter plans
4. Being unable or unwilling to explain your arguments in CX
5. Read unwarranted/unqualified evidence.

One way to get (perhaps unfairly) good speaker points from me is to be entertaining. Many debaters, who were not the best at debate, but nevertheless were pleasant to watch debate, (being funny, speaking passionately, being nice to their opponents) have received speaker points that would typically fall outside of their skill range.

I am a game theorist and policy-maker judge. I will accept any arguments so long as you can prove that they are sound, relevant, and entail resolution-unique impacts. My background is in logic, rhetoric, and philosophy so I expect arguments to be well constructed with sound reasoning and appropriate warranting. I like to see progressive clash in crossfire rather than questions aimed at clarification or exposition. It is my belief that a debate simply cannot be won on content alone so I place equal weight on framework (theoretical) arguments and case (empirical/evidential) arguments. My win condition for debate is not only how well versed and dominant you are on a particular topic but also how well you can debate objectively; some criteria for this evaluation include but are not exclusive to effective use of turns and blocks, effective construction of counterexamples, effective elucidation of advantages and disadvantages of argument acceptance, and effective elucidation of fallacious argumentative methodology. In more empirical formats such as PF I see it as essential that debaters understand the respective fact-finding and research methods involved in their warrants; in other words, debaters should be able to quickly and accurately explain exactly how a conclusion was reached in an academic study, meta-analysis, etc. and furthermore how that conclusion uniquely addresses the claim or claims it is being employed to support. Overall I believe that the purpose of debate is to encourage more comprehensive and diverse education, thus abusive strategies (policy debaters I'm mostly looking at you) rarely win on my ballots.

Years involved in collegiate debate: 35

Debated: NDT policy debate

Coached: NDT, NFA LD, Worlds style BP

I like NFA LD style debate because it relies on evidence and emphasizes the stock issues. I default to policy making but will adjust my paradigm if directed to do so by the debaters.

I will seriously consider nearly every argument - CP's are ok, procedural arguments (T, Vagueness, K's) need to be very clearly explained. I have voted for K's but don't find them super compelling - I think they are frequently vulnerable to perms.

Please be clear, number your arguments, explain why you are winning issues.

1. General Information.

Thank you for reading this over. Good luck to all of the competitors.

(a) I view the round as a policy maker. Generally, I vote for the debater who defends the better policy option through weighing out the pros and cons of the policy.

(b) Case-specific and generic arguments. I enjoy case-specific direct clash. As for generic arguments, the more they are directly applied to the case at hand, the more weight they will be given.

(c) Procedural arguments. For me, procedural arguments need to be specifically applied to the case at hand.

(d) The role of evidence. I value evidence, but I don’t think evidence alone is always the winner. Explaining the evidence and the issues in the round (which often comes from knowledge gained by reading about the topic), making good analytical arguments, and locating, impacting and interrelating arguments within the larger perspective of the whole round are the skills that usually determine the outcome of the round.

(e) Please include me on the email thread for the exchange of evidence. My email is dtrumble@anselm.edu

(f) Speed and comprehension. Judges should be able to understand what the debaters are saying. I feel that the judge should be able to understand what is being said and not have to read briefs after the round to know what was argued. I will look at evidence after the round, but I will not substitute what I learn there if the delivery is incomprehensible.

(g) My experience. I have been active in policy debate for 49 years - 8 years as a debater and 41 years as a coach. I enjoy seeing the changes in the activity and learn from new perspectives and arguments that are offered.

2. LD Rules.

This is NFA LD debate, so I respect the rules of this league.

Regarding sources, I realize that a name and date is becoming the norm. I won’t vote on that, but I think that providing qualifications and a source increases the credibility of any good evidence.

I will apply NFA theory rules (e.g. counterplans, inherency, solvency and topicality).

As for other rules, such as speed, I will not be able to give your evidence much credit in the round if you read it so fast that I don’t understand it.

3. Critiques.

In regards to critiques, for me, substantive critiques have a few burdens:

(a) be unique,

(b) have a direct link to the AFF plan/case (not generic),

(c) have an impact that outweighs the AFF case, and

(d) have a real-world policy alternative (an actual counter-plan) that has specific solvency for the problems outlined in the AFF case.

Separately, procedural critiques would function more as an apriori issue (e.g. – offensive language or offensive behavior).

4. Perspective. Please be polite and try to be helpful, especially to younger debaters who have less experience than you. If you want the judges to vote for you, try to understand their perspective. They don’t know your arguments as well as you do and therefore don’t know all of the nuances of your points. It is your job to explain your arguments and get the judges to see things from your point of view. Competition is a great experience. At the same time, I hope you enjoy your experience debating, traveling with your team, making friends and learning from the activity.

By far the most important thing is that I never debated. As such, I can’t keep up with speed as well as more experienced judges, and I haven’t judged any debate rounds so I don’t have any preferences on the general paradigms of debate. I'm okay with speed, and will try to be strict about maintaining rules. I will not be disclosing in room after the debate.

I debated for 4 years for Lafayette College from 2005-2009. I will listen to any type of argument you want to run. I’m not crazy about Ks but I’ve voted on them in the past if they are well written and relevant to the case at hand and have an alternative I can vote for. I highly value structure and frameworks which give me a way to vote in the round. I don’t typically come in with a preconceived framework, so it’s up to the debaters to provide that for me and to tell me why theirs is the most important. I prefer to weigh the round based on impact analysis. Stock issues are cool, and you should have those, but tell me why your position matters and why it outweighs your opponent’s. Tell me if I should be a policy maker or whatever paradigm you want to throw my way. I’m typically pretty good at giving non-verbal responses to your arguments, so if I’m making a funny face, you may just want to move on to something better. I will vote on procedurals of any kind given the position is reasonable, and this can be not just T, but also vagueness, etc. Just give me the theory as to why I should vote and why I should care. I have voted on these things in the past. Proving moving target (in the case of vagueness) is critical.

The debate is about the debaters and not about me. I firmly believe this. I can understand speed and I don’t have a problem with it as long as you are clear. But it is vital that your opponent can understand you as well. I give the opponent the ability to speak up if they can’t understand. If I can’t understand you because you aren’t clear, I typically give one verbal warning and if it’s not resolved, I don’t flow. Procedurals on speed are ok if these boundaries are not respected.

I don’t have a typical preference for impacts. I like to hear the story of the position, whether it’s a DA or an advantage. I prefer believable stories – in the sense that your cards provide a logical story. I do like more reasonable/real world impacts, but I understand the role of more insane impacts in weighing the round. It’s probably a good thing if you have one of each, to give me something to prefer. The debaters need to weigh the round and explain to me why their impacts matter more or why their story is more believable. But there needs to be clash – compare your story to that of your opponent’s and make arguments on their positions.

Topicality is most persuasive when the Aff’s interpretation is blatantly out of scope. However, I listen to all means of T debates – whether that is abuse, jurisdiction or competing interpretations. I think competing interpretations is the most straight forward of the line-by-line T debates and I will probably do a better job adjudicating the position if that is the route you take. Often, these flows get so messy and so littered with ink, that you better have a damn good argument on the flow if you’re going to go for T. I usually err on the side of reasonability. I don’t like RVIs.