Harvard updates:

Email: tchathur16@gmail.com

No disclosure theory! For real though.. I cannot vote on text message screenshots with emojis and haha reactions... like is that not judge intervention?! It seems that I am attracting a lot of FW vs K aff debates and something you need to do in LD as both parties is engage with the other side rather than this infinitely regressive up layering strategy people seem to be going for. LD is different from policy in that you do not have the privilege of a debate partner standing up in a separate speech doing that work for you!

Affiliations: Barrington high school

I debated LD on the local and nat circuits for four years at Barrington High School. I competed in college policy at UW-Madison and graduated in 2021! :)

TL;DR: Have fun! Don’t be mean. Read anything you want in front of me as long as it’s well explained and warranted. Slow down for tags, authors, interps, numbers, and important issues in the final rebuttals. Don’t be a sexist, homophobic, racist etc. debate is a safe space and you are not welcome here if you intentionally hurt others. If you have any questions please ask. Rupaul's Drag Race references make my day better and will be reflected in your speaks <3 <3

Speed/In round things: Go as slow or as fast as you want, but please please please please please please be clear. I want an email chain. Please disclose otherwise we're going to have a debate about disclosure theory and I really will be sad judging that debate. Like extremely sad and your speaks will probably suffer. I'm good with flex prep just sort that out with your opponent. I get that prep time is super stressful and I'm not going to enforce the prep ends when you send out the email chain. Just take your prep and then you can send it out (IN A TIMELY MANNER PLEASE).

Policy

Plans: If you're planning on having like 80 million blip cards please slow down for tags and authors :)

Cps: consult Cps are probably theoretically illegitimate but that being said you can have that theory debate and I feel confident judging that type of debate; should be competitive; I also don't really care if it's topical or non-topical either as long as it's won.

DAs: (true for plans too) Super long link chains etc will require more from you to win the arg; other than that do your thing

K (AFF): If you have sensitive content trigger warning please! I am also totally good with performance affs using songs, narratives, and poems (and yall can go for them as offense too). Also, if I think your aff is super strategic, meaningful and well-written, regardless of the outcome of the round you’ll likely get high speaks because I love it when debaters put a lot of thought into their advocacies. If you’re hitting FW(policy framework not value and value criterion) there’s got to be a good analysis on the impact turns (same applies to T and theory).

(Neg): I'm fine with anything, just as long as you slow down in the 2NR and really take time to explain what is going on. I may not always be super super familiar with super Pomo args so just make sure to crystallize and explain the implication of your args. If the K is your A strat Don’t concede the permutation. Just don’t do it.I need a good link story and how the alt frames the aff in the 2NR or I will probably be more compelled to vote on the 2AR responses . I also think K tricks are pretty strategic, go for the floating PIK/value to life arguments/linear Das to the aff. I think the aff should be prepared to deal with a lot of these strategies and it’ll take some work to get me to vote otherwise because most of the time the neg is ahead on this issue.

Condo: This is more of a policy thing but if you read like 7 conditional advocacies as the negative, I’ll sympathize with the affirmative in the sense that 1ar extensions don’t need to be the best because TIME SKEW IS REAL. Also, I’ll probably err aff on that theory debate just because it’s the burden of proof on the negative to tell me why reading so many conditional advocacies is good for education and is a fair practice—but hey if you win it I’ll vote on it. I’ll grant the negative one conditional advocacy as a default though since it is necessary to test the affirmative from multiple angles.

FW: makes the game work

T: YEET. T is fine and I enjoy debating T in policy. Multiple T interps is probably unfair but whatever y'all gotta do y'all gotta do. Default competing interps.

LD:

I believe that theory can be used as a winning strategy, since I did this a lot as a debater. I AM TOTALLY OK with 1Ns going for frivolous theory as long as it’s convincing enough of an abuse story. However, 1AR metatheory is given a lot of lee way (don’t know if I spelled that right) for multiple shells and other off cases. In terms of debating theory, I am super persuaded by good standards overviews in your final speeches instead of going for the nitty gritty line by line. Often times, I think debaters just get lost on the tech aspect of theory but don’t actually weigh their arguments. If there’s no weighing done I will have to intervene and I probably won’t be happy doing it. I default to theory coming before substance.. not sure why some people make the argument that contention offense comes first. I won’t vote on it if you make it.. so don’t make it :P. If you’re going for a non traditional voter like substantive engagement, you’ll have to do some work telling me why it comes before fairness and education.

I meets: don’t just say I meet and not fully warrant your explanation; if I can’t remember why you meet the interp at the end of the round then I will probably drop you and you won’t be happy.

RVIs: I default to no RVI. Obvi I’ll vote on it if it’s justified and explained clearly.

Drop the Debater vs. Drop the Arg: DD as a default. I’ll vote on drop the arg if it’s won.

Tricks/Spikes/Fun Stuff: People don’t usually read a wall of spikes anymore, but if that applies to your aff here are a few things to keep in mind when you’re debating in front of me:

1) I don’t want the case to be an unintelligible block of text. I.e there needs to be some form of demarcation within the wall of spikes so I know how many/what arguments you have

2) I can’t believe this was ever a thing but concealing spikes within spikes is probably a good way to lose the round in front of me. For example, saying “all neg interps are counterinterps because of x,y,z. Furthermore, [totally new spike that’s unrelated to the previous spike]”. No one’s going to be able to flow that, and I certainly will not flow it. If it’s not on my flow then I cannot vote on it.

3) Definitely have fun with tricks and spikes and other funny arguments you want to read. I really enjoyed these debates and think they are quite fun. If you are able to successfully go for a win off of a dropped spike that’s a win 30—no questions asked. If there are clear internal links to fairness and education in your spikes you don’t need to spend too much time on extending them in the 1AR. A simple “voter for fairness and education drop the debater because [] no RVI because []” is sufficient.

Condo: see policy

K: see policy

Policy args: see policy

Actual FW LD Debate: don’t pref me unless you’re going to rely on some trick or something to spike out of their offense or will actually crystallize and explain stuff to me because honestly I am incompetent at evaluating competing ethical FWs.

Traditional Debate: WEIGHWEIGHWEIGH. Even if it’s not nat debate just explain stuff to me with good overviews. Also traditional debate does not mean that tech isn’t an issue. A dropped argument is a true argument. Don’t make me vote on the value debate because I definitely will not do that. I default to both cases valuing morality so don’t even bother wasting time on that argument if your opponent has a value of morality.

**Less than 5 debates judged on this policy topic so no acronyms without explanation first plz**

Policy Paradigm (LD at bottom)

Currently head coach of Whitefish Bay High School in Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin since September 2022

Graduated HS in 2014, policy debater from 2010-2014 (2N/1A) with some national circuit outround/bid round experience.

Assistant coached LD and Policy at:

Central Valley HS (Spokane, WA 2014-2016)

Capitol HS (Boise, ID 2016-2017)

Former co-head coach at Homestead High School in Mequon, Wisconsin (2017-2020)

--Yes, I want to be on the email chain. Blerickson95@gmail.com

--Overall, I am not the brightest bulb in the tanning bed, and I vote for the team that quite literally makes the most sense to me. I am not afraid to take the easy way out if I am given warranted reasons why I should. The harder you make it for me, the more work you make me do, the less likely you are to get my ballot, and I think that makes sense and is fair.

--For the love, please time yourselves.

--Your speaks will increase if you don't spend at ton of time at the beginning of cross ex asking what cards were and weren't read :) (I like flowing!)

--Maybe I am just old and grumpy but, do not wear your headphones in round, at any time, once the debate starts. Not in one ear only, not because "you'e just the 1N", not because you are the 2A and don't want to listen to the 1AC. I think it's rude, pompous, and just plain obnoxious. No debater in the world is too important to listen to a full debate. It is so disrespectful to the other team, the judge, and everyone who took time to be at that debate. Ugh. I hate it so much. Headphones on during a debate are an auto 27 or lower. That's all :) *Obviously this does not carry through for online debate!

Quick version

Generally good for:

--DA-case debates

--Cheater counterplan debates

--Politics/elections debates

Not as good for:

--Heavy K debates

--Any type of death good argument (I think death is bad, and we should try to avoid it)

--Baudrillard

--Any strategy that is largely based off of debate being inherently bad/irredeemable

Online debate things:

--I would prefer if the person speaking had their camera on, but I am obviously understanding if that cannot happen.

--I keep my camera on for the debate but I turn it off during prep to go sit on my couch and hold my dog. So, please make sure, before you start your speech, I am back on the camera. If I am not and you start, that would be no good.

Longer version

General

--I, for the most part, love this activity, and respect anyone who takes the time and effort to participate. This activity is rigorous, and good for you for even being here. I welcome questions before and after the round. I realize some people won't agree with my decision, and I welcome questions as to how I came to my conclusion. However, what I don't welcome, is blatant disrespect because you disagree with my decision. Slamming your things, muttering rude things under your breath, or screaming at me, won't make me email tab begging to change my ballot. In fact, it will make me really not like you.

--I flow on paper, so I need pen time. I understand and follow the debate better this way, but that also means I am not writing everything down verbatim, so if you have arguments you think are important, sit on them.

--I am very expressive. I have tried to have a better poker face, but I simply cannot do it. You should be able to tell if I am unhappy or not.

--Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. You will lose immediately and receive the lowest speaker points I am allowed to give u

--Prep ends when you’re done prepping and begin flashing/emailing (I can tell if you’re flashing/emailing or prepping, if I see you prepping off prep time, I’ll start your speech time)

--If you clip and it's recorded, you lose. It needs to be recorded.

--I will not evaluate things that happened outside of the debate.

Topic Thoughts

Very few judged on this topic. Plz don't use acronyms without explaining them first.

K debate

--The role of the judge is to decide who did the best debating. The role of the ballot is to tell Tabroom who won.

--Fiat isn't real and that's fine.

--This is my area of less familiarity. Although I have fairly frequently found myself in the back of clash of civ debates, I am less familiar with critical arguments. IR K's such as cap, security, gender, etc. I do not have a problem understanding. I have a harder time understanding high theory, philosophy debates. Pleeease do not assume I have read your author. Do not let this dissuade you from reading your bread and butter K arguments in front of me, just know I need more explanation. I think in good debates this can even just be done in a cross ex.

--I need a reason why the aff is bad. I often find myself voting on the perm because I do not know why the aff is specifically bad for causes more bad things to happen. I am not saying this can't be done, it definitely can be done, and should be.

--I am not here to change how you debate, but it would be disingenuous for me to say my experiences in debate have not affected how I am used to and comfortable evaluating debates. That being said, I tend to think speech times are good, and an hour and a half of discussion is not as good. If we are going to throw speech times out the window, I need to know what the structure is for the remainder of the debate. I.e. when we are done, how I should evaluate arguments in this new format, etc. If there is no structure, I need to know why not having a structure for the debate is good. I do my very best to not intervene, and if the debate devolves into a discussion, the only time I will intervene is to say when time is up for the round. It would be GREAT if that was done for me by one of the teams. I try to talk in debate rounds *literally* as little as possible but I also do not want to make the tournament run behind.

--I have evaluated many framework debates, but I think I am about even voting for and against it. That being said, I think predictable limits are my point of most persuasion. But do what u do.

K affs

--I need to know what the aff does. I just do.

--I do not necessarily need you to defend hypothetical USfg action, but I really appreciate topic relevance.

Theory

Anything is legitimate until you prove to me that it’s not. If you drop these things, you lose*: Conditionality, ASPEC. Flow! Don't just follow the speech doc! Ask what reasons are to reject the team in cx!

*I think sometimes cross applications are sufficient. Or aff outweighs arguments for critical affs. It literally just depends how the debate shakes out, but I would just try to answer them explicitly the first time.

I think fairness can be an internal link or an impact depending on how you spin it. Tell me how you want me to view and evaluate fairness.

Topicality

I have recently realized that I take a little more than the average person to vote on T. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. T isn’t an RVI. Slow down on T debates plz.

For me to vote on topicality, I need: a topical version of the aff (doesn't need to solve the aff, it just needs to show an alternate, topical version of the discussion), a list of topical aff's under your interpretation, a list of what you were deprived of in the debate because of the aff's untopicality OR a reason why I should vote on potential abuse.

Counterplans

I’m a big fan. Counterplans should be competitive and have a solvency advocate, in my perfect world. But hey, I am becoming more and more okay with counterplans that do not have a solvency advocate for some reason.

The more specific, the better. Sufficiency arguments are persuasive to me. I need to know HOW the counterplan solves every portion of the aff, don’t just assert that it does. Process, conditions, delay, consult, advantage etc. I’m fine with; like I said, anything is legitimate unless proved otherwise. I really like smart pics/word pics.

My mantra has always been, if you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'. Cheating counterplans can get the job done and if there is no theoretical objection to reject the argument, you may be in trouble. That being said, compelling reasons why that specific cheating counterplan is bad can sometimes convince me to reject the argument. Again, it's ~debatable~

*The only counterplan I think is silly and likely won't vote for is a PIC out of the ballot. Never got it, never will, likely will always think it's silly.

Aff: Solvency deficits need to be impacted. But WHY is the federal government key? Also, I would really like if permutations were more than just "Do both" at the end of the debate, but if the neg never presses you on what this means, I will likely give the aff a lot of leeway throughout the debate on what that means/how it functions. This is important--negative teams are deciding what the permutation is and how it functions for the aff and it is just destroying the aff. Tell me what your perm means and how it functions, if you let the neg do it for you I can bet it won't turn out well for you.

I am hearing a lot of "perm shields the link to the net benefit so it solves". WHY. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHY. HOW. WHY AND HOW. I am begging you to give me some sort of permutation explanation.

That being said, “Protect the 2nr” is a persuasive phrase to me in situations that call for it. I will kick the counterplan for the negative, if it's conditional, unless I am given a reason not to by the aff.

Disadvantages

A disadvantage has: uniqueness, a link, an internal link, and an impact. 2 card disads make me sad and I am immediately skeptical of them.

Disad-case debates are my favorite. What I was told as a novice still applies today: tell me the story of your disad. How does the link/internal link chain work to achieve the impact, etc. Disad overviews are important (cards in overviews are cool too); turns case arguments are basically necessary to my ballot. Tell me how your impact relates to the aff.

Case

Engage the case! Do case debate!

LD Paradigm

I debated at two LD tournaments in high school: Nat quals and NFL (now NSDA?) nationals my junior year. I coached LD for 3 years before coming to Homestead. I have coached/judged very traditional, value-criterion LD debate, and I have also coached/judged progressive LD debate. I am truly fine with either. For more progressive LD debate, my policy paradigm applies. A couple caveats:

--T or theory is not an RVI. I realize the time skew in LD debate. T or theory is not an RVI. I will vote on theory, just not silly ones.

--Shorter speeches than in policy, so I think a bunch of short off-case positions are less preferable than less, more in-depth off-case positions. But do what u need to do.

--Tricks? nah

--Meta-theory? nah

--Cutting evidence from debate blogs? nah

--In-depth, educational debates about the topic? Yeah!!!

Have fun!! :)

Background

4 years of policy debate in high school at Little Rock Central

5 years of policy debate in college at Missouri State University

1 year coaching policy debate at the University of Michigan.

Currently, I am a first-year graduate teaching assistant in Wake Forest's communication department.

last updated: 1/16/14

Philosophy

I have very few preferences for how you go about making the argument that you would like to make in the debate. I truly do love the process of argumentation itself more than the ins and outs of any particular argument. Although there are some obvious ones I may be more familiar with I think the general principle that Link + Impact = Argument is true and that your argument will work better if it is tied to a broader strategy you plan to deploy against the argument you are facing.  That being said, there can be a level

In my time as a debater, I could pretty squarely be considered in the ‘traditional policy’ camp. I read (and often went for) topicality and framework arguments against teams that did not defend governmental action on the aff.  I still find many of the arguments surrounding these positions to be very persuasive, but my voting record does illustrate my openness to alternative styles of argumentation as well.

In my short time as a judge in college policy debate, I have continued to find myself in new ‘judging dilemmas’ that I had never previously considered.  A lot of the fault lines that come up in rfds have rested on a few issues that I will mention before getting into some of the other aspects of my judging philosophy

Basically, I have a small set of data to work with but I do think that there are two notable patterns in many of the decisions I have given so far.  These areas of argument encompass a lot of the difficulty I have when resolving debates during rfd time and will help you understand where I am coming from when evaluating some arguments.  Not all encompassing, for sure, but absolutely things to keep in mind.

1.     1.  Clarity of interpretation

This is a pretty blanket category, but I think it helps articulate a major frustration I have when.  Whether it is a topicality/framework interpretation or an analytical argument about how a judge should evaluate or weigh certain impact claims, I often find myself wishing one team would provide a more vivid description their interpretations of how certain arguments should function within debate rounds.

In framework debates, the clarity of your ‘interpretation’ of what debate and/or the ballot is/does is just as important as making sure I understand your counterplan text.  If the other team controls this interpretation via a lack of clarification of adequate elaboration then the other team essentially controls what your counterplan does.  If they control my understanding of what your counterplan does, they will make it link to their DAs and win.  Control what your evidence means to me and how I should read it in light of broader link/impact claims.

This is as true for topicality as it is for any attempt at a theoretical discussion of a how people/groups/nations/states act in a particular context in relation to a topic disad or sociological criticism.  Debates often hinge on these questions and when they are poorly fleshed out, many other issues that have time invested in them become far less relevant and much more of the debate’s deciding factors will be up to my interpretation of the interaction of arguments and not yours which is a dangerous place to be in a verbal argument about very complex complex and interwoven concepts 

2.      2. Articulation of comparative significance –

This is related to the first, but I find myself in a lot of debates where I give the following rfd:  “ultimately, I had a lot of reasons to vote against the other team, but not a lot of reasons I should be voting for you”

Whether it’s a 2ar without enough impact calculus or a 2nr who doesn’t do justice to the alternative/cp solvency evidence they are extending, many of my decisions seem like they fall in this category.  Debaters from both teams do a moderate to excellent job of executing their core argument but fail to rhetorically distinguish and compare their core arguments from the other team’s position.

I try reward debaters not only engaging with the argument they are debating on their own terms (our ‘x’ evidence answers this by saying ‘y’) but also engaging with the language used by their opponents and the evidence they read to make comparative claims.  Controlling my interpretation of a piece of evidence from the other team will usually get you further than perfectly explaining your own.

As a judge, I view my role to be an educator, not a competitor.  I have argument preferences and professional academic interests that certainly expose me to different literature bases in both debate and non-debate research, but I try to maintain as open of a mind as possible to arguments outside my comfort zone.  It is unavoidable that certain vernaculars (critical and policy alike) that I am too unfamiliar with to make the judgment calls that are required when one of the above two things are done poorly.

Odds and Ends

I will likely be flowing on my laptop – I do this for a few reasons.  First, I type faster than I write so I genuinely believe that my flow is more accurate and more importantly, readable.  Secondly, I do it because I do not like to have my head down looking at my flow during your speech for extended period of times.  I like to watch speeches because I think that aesthetics of giving a speech are important.  Timely gestures to emphasize main points are just as relevant as the white foam you've developed on your mouth 4 minutes into your speech and I like to be able to get a more full picture of your speaking style.  At times, this tendency can cause you to think I am awkardly staring at you too much - please do not read too much into this because I am honestly trying to soak up the full force of the way you make your argument in additions to technical, content related questions.

There is a decent chance that I request speech documents prior to speeches using electronic evidence. I am still experimenting a bit with this, so its application will not be entirely consistent but I think it is useful for two main reasons.  First, it helps deter and catch card clipping – which I will discuss in more detail below.  Secondly, it drastically reduces the amount of decision time dedicated to transferring evidence at the end of a debate. I do not ever intend, however, to have a debater feel like the choice to call for speech docs was in any way motivated by the debaters as individuals or the perceived reputation of a squad in general.  I am honestly a young judge trying to find my norm, so please bear with me on this issue.

I very much value my decision time after debates are over.  If there are flashing issues between teams or extended bathroom breaks before speeches, I will become frustrated if the time delay starts approaching the 10-15 minute range.  More judging time = better decisions = better debaters.

Conditionality – fwiw, I have not had many decisions that come down to this argument but I will say that the gulf between the 1ar and the 2ar explanation of their position is usually the pivot point in the debates I have had come down to this issue.

Card clipping – I take this matter pretty seriously and will not hesitate to assign a loss and zero speaker points for verified violations.  I am very hesitant about unilaterally halting a debate where neither team has brought the issue up, although I have never faced an egregious case that I have had such a visceral reaction (or any reaction so far, really) that would make me do that.  But, if someone does make a challenge, an audio/video recording is essential.

Do not speak into your laptop – lower whatever you are speaking from in order to make eye contact and let me see your mouth move.  For some reason, this has become a massive pet peeve of mine.  In the past, I have prompted speakers to change where their podiums are situated, but I don’t think that should be my prerogative during a debate so please be mindful of what you look like to me when you are speaking. 

Speaker Points – I have consistently given between a range of 27.5 and 29.  I have given very few 29+ but quite a lot of 28.2-28.6’s.  Here is a rough rubric based on my perception of what I have given out so far.

Below 27.5 – major mishaps likely occurred, these can be things like offensive language or disrespectful behavior but certainly glaring strategic miscues and/or speech delivery issues that substantially affected the content of my decision will put you in this camp as well. 

27.5-27.9 – Excessively mediocre.  Speech delivery issues were likely a component, but these scores I find myself giving more to people that seem are far too underprepared with the evidence and arguments they are deploying.  Debaters who normally receive these speaks from me have received a lot of advice about reaching beyond buzzwords and taglines as well as evolving their arguments more generally as the debate progresses.

28-28.4 – This category, for me, has encompassed many of the teams that are on the ‘bubble’ and some of the lower-middle teams that exhibit a fairly coherent grasp of their argument strategically, there is normally some delivery issue associated with the lower end of this spectrum.

28.5-28.7 – This is about what you should expect if I find you to have a solid speaking style and a strong grasp of the arguments you are forwarding.  There is usually a point in these debates where this debater does something notably awesome rhetorically or strategically but that lacks a sustained follow-through the rest of the debate.  There are flashes of brilliance, but consistency is a key distinction between this category and the next one.

28.8-29.2 – If you get these speaks, you are likely a debater who excelled in not only their grasp of their own arguments but demonstrated a consistent ability throughout the debate of making smart strategic and rhetorical decisions.  You were likely incredibly clear as a speaker and are debating at a very high level in terms of balancing word choice, time management, and quality evidence choice in addition to sustained comparative evaluation of key arguments in the debate. 

29.3+ - Not going to lie, the likelihood you receive this or higher is exceedingly low.  It takes not only what was mentioned in the above category but also requires a level of sophisticated argumentation that makes me feel like you were a top 5 speaker in that debate and/or that I could reasonably see you in quarters or better based on that performance. 

For all of these categories of speaker points:  landing solid jokes, being colloquial and respectful of your opponents, and the perception that you are truly enjoying yourself all have the potential to place a light, but impactful finger on the scale when I am assigning these points along this rubric.

If you every have any questions about any of this philosophy or a specific question about a debate I judged/watched (even if you did not participate), feel free to shoot me an email:  folejm13 AT wfu DOT edu

Brice Hansen

PGPs: he/him, they/them (no preference)

Email: bricedhansen@gmail.com

as of 10/28/21
About me:
-I debated for 4 years at La Crosse Central High school in Wisconsin being bounced back and forth between PF and Policy. I am now on my 8th year of judging/assistant coaching. I graduated from UW-La Crosse in 2020 with a major in political science focusing on political theory and ideology and a minor in math education. Currently I am a Graduate student at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities in a Social Studies Master's Degree and Teacher Licensure program.

Paradigm as a Judge:
-As a debater who was thrown around between PF and Policy, I enter a round open to being told how I should judge the round. However if neither side argues the role of the judge/ballot/framing beyond the round, I will likely default to a role as a policy maker. Either way I still expect a full debate. I really enjoy K's (on aff or neg) just make sure you have and can explain the link. Framework is first priority in evaluating the round. If framework isn't read, then for most intents and purposes you can consider me a "policy judge," though I don't hold any strict views as to how a round should go or be evaluated.


Specifics:

Open CX- if it's your turn to ask questions and your partner asks the majority of them you'll probably both lose speaker points

Please include me in the email chain: bricedhansen@gmail.com

Arguments: I love framework. I don’t hold any "strict" views on the role of the ballot or of the judge so I leave it to the debaters to shape that. I love K’s, they're good and fair-ground.
There are arguments/authors I will not validate or listen to, a few are listed here (please don't make me add more):

*

low Speed = bad / faster speed = better

any card from Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, or any other author that makes claims of "race blindness" or uses biology pseudoscience to justify racist social/political theory.

cards and authors that actively support the oppression of peoples

Timecube
*

Delivery: In novice debates I never really expect speed. In a round I'll give everyone 1 warning. If the speaker doesn't slow down or clear up their speech I may stop flowing parts that aren't understandable or only record what I can keep up with, as well I will give leeway to the other team missing arguments or cards because they couldn't catch it. In other words, if you read like 14 one-sentence CP's and perms back to back I might only get down 7 of them, I might actively refuse to acknowledge any of them because I think it's malpractice and absolutely and laughably ridiculous. So just like don't do that, you're better than that.

Different Cases: I’ll listen to non-traditional affs, performance affs, and kritikal affs. In fact, I'd encourage you to test one out or run one. Just be ready for a Topicality/framework. I will not vote neg on T/FW on my own just to intervene against a non-traditional, performance, or K-Aff. If you want to win on T, framework, or a call of abuse it has to be the focus of your last rebuttal and evident, otherwise I won't give it much weight in what the round came down to.

Theory & Framework: I like good theory debates, but I need to know how it is relevant for me to care about it. If your fighting to win/view the round in a framework, you should be consistent with that and not just treat as a "hail-mary" argument from your first speech; pull yours through and weigh in your framework throughout the round.

Honestly, framework is huge in round and plays a huge role in how I evaluate the round. If you want to go for FW you can't drop it in any speech. If framework isn't contested, then isn't brought up until the 2nr/2ar I will not weigh it. FW doesn't get just to be opportunistically used, it must be used consistently to be considered valid praxis.

Topicality: T is important, but I won't just default a neg vote on T without it being the focus of the 2nr. I've voted for untopical plans before because T and abuse wasn't the focus of the rebuttals, and I will do so again. Right now I'd say T is best used as an argument when a plan text hinders the ability of a team to have a functional debate on the terms the 1ac sets, and/or is well beyond the span of the topic/resolution. If abuse isn't evident in the negative block and isn't the focus of the 2nr, I will not intervene for the neg and they will probably not win T.

In round let's be reasonable on T, not oblivious. If a team uses a common acronym such as USFG, and you're not sure what they mean just ask. Unless the team is using them to intentionally mislead, don't try to make some abstract T argument on it and claim they stand for something completely unrelated to the resolution like "United States Faceters Guild." Be reasonable about things, don't try to just strictly rulemonger in a nonconstructive way. If you want to go for an executive or courts CP that's fine, I don't make an assumption on what branch of the USFG the aff's actor is so there's merit to those CP's, just ask in CX what branch(es) the actor is. I don't like presumption on A-Spec when CX after the 1ac can resolve it. The aff gets to reserve clarification of the acting branch(es) for CX after the 1ac should it become a question, if you don't ask them about it then go for a-spec you are actively wasting everyone's time and it's clear as glass. 

DAs: If the disad’s uniqueness, link, and/or impact has been defeated or torn apart I’m not likely to weigh any of the DA other than evidence and arguments that apply to other areas in my decision. On DA's I look heavily at the risk of impact and the minimum impact it may have in a situation if it has any. Cross-applying DA's to other flows is fair game and more teams should remember that it's a thing they can do.

CPs: I will still flow through and apply any evidence and arguments you made if you kick a CP, I won't let you remove arguments from a round only your advocacy for the CP. Fiat and competitiveness are fair-ground arguments for me and I will listen to them. Really I'll listen to pretty much any argument you make on CP's but will not strike the evidence and arguments you presented from the round.

Kritiks: K's are good, I enjoy them. I've voted for and against all kinds of K's so don't expect any K to immediately win or lose you the round, I can personally agree with your K and vote against it based on the round or disagree with aspects of your K but vote for it. I don't have a preference to whichever K you run; you won't lose a round for running a K I'm not as personally experienced with, just run a K whose link makes sense for the plan. On alt; the alt can be an advocacy, but you should be able to explain what your advocacy/alt is and be able to point out where you made the argument for it in your cards. Be consistent with your 'alt,' redefining what your advocating in rebuttals is analogous to changing your CP so try to avoid doing that. If you wanna run clash of the K's between a K-aff and a K on the neg, I'm up for it, make it constructive though and remember not every K is exclusive to others.

Role of the aff and neg: I tend to view the role of the aff to present a plan and/or defend the resolution, and the role of the neg is to negate that. I may be the judge but I don't set the rules of debate, I just have a say over what is fair. If you feel that the resolution is insufficient for the moment as the aff then go beyond and make the case why the resolution isn't enough, the debate space is a space for advocacy and the discussion of ideas so it's vital to have that discussion here. Just don't mistake settling for the resolution and presenting a plan as the end of one's advocacy, dual power is an important praxis and there may be many other plans a team may wish to advocate for but only can pick one for this space.

Other Things to consider:
My favorite techniques and practices in a round are explaining arguments and weighing the round in common terms so that there is no confusion. It makes my job easier and lets everyone do a better job in round of both learning the topic and arguing on it.

When deciding on a winner I look at what points were emphasized in the rebuttals and then the net impacts on the flow. I’ll look at it through whatever frames I’m asked to look at it through otherwise I’ll decide on which side presents the best policy in the round. I am a really big fan of world-by-world comparisons in the 2r's.

Framework is HUGE. If the 1ac reads framework and it isn't contested in the 1nc, and then is extended in the 2ac, then that is probably how I will be evaluating the round if it's pulled through in every speech. If FW is not argued in the 1nc and not mentioned in the 2ac, just consider the framework dead and weightless if/when used in the rebuttals, and me really disappointed.

I have a tendency to see the 2NR and 2AR as speeches that narrow down each side to their final arguments. It's not that 1R's are less important they're like the staging grounds for the final arguments, but if you intend to win on something then bring it up in the 2R. I don't want to vote on something you aren't convinced you won on, and if you are convinced you won an argument and are convinced that it should win you the round, it better be in the 2R.

Hot takes:

If climate change/warming bad is your impact, you don't need to read an impact card. Anyone who doesn't understand the scope of warming impacts, needs/wants it explained to them, or questions the validity warming impacts really shouldn't be judging in 2019. Just say it as an analytic. You should probably still read your link chain unless it's absolutely obvious.

Assume I watch the news regularly, obsessively even.

Saying Cap is as good as it gets is gonna take some work for me

impacts that don't lead or focus on extinction are more reasonable and more likely. People suffering is an impact by itself, any impact chain that extends from there is usually indefinite speculation or hyperbole that detracts from actual suffering that is more likely to happen and is ongoing. That's not to say worse impacts don't spiral from chains of events, but that most of the time there is a minimum definite impact of suffering.

Last update: 2/11/2020

TOP-LEVEL:

-TLDR: do what you do best, and if you do it well, I’ll try my best to be fair, receptive, and interested

-Add me to the email chain: gordon.kochman@gmail.com

-I try not to read evidence if I can help it, which means I won’t open your speech docs until the end of the round, and I’ll only do so if needed. I won't follow you in the speech doc, so if you're gonna blaze through your theory block, you might want to reconsider.

-I try to keep a straight face during speeches. If I'm being expressive, then something horrible/funny/important/etc. just happened.

-Please be kind to each other

-My last name is pronounced “coach-man,” but you can refer to me as Gordon. Whatever you do, PLEASE do not call me "judge."

ABOUT ME:

-My debate experience: I debated for four years at New Trier High School (2009-2013) and for two years at Whitman College (2013-2015) while the team existed during my tenure. I’m a former 2N/1A. I’ve been involved in coaching and judging since I graduated high school. I'm a lawyer in my day job.

-Affiliations: New Trier High School, Whitman College, University of Wisconsin, Homestead High School

-Co-founder of the Never Spark Society with Tim Freehan

-I mostly debated policy arguments and soft-left K arguments. I fully understand how these arguments are bad and boring in their own way, so simply because I debated these arguments in the past does not mean that I think they’re the best, most interesting, or correct arguments. I’m open enough to recognize there are multiple ways of debating and engaging with the resolution, both from my time as a debater and later as a judge and coach.

-Disclaimer: What is included in this paradigm is meant to help you decide where to put me on your pref sheets, strike from your strike card, or adjust your strategy before the round. Most of this paradigm includes my predispositions and (unless otherwise noted) NOT my closely-held beliefs that are firm and unshakable.

NON-NEGOTIABLES:

-Please be kind to each other and don’t be racist, sexist, ableist, or any other variation of rude/intentionally horrible.

-To the extent required, this is a communicative activity that encompasses speech. As a result, I will only flow what you say in your speech (open CX is fine). Unless provided a performative reason, I am not a fan of multiple people participating in a speech or playing a video/audio clip.

-Debate is a game, and I’ve had the pleasure to enjoy it as a game. However, I understand that debate is more than that for some people (it’s how they afford their education, it’s their job, it’s their community, etc.). I try to comport myself such that everyone can have the experience in this activity that is enjoyable. Simply because I have enjoyed debate in one way does not mean that other debaters need to conform to my experience.

-There are obvious formalities in a round that exist no matter what. These include: one team must win, speaker points must be awarded, etc.

GENERAL DEBATE PREDISPOSITIONS:

-Tech over truth in the abstract and to a point. Generally, the more “true” your claim is, the less tech you need to win it (and vice-versa). The same goes for how big of a claim you’re making. The bigger the claim, the more work that’s needed. It’s gonna take more than a one-liner to win a claim that a mindset shift occurs post-economic collapse. Arguments are claims with warrants. One-line conclusory statements aren’t gonna cut it if you don’t provide a warrant.

-Things I likely won’t vote for: I would recommend that you use your common sense here. If your argument is overtly and/or intentionally racist/sexist/homophobic/etc., then you might want to reconsider. Not only do I not want to be in those rounds, but I don’t think the team you’re opposing wants those arguments in the round, either. As a co-founder of the Never Spark Society, this might tip you off to some types of arguments I don't enjoy...

PREDISPOSITIONS REGARDING SPECIFIC AREAS OF DEBATE:

-My thoughts regarding "non-topical" affs are probably what most people want to know up-front. I never read these affs when I debated and would spend a large amount of time planning how to debate these affs, but as a judge, I don’t really harbor any animus towards these affs. I don’t think that my thoughts here should be dispositive one way or another in these rounds. If you win your argument and explain why that means you win the round, then you should win. Despite my following thoughts on topicality versus policy affs, I'm SIGNIFICANTLY less persuaded by procedural arguments on framework than by method-based arguments on framework. In other words, I'm less likely to vote on "fairness" than an argument about how we should engage with the state or try to produce change.

-Topicality (versus policy affs) is about competing interpretations of the topic. This also means that potential abuse is a sufficient reason to vote neg on T. I would extend T into the block in a majority of my rounds and think I have a relatively lower threshold for voting on T against policy affs than most judges.

-I tend to lean neg on most theory and default to rejecting the argument unless provided a reason to reject the team. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a winnable argument, and there are certainly theory arguments that are stronger than others (conditionality is significantly more viable than no neg fiat, for instance). Regardless, this shouldn’t deter you from using these arguments on the aff. As a former 2N I do have a proclivity to protect the 2NR, so be absolutely certain that your 2AR will be an extrapolation of 1AR arguments if this is your ultimate strategy.

-Most CPs are fine, with a few exceptions. Consult CPs, for instance, are probably bad. I'm fine with CPs that have internal net-benefits to generate competition. I can be persuaded by perm do the CP args on the aff.

-Is the politics DA a thing? Eh, probably not (RIP). Will I vote for it anyway? Absolutely.

-Regarding Ks, I would read soft-left Ks with a general policy strategy and go for them on occasion. I’m by no means an expert in any specific K literature. I’m not very familiar with a ton of high-theory or postmodern arguments, so your burden to explain them is relevant. The more “out there” K you plan to read, the more explanation you’ll need. I should be familiar with your argument at a basic level regardless of what you read, but it is unlikely that I understand the nuances of your specific argument unless you can explain them to me. If you’re curious if you should read your K this round or how much work you should put into your explanation/overview, I would recommend reading it with more explanation rather than less. If you can adequately explain why you should win as a result of the K, then you should win.

-I’m a huge proponent of impact turns, which unfortunately aren’t as utilized as I’d like. However, I’m not a fan of some impact turns like spark (lol), wipeout, etc.

About me:

-I use He/Him pronouns

-I debated for 3 years at La Crosse Central High school in Wisconsin on the Surveillance, China, and Education topics. All three of them were in Policy although I did do a bit of PF my first year.

-I'm have a B.S. from UW-Madison in Econ, Environmental Studies, Mathematics, and Stats and a MA in Economics from the University of Chicago

-Email: jerimiah.koll@gmail.com

-put me on the email chain, it saves time so in the situation I need to look at a card at the end of the round I don't need to steal one of your laptops to get it. (especially if its remote)

General:

Tell me how to vote and why and I'll do it as long as you do a good job explaining. That being said there are some things that require a little more work than others so take note of them below. When you extend cards/args you need to actually explain the thesis of the card and show you understand the arguments you're making, reading another card really doesn't do you any favors, pulling out warrants from your first card does much better.

If your making a fairness arg I like actual examples, hypothetical abuse or potential abuse aren't great arguments to make. That being said I generally prefer the educational value to the debate above fairness.

The more realistic your scenario is the more likely I am to vote for it. Your impacts don't have to be nuclear war causing mass extinction and I'd prefer if they weren't. Instead of nuclear war impacts use real world impacts because nuclear war isn't going to happen, if it does you can tell me "I told you so".

I'm good with speed, just try to be clear, I can't flow stuff I didn't hear. If you drop 10 perms in 30 seconds there's a good chance I miss 8 of them just like the other team. You gotta slow down for tags, perms, and the like. Also make sure you signpost so I know what flow I'm putting stuff on, if you leave it up to me there's a chance it ends up on the wrong flow. In general, going about 10% slower than your top speed is a great way to get amazing speaks and have me actually flow what you're saying. This is especially important for when you're debating online.

I didn't judge at all last year so do with that info what you will

Just because I'm on the email chain doesn't mean I'm gonna comb through your cards looking for warrants, its your job to tell me the warrants from your cards.

Random Preferences:

Topicality: I rarely ran or enjoyed T when I was debating which is a shame because I think T has the potential to be a really interesting debate but it just hasn't in my experience. You'll need to go all in on T in the 2NR to win on it, and it really helps to cite actual abuse that destroys neg ground. I'll be much more sympathetic to a team running T against a clearly untopical plan than if you're just running T as another arg. If you say "we didn't have prep on this aff" and then have case args blocked out anyway its unlikely I'm gonna vote for you. I really don't like super nitpicky T, so substantial T is unlikely to get my vote.

Ks: I really like when I have a clear picture of what the alt is and it makes it much easier for me to vote on Ks when you do that work instead of expecting me to decipher what the alt is. I ran a lot of Cap, Bio-power, Militarism, and Fem Theory and have a fair amount of experience with Enviro and Set Col lit. I have some experience with more obscure/esoteric Ks but if you have to ask if I know the lit, I probably don't. In order to win on the K you have to show me you understand what exactly the K is doing and explain the theory behind it, if you can't you're gonna lose.

Framework: I really like framework debates and its probably the most important flow in the round. If you win the framework flow there's a good chance you win the round because you just told me to prioritize your impacts. You need to show a clear understanding of both frameworks and do a good job explaining why yours is the best/leads to the best outcome to win framework. I generally default to some sort of utilitarianism, not because I'm particularly utilitarian, but its the framework that most teams implicitly use.

"Climate change isn't real/not a threat/not anthropogenic": So this isn't a great arg in the first place so I'm not sure why people like to run it but I've seen far more of it than I care for. Its highly unlikely I vote for this, the other team would have to drop the ball completely for me to say climate change isn't real. If the other team runs this arg, you should use it as an independent voter, so running climate change isn't real is a reason that team should lose.

CX: Open but its still their speech, asking all the questions for your partner will get both of you poor speaks.

Paper 1ACs: if y'all are gonna spend the rest of the round on your laptops you're wasting paper and time as a fun little strat. Don't. If you don't email it out at the end of the 1AC I will drop you.

PF:

I have much less experience with PF than Policy but don't let that stop you from running what you want to. I may have been unlucky but I've noticed a lot of teams in PF adopting speed. I understand the strategic implications of speed and all that but everything I said about speed in Policy applies doubly so in PF, you should speak 10-20% slower than your top speed given how heavy on analytics PF is.

Please keep cross civil, also remember that cross is still a speech so keep the first two (mostly) closed.

Background
I debated for the University of Oklahoma for five years (Semis of the NDT and CEDA in 2013) and Jenks High School for four years. I graduated from OU in 2014 and have had limited exposure to debate since then. I have not judge any rounds on the current topic.

Topicality
I'm willing to vote on topicality. If you go for topicality then it should be your entire 2NR.

Framework
I'm willing to vote on framework. I don't think you have to win a topical version of the aff, but it usually helps. The main problem I see when teams run framework is that they often do not respond to the aff's criticism of framework directly. Whichever team does the best job contextualizing their offense with the offense of the other team will usually come out ahead in a framework debate in front of me.

Theory
I generally have a pretty high threshold for voting on theory, and you will almost certainly need an interpretation and to win that competing interpretations is good to win my ballot. Don't go full speed reading your theory blocks or I won't be able to catch all of your arguments.

Counter Plans
If it is competitive and has a net benefit it is probably fine. If it is a CP that competes over something really small like a process CP, I tend to lean aff on questions of competition, but that doesn't mean those debates are not winnable in front of me for the negative. Slow down somewhat in the 1NC when you read your counterplan text, especially if it is more complicated than have x actor do the plan or do the plan without x.

Disads
I think the negative should generally try to win that the disad turns and outweighs the case. I find that teams often choose to go for the politics disad in the 2NR even though they might have a better topic specific disad just because they are used to going for politics.

Kritics
Most of my strategies in college were kritics. I am fairly well versed in most of the literature, but I still want you to explain your argument. I generally think it is more strategic for standard policy affirmatives to impact turn most kritics rather than link turn. The more specifically each team can apply their arguments on the k flow the better.

Case Debates
The negative usually needs some way to mitigate the affirmative's offense in order to win, and if that is not a counter-plan or a kritic then it has to happen on the case. I think solvency and advantage answers/turns are generally the most effective case arguments. It is almost impossible to win zero risk of the affirmative, so make sure you extend some offence in the 2NR. I probably won't vote on inherency unless the negative can demonstrate that the affirmative plan has literally already been done. However, many arguments that are generally placed in the inherency category are actually uniqueness take outs to advantages which are effective as defense in front of me. I'm not impressed with arguments such as "this card says maybe solve, not will solve."

General Comments
I prefer good analysis to an unexplained card. I generally don't like to call for evidence after the round and will not do so unless I can't settle the debate based on what was argued in the round. Specificity and explaining your argument in the context of what the other team says is almost always good. Speed is fine but be clear. Don't read into your computer, place it at an angle so I can hear what you are saying. Sitting while you speak won't affect my decision but it will lower your speaker points.

Email Chains

No thanks

I try to be a tabs judge, so I will listen to and consider any argument as impartially as I can.

Things that are important to me/greatly improve your chances of winning:

-          Speak clearly even if that means slowing down, and take the time to explain your arguments in the context of the debate. – A well thought out answer goes a lot farther than a blurb in a block.

-          Engage with the other team’s arguments, if there is not clash, both sides suffer.

How to get speaker points

-          do the things that greatly improve your chances of winning ^

-          clarity in speaking (probably just slow down)

-          organized speeches/debates (I should know where to flow and what I’m flowing)

-          strategic thinking (make good arguments and use them to make more efficient use of your time)

-          well researched/explained arguments (know what you are talking about)

-          civility (being aggressive or belittling will give me a reason to look for reasons to vote for the other team)

 For me, there is a slightly higher burden for a team going for discursive arguments or theory/topicality to EXPLAIN the argument well. Especially links to Ks and how/why the other team is violating some standard. That being said, if you’re argument is relevant to the debate, I’m glad to hear it and vote on it.

Also I like hearing framework arguments, so if there’s a need for it, don’t hesitate to make them.

Judging policy debate since 2012

-I am a tabs judge

-I am evaluating the flow and logic of your arguments

-Help me to follow your arguments by providing signposts

-OK with speed if you provide a synopsis of each card

-Prove abuse on topicality

-Explain how your DA links to the plan

-Tell me how your CPs advantages and how it is unique

-If you run framework, please explain how your argument fits into it

-Provide me with impact and reasons to vote at the end of the round.

Daniel Montalvo - Ronald Reagan HS head coach

AFF/NEG split - 2/12

Quick Facts:

• Speed is fine, just be clear and enunciate (I’ll only allot 2 “clears” before I stop flowing)

• No such thing as a tabs judge, you know this, but I will keep it close

• Do what you do best. I’ll vote on anything just tell me why (impact calc, analysis, what outweighs what, etc.)

• Most of my background is in policy until recently. Fairly newer to LD but still pretty progressive and can appreciate a clash heavy and meaningful debate

Long Version

Background: I debated policy for Ronald Reagan all four years at the city/state/national level. Currently studying hospitality + revenue management at Cornell and head coach for Ronald Reagan HS. I’ve seen all sorts of arguments and am pretty well-versed with policy strats and arguments all around.

P O L I C Y

Case: “What is left on both sides? Is there enough to move on to off case positions if the case is held?” is usually my line of thinking.

DA’s: Go for it. Not a fan of base/politics disads but I’ll vote on them.

CP’s: Make sure they are competitive. Don’t be abusive. Consult CP’s are not my favorite...

Topicality: I like T. Author debates, counter-interps, reasonability, K-T, and framing all play their roles and can make great argumentation if executed well. Ensure there is in-round abuse and do the work to get me to vote on it. If you aren't going 5 minutes of T in the 2nr that means it was probably a time suck and not well developed enough for the ballot.

K’s: My personal favorite, go for it. I’m well versed in cap, abolition, and race/identity K’s, but I will not do the work for you. I love the idea of epistemological dangers the aff may overlook or perpetuate. Don't assume I know what you're talking about, though. I will be as objective as possible and still expect decent analysis and contextualization of your arguments.

K Affs/Performance: K affs/performance have been dying down on the Wisconsin circuits but I have seen them at nat circuit tournaments. Not my area of expertise so do enough work on the aff and display why your advocacy, performance, and/or negation of the resolution effectively challenges the implications you argue for.

Theory: Blow it up. If the other team does something inherently damaging or abusive in the round, you have every right to point it out for the ballot. I can handle high level theory, though these debates can get muddy in their development so please keep them as organized as possible. I won’t vote your way just because you shout “that was abusive!”

L D

** most of my judging philosophies from policy apply to LD. some key things to note:

FWK/VC: I understand a ton of framework shells get reused as topics change but there can be dozens of the same ideology/epistemology shells with key nuances that differentiate between sides and can make for a very intricate flow. Always evaluate these differences before collapsing into your opponent's framework to maintain clash on the flow.

M I S C

• Keep the round clean and organized. Poor/sloppy structure that impacts my flow will be reflected on your speaker points

• Loud/gaspy spreading gets really annoying, especially in smaller classrooms and through computer audio so be cautious before you do it

• Any -isms or -phobias “good” arguments and I’ll drop you

• You know the drill -- have fun and don’t stop learning!

• Also, put me on the email chain and feel free to contact me if you have any questions montalvodaniel51@gmail.com

***Preliminary Note: Please time your own prep/speeches/cross-x. I tend to be inconsistent with staying on top of it.****

Background: Three years of policy debate at Stevens Point Area Senior High (SPASH) in Wisconsin between 2012 and 2015. I attended SDI for debate camp and was fairly frequent on the national circuit my senior year and currently judge for/help out the SPASH debate team.

I went for policy arguments for the most part in high school, but I consider myself a tabs judge and I vote off the flow so I'll really listen to any argument as long as you wrap up the round and give me a reason to vote for you and why your impacts outweigh the other team's impacts. Clash is important, and I consider warranted analysis something that's vital and is often missing from high school debate rounds. Unexplained arguments and shadow extending is a pretty frequent reason for me voting down teams that could have otherwise very well won. Additionally, I think internal link/link is probably the most important part of most arguments so keep that in mind.
TLDR: Explain what you're saying, actually respond to the other team, and do good link/internal link work and you'll probably be fine.

If you have any questions you can contact me at newdylan6758@gmail.com

Speed-Go as fast as you want but just be clear. I'll tell you if you need to be. But just be especially clear and a bit slower on tags so I'm able to realistically flow what you're saying.

Ks/K Affs-I'll listen to any K aff and will vote on them if you give me a reason to, but just remember you need to explain what your advocacy is pretty well since I largely debated policy in high school and I've never excelled at arguing Ks. Explaining your advocacy is a must and not having a good grasp of what you're arguing probably won't do very well with me as a judge, and neither will relying on ridiculously lengthy overviews and blocks through the 2NR. I will vote on either a Policy or critical Framework, but you need to argue it well from both sides and should probably spend a bit more time on it than usual in front of me. Also, I like a thorough explanation of how the alt functions; otherwise it's pretty hard to say the K has any solvency.
From experience, I understand that framework is often the only option for a debater versed in policy and is a valid strategy. Treat it as a DA/T violation and have internal links to fairness, education, etc.

DAs-I don't see too many good rounds come down to DA vs. Case anymore which is too bad, so I'll thoroughly enjoy a DA debate if it's something relevant with a strong link. Solid impact calc and link analysis from both sides are a must to win in these debates and like all policy arguments I hold a fairly high standard for internal links and internal link analysis. Too often, teams don't spend nearly enough time on specific clash for any of these components, and I'll probably default affirmative if it's lacking from both sides.

CP: Competition is important and if a CP isn't competitive a perm is a great strategy to go for as long as a reasonable amount is done in the 2AR. That said, I'm most easily convinced by solvency deficit arguments and the negative needs to spend a fair amount of time answering these arguments in the block and 2NR to win on the CP in addition to warranted analysis on how they solve their net benefit. Additionally, specific solvency advocates are a lot more likely to win you the round with me. As with my general stance on theory, I'm not likely to vote on it unless the CP is clearly abusive or (in the case of arguments like conditionality bad) it is argued exceptionally well without simply reading off of blocks, and I'm definitely not likely to vote on it unless a lot of time is spent on it in the 2NR/2AR.

Topicality: Topicality is a great position when run well and unfortunately hardly anyone goes for it. I'll vote on potential abuse. For the love of god don't read reverse voters on T.


Some things that are just generally annoying to me/could possibly get speaker points docked
1.) Being rude in your speeches or cross-x or being overbearing to your partner
2.) Personally rambling to me during your speech ("judge, you have to vote for this judge")
3.) Trying to be clever by asking questions like "how's it going" in Cross-X
4.) Sucking up to me
5.) Saying "this card is on fire" or equally absurd buzzwords
6.) "This is my cross-x"
7.) Not using all of your prep/speech time

I'm a tabula rasa judge which means blank slate. What this means is that I don't have any biases to arguments (unless they are ontologically violent), and it also means that you need to tell me how to vote by the end of the round. If neither teams give me a role of the ballot/how to vote then I will default to one of my choosing, and it may not be to your preference. This means I will probably end up doing work for one or both teams... which will make me upset.

Speed- this is fine under one condition- be CLEAR. I will cue for you to be clear only twice. After that whatever I don't get isn't my fault. I will always try my best but... eh...

Topicality- there needs to be voters here if I'm going to vote T. If potential abuse is your voter then you will need to do a really good job on why that's an effective voter. All in all, even after the affirmative team is found to be untopical, there must be a reason for me to vote negative. Topicality is one of those things that teams need to be doing work on. For example, if both teams have opposite interpretations, it's up to each team to do the work and evidence analysis on why one definition is better than the other.

Kritiks- these are fine, but please do not just assume that I know what you're talking about. That being said, the following things need to be crystal clear: the link, impact and alternative. Not only do these need to be clear, but the negs need to explain how the alternative functions with the aff and why I should vote for it in context of the round. For example, don't just tell me the alternative works because it can solve capitalism, but explain how solving capitalism is the best decision in the round. That being said, even IF I know what you're talking about I'm not going to do the work for you on the flow - this is your job.

Counterplans- negs need to be able to prove solvency and must explain why the counterplan is a better option than the aff. The net benefit must also be very apparent.

Affirmative Case- I did not think that I needed to mention this, but after judging a lot I think this does need to be said: the affs need to win their case in order to win the debate. For example, if the affs lose all their advantages but beat the negative's DA, that just means that the impact of the DA won't happen. However you still do not have an affirmative case, and all the negatives have to do is prove that the aff is a bad idea.

Background: In college I debated on the national circuit for parliamentary debate. I formerly coached collegiate parliamentary and policy debate. I currently serve as the assistant coach for Marquette University High School. I have previously served as the head coach for Ronald Reagan College Prep and an assistant coach for Solorio Academy High School.

E-Mail Chain: Yes. Send to bjs.debate@gmail.com. (Note: asking me if I want to be on the e-mail chain is usually a sign that you didn't read my paradigm before the round. It is right here at the top...)

Quick Philosophy: I strongly favor a policy making philosophy. Ideally the AFF should advocate a policy topical to the resolution, and the NEG should explain why I should reject the specific policy case made by AFF.

Quick Tips:

1. Speak clearly. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you.
2. Do not argue a tagline. Argue the logic and evidence.
3. Maintain clash. Line by line is good.
4. Identify voting issues.
5. Take advantage of the cross examination to force concessions and formulate your arguments.
6. Do not be rude. Be witty. (Wit = speaker point bumps)
7. Have fun.

Longer Philosophy:

- Planless Aff: If the AFF isn't affirming any specific plan, advocacy or course of action, then the status quo doesn't change. Assuming NEG makes that argument, NEG wins on presumption.

- Tech v Truth: I try to prefer tech to truth. Like all judges I attempt to avoid intervention, and a dropped argument is a true argument.

- Links: I do not think enough scrutiny is usually given to link arguments or link chains. I am a big fan of strategies that attack internal links or the link of a disadvantage/K/etc.

- Advantages and Disadvantages: You need to perform an impact calculus. Significance arguments should have fleshed out impact assessments with relative risk analysis supported by evidence. Politics DAs are great.

- Speed: Keep your speed reasonable. While I can handle a speedy round, I think teams who slow down perform better - they understand their round better, and I understand the arguments better. Clarity in the round matters. Make sure you articulate and enunciate your words. Speaking exceptionally quickly to try to read more cards or have more, and less developed arguments, isn't effective (and will hurt your speaks). I will let you know if I have a problem keeping up with (or understanding) you, and I'll give two warnings before I stop flowing. I will not use your cards to fill in what I miss because you are going too quickly (or if I stop flowing because I warned you twice).

If you are doing more than 7 off case arguments, you're not giving enough attention or time to all of the arguments, and you're likely relying on speed. I would far rather have fewer arguments with a deeper dive into the issues than more arguments and cursory explanations with an attempt to win simply by having the other team drop an argument that hasn't been developed much at all. I will weigh how well developed and impacted an argument is that the other team dropped when 8+ off-case are run.

- Cross Examination: I flow CX. Cross examination is an extremely important and undervalued tool in current policy debate. I recommend flowing those developments into your speeches. Do not be elusive in response to questions. A simple "I don't know" is an acceptable response if you do not know the answer. I award higher speaker points for individuals who do not rely on verbal assistance from a partner in asking or answering questions or making speeches.

- Topicality: I will vote on topicality, but my threshold for topicality is rather high. Topicality arguments that are well developed and given time during the 1NC/2NC are more likely to be successful, and the NEG should explain either how the AFF violated a reasonable and fair framework or why NEG's interpretation is better (I enjoy debates about what the proper meaning of a word should be and how that impacts the plan or the debate). If you are going to argue topicality and the AFF asks what a topical plan would look like under your framework for topicality, you need to be able to give an answer. If you cannot provide an example of topicality under your own framework, you have a problem, and your argument is very unlikely to persuade.

- Performance or Meta-Debate: I am not your judge, and you should strike me. My threshold for theory / topicality arguments against performance debate is low.

- Counterplans: I am a huge fan of counterplans, and I strongly look to functional competition. I enjoy a well run process counterplan. Process does matter in the real world and has real policy implications. I am not a fan of consult counterplans, but I have and will vote for them.

- Theory: I am fine with theory arguments and debates. For conditionality, I am fine with multiple CPs and kritiks, but keep your conditionality within reasonable constraints (i.e. six or more worlds is not very reasonable). I default to reject the argument not the team. If I am to reject the team, not the argument, have a very good explanation as to why.

- Kritiks: I am not opposed to a K, but I am only well versed in K literature that is based in law and economics. For almost any other K you're going to need to SLOW DOWN and explain your buzzwords / jargon / concepts. If you don't explain the buzzword / jargon, I'm not searching your cards for what a term means.

I strongly dislike K taglines that are paragraphs. That is not a tagline - it's a mini-speech.

The K needs to link to the specific policy case made and engage with the substance of the Aff's plan. If there is no link to the specific policy or no engagement with the substance of the plan, then there is no reason for me to vote for the K. A successful K will (1) link to the specific policy being argued; and (2) have an alt that (A) is a conditional policy option; (B) competes with the Aff's plan; and (C) you have explained how it functions in the real world. If, at the end of the debate, I am left thinking "So what?" I am going to vote for the Aff if the Aff actually results in change in the status quo that solves for something, when the K does not.

For a K-Aff, the alt in the K-Aff needs to meet the same standards as the alt for any other K - the alt still needs to be topical, create change and solve for some harm.

- Off-Limits Arguments: No argument is out of bounds or off-limits in the debate round. Your team can make any argument it wants. If a team thinks an argument is objectionable or morally wrong, then the burden is on that team to explain why and why I should not vote for it. Merely claiming that something is offensive, immoral or "-ist" isn't enough. Why is it immoral or "-ist"? Why is it unfair or wrong? If your team can't explain why, I won't intervene to do the work for you. Run whatever argument(s) you want.

Note: The above should not be interpreted as carte blanche to engage in ad hominem attacks or other personal attacks in the round. You must be respectful to each other.

- Court or Legal Plans/Arguments: I am a UChicago law grad and a corporate attorney when not judging. I really enjoy listening to plans/counterplans/etc that involve the courts or a legal strategy. That said, I will know if you do not understand how the judicial branch functions, and I will know if your plan/CP actually functions or solves the way that you claim. I will not intervene to vote on these issues if the other team does not call you on it, but my threshold for them to call you on solvency deficits is low.

Debated 4 years Marquette University HS (2001-2004)

Assistant Coach – Marquette University HS (2005-2010)

Head Coach – Marquette University HS (2011-2012)

Assistant Coach – Johns Creek HS (2012-2014)

Head Coach – Johns Creek HS (2014-Current)

Yes, put me on the chain: bencharlesschultz@gmail.com

No, I don’t want a card doc.

Its been a long time since I updated this – this weekend I was talking to a friend of mine and he mentioned that I have "made it clear I wasn’t interested in voting for the K”. Since I actually love voting for the K, I figured that I had been doing a pretty bad job of getting my truth out there. I’m not sure anyone reads these religiously, or that any paradigm could ever combat word of mouth (good or bad), but when I read through what I had it was clear I needed an update (more so than for the criticism misconception than for the fact that my old paradigm said I thought conditionality was bad – yeesh, not sure what I was thinking when I wrote THAT….)

Four top top shelf things that can effect the entire debate for you, with the most important at the top:

11) Before I’m a debate judge, I’m a teacher and a mandatory reporter. I say this because for years I’ve been more preferred as a critical judge, and I’ve gotten a lot of clash rounds, many of which include personal narratives, some of which contain personal narratives of abuse. If such a narrative is read, I’ll stop the round and bring in the tournament director and they will figure out the way forward.

22) I won’t decide the debate on anything that has happened outside of the round, no matter the quality of evidence entered into the debate space about those events. The round starts when the 1AC begins.

33) If you are going to the bathroom before your speech in the earlier speeches (constructives through 1nr, generally) just make sure the doc is sent before you go. Later speeches where there's no doc if you have prep time I can run that, or I'll take off .4 speaks and allow you to go (probably a weird thing, I know, but I just think its stealing prep even though you don't get to take flows or anything, just that ability to settle yourself and think on the positions is huge)

44) No you definitely cannot use extra cross-ex time as prep, that’s not a thing.

5

55) Finally, some fun. I’m a firm believer in flowing and I don’t see enough people doing it. Since I do think it makes you a better debater, I want to incentivize it. So if you do flow the round, feel free to show me your flows at the end of the debate, and I’ll award up to an extra .3 points for good flows. I reserve the right not to give any points (and if I get shown too many garbage flows maybe I’ll start taking away points for bad ones just so people don’t show me horrible flows, though I’m assuming that won’t happen much), but if you’ve got the round flowed and want to earn extra points, please do! By the way you can’t just show one good flow on, lets say, the argument you were going to take in the 2nc/2nr – I need to see the round mostly taken down to give extra points

Top Shelf:

This is stuff that I think you probably want to know if you’re seeing me in the back

· I am liable probably more than most judges to yell “clear” during speeches – I won’t do it SUPER early in speeches because I think it takes a little while for debaters to settle into their natural speed, and a lot of times I think adrenaline makes people try and go faster and be a little less clear at the start of their speeches than they are later. So I wait a bit, but I will yell it. If it doesn’t get better I’ll yell one more time, then whatever happens is on you in terms of arguments I don’t get and speaker points you don’t get. I’m not going to stop flowing (or at least, I never have before), but I also am not yelling clear frivolously – if I can’t understand you I can’t flow you.

· I don’t flow with the doc open. Generally, I don’t open the doc until later in the round – 2nc prep is pretty generally when I start reading, and I try to only read cards that either are already at the center of the debate, or cards that I can tell based on what happens through the 2ac and the block will become the choke points of the round. The truth of the debate for me is on the flow, and what is said by the debaters, not what is said in their evidence and then not emphasized in the speeches, and I don’t want to let one team reading significantly better evidence than the other on questions that don’t arise in the debate influence the way I see the round in any way, and opening the doc open is more likely than not to predispose me towards one team than another, in addition to, if I’m reading as you go, I’m less likely to dock you points for being comically unclear than if the only way I can get down what I get down is to hear you say it.

Argumentative Stuff

Listen at the end of the day, I will vote for anything. But these are arguments that I have a built in preference against. Please do not change up your entire strategy for me. But if the crux of your strategy is either of these things know that 1 – I probably shouldn’t be at the top of your pref card, and 2 – you can absolutely win, but a tie is more likely to go to the other side. I try and keep an open mind as much as possible (heck I’ve voted for death good multiple times! Though that is an arg that may have more relevance as you approach 15 full years as a public school DoD….) but these args don’t do it for me. I’ll try and give a short explanation of why.

1. I’m not a good judge for theory, most specifically cheap shots, but also stuff seen as more “serious” like conditionality. Its been a long long time since anyone has gone for theory in front of me – the nature of the rounds that I get means there’s not usually a ton of negative positions – which is good because I’m not very sympathetic to it. I generally think that the negative offense, both from the standpoint of fairness and education, is pretty weak in all but the most egregious rounds when it comes to basic stuff like conditionality. Other counterplan theory like no solvency advocate, no international fiat, etc I’m pretty sympathetic to reject the argument not the team. In general, if you’re looking at something like conditionality where the link is linear and each instance increases the possibility of fairness/education impacts, for me you’ve got to be probably very near to, or even within, double digits for me to think the possible harm is insurmountable in round. This has come up before so I want to be really clear here – if its dropped, GO FOR IT, whether alone or (preferably) as an extension in a final rebuttal followed by substance. I for sure will vote for it in a varsity round (in novice rounds, depending on the rest of the round, I may or may not vote on it). Again – this is a bias against an argument that will probably effect the decision in very close rounds.

2. Psychoanalysis based critical literature – I like the criticism, as I mentioned above, just because I think the cards are more fun to read and more likely to make me think about things in a new way than a piece of counterplan solvency or a politics internal link card or whatever. But I have an aversion to psychoanalysis based stuff. The tech vs truth paragraph sums up my feelings on arguments that seem really stupid. Generally when I see critical literature I think there’s at least some truth to it, especially link evidence. But

3. Cheap Shots – same as above – just in general not true, and at variance with what its fun to see in a debate round. There’s nothing better than good smart back and forth with good evidence on both sides. Cheap shots (I’m thinking of truly random stuff like Ontology Spec, Timecube – stuff like that) obviously are none of those things.

4. Finally this one isn’t a hard and fast thing I’m necessarily bad for, but something I’ve noticed over the years that I think teams should know that will effect their argumentative choices in round – I tend to find I’m less good than a lot of judges for fairness as a standalone impact to T-USFG. I feel like even though its never changed that critical teams will contend that they impact turn fairness, or will at least discuss why the specific type of education they provide (or their critique of the type of education debate in the past has provided), it has become more in vogue for judges to kind of set aside that and put sort of a silo around the fairness impact of the topicality debate and look at that in a vacuum. I’ve just never been good at doing that, or understanding why that happens – I’m a pretty good judge still for framework, I think, but youre less likely to win if you go for a fairness impact only on topicality and expect that to carry the day

Specific Round Types:

K Affs vs Framework

Clash rounds are the rounds I’ve gotten by far the most in the last 5-8 years or so, and generally I like them a lot and they consistently keep me interested. For a long time during the first generation of critical affirmatives that critique debate/the resolution I was a pretty reliable vote for the affirmative. Since the negative side of the no plan debate has caught up, I’ve been much more evenly split, and in general I like hearing a good framework press on a critical aff and adjudicating those rounds. I think I like clash rounds because they have what I would consider the perfect balance between amount of evidence (and specificity of evidence) and amount of analysis of said evidence. I think a good clash round is preferable than almost any round because there’s usually good clash on the evidentiary issues and there’s still a decent amount of ev read, but from the block on its usually pure debate with minimal card dumpage. Aside from the preference discussed above for topicality based framework presses to engage the fairness claims of the affirmative more, I do think that I’m more apt than others to vote negative on presumption, or barring that, to conclude that the affirmative just gets no risk of its advantages (shoutout Juliette Salah!). One other warning for affirmatives – one of the advantages that the K affords is that the evidence is usually sufficiently general that cards which are explained one way (or meant to be used one way) earlier in the round can become exactly what the negative doesn’t need/cant have them be in the 2ar. I think in general judges, especially younger judges, are a little biased against holding the line against arguments that are clearly new or cards that are explained in a clearly different way than they were originally explained. Now that I’m old, I have no such hang ups, and so more than a lot of other judges I’ve seen I’m willing to say “this argument that is in the 2ar attached to (X) evidence is not what was in the 1ar, and so it is disallowed”. (As an aside, I think the WORST thing that has happened to, and can happen to, no plan teams is an overreliance on 1ar blocks. I would encourage any teams that have long 1ar blocks to toss them in the trash – if you need to keep some explanations of card warrants close, please do, but ditch the prewritten blocks, commit yourself to the flow, and listen to the flow of the round, and the actual words of the block. The teams that have the most issue with shifting argumentation between the 1ar and the 2ar are the teams that are so obsessed with winning the prep time battle in the final 2 rebuttals that they become over dependent on blocks and aren’t remotely responsive to the nuance of a 13 minute block that is these days more and more frequently 13 minutes of framework in some way shape or form)

K vs K

Seems like its more likely these days to see clash rounds for me, and next up would be policy rounds. I’d actually like to see more K v K rounds (though considering that every K team needs to face framework enough that they know exactly how to debate it, and its probably more likely/easier to win a clash round than a K v K round on the negative, it may be more strategic to just go for framework on the neg if you don’t defend the USFG on the aff), and I’d especially love to see more well-argued race v high theory rounds. Obviously contextualization of very general evidence that likely isn’t going to be totally on point is the name of the game in these rounds, as well as starting storytelling early for both sides – I’d venture to say the team that can start telling the simple, coherent story (using evidence that can generally be a tad prolix so the degree of difficulty for this is high) early will be the team that generally will get the ballot. The same advice about heavy block use, especially being blocked out into the 1ar, given above counts here as well.

Policy v policy Rounds

I love them. A good specific policy round is a thing of beauty. Even a non-specific counterplan/DA round with a good strong block is always great. As the season goes on its comparatively less likely, just based on the rounds I usually get, that I’ll know about specific terminology, especially deeply nuanced counterplan terminology. I honestly believe good debaters, no matter their argumentative preference or what side of the (mostly spurious) right/left divide in debate you’re on, are good CASE debaters. If you are negative and you really want to back up the speaker point Brinks truck, a 5+ minute case press is probably the easiest way to make that happen.

Individual argument preferences

I’ll give two numbers here – THE LEFT ONE about how good I think I am for an argument based on how often I actually have to adjudicate it, and THE RIGHT ONE will be how much I personally enjoy an argument. Again – I’ll vote for anything you say. But more information about a judge is good, and you may as well know exactly what I enjoy hearing before you decide where to rank me. 1 being the highest, 10 being the lowest.

T (classic) --------------------------------------- 5/4

T (USFG/Framework) ------------------------ 1/1

DA ------------------------------------------------ 3/2

CP ------------------------------------------------- 4/2

Criticism ----------------------------------------- 1/2

Policy Aff --------------------------------------- 2/2

K Aff ---------------------------------------------- 1/3

Theory ------------------------------------------- 8/9

Cheap Shots ------------------------------------ 10/10

Post Round:

I feel like I’ve gotten more requests lately to listen to redos people send me. I’m happy to do that and give commentary if folks want – considering I saw the original speech and know the context behind it, it only makes sense that I would know best whether the redo fixes the deficiencies of the original. Shoot me an email and I’m happy to help out!

Any other questions – just ask!

BACKGROUND (Policy Debate) ~

• Nationally ranked high school debater (2004- 2006)
• Former Director of Debate at IUPUI (2009- 2012)
• Former Director of Debate at the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign (2013-2015)
• Volunteer Judge for the CUDL 4+ years
• Chicago Debate Summer Institute Instructor (Summer 2015)
• Solorio HS Coach (2015- Present)
• Milwaukee Debate League Executive Director (2017- 2020)

TL;DR (The "Round Starts in 2 minutes, Who is this judge?!") *

• Speed: Fine
• Line-by-line: Always
• Signpost: Always
• Roadmap: Yes, off the clock
• Tag Team: Meh
• Default paradigm: Policymaker
• Theory: Great
• T: Lovely
• K: Fine
• Framework: Meh
• CP: Competitive
• DA: Awesome
• Case: Fantastic
• Analysis: Necessary
• Debate Formality: Meh

Longer Form (The "Oh, there's time and we should probably see what this judge is all about")*

SPEED

I'm comfortable with speed. But, with that said you need to be clear, you ideally do not do weird distracting things (like GASPS of air), you ideally slow down on tags, you ideally slow down when reading plan text/advocacy statement.

I ultimately flow based on what I hear within a round regardless of what you think you may or may not have said. I will "clear" you if you are egregiously unintelligible but that's probably a bad sign if I need to do that. If after I "clear" you and I still find myself struggling significantly with quality of presentation I will literally stop flowing for as long as I need to. With all of that said though, I do have a fairly high tolerance for speed.

There is one more important caveat I think it's necessary to say here: if you are able to spread and your opponents are clearly not able to handle it (e.g. literally cannot flow) I expect you to adapt to the round (i.e. do not steamroll a team because you are able to overwhelm them with quantity of arguments). Speed is a tool in the world of debate and I fully expect you to use it but not at the point where it becomes abusive for the other team and takes away from the educational value of the round for all parties.

LINE-BY-LINE

Please try your best to stick to the structures of the round. Please do your best to frame your arguments in the "They say but we say" structure. Even if things get messy, please do your best to consolidate, group, or summarize arugments together and respond to them in a clear manner. Try and not jump all over the place.

With all of that said, I think this is a skill that all debaters aspire for. Sometimes rounds get messy and all I really do is ask that you do your best to try and line up your arguments as best as you can. The effort is important at the end of the day. I know all judges like a clean line-by-line, and I know that it can get lost in the moment, so... all I ask is that you try your best (cause, let's be honest, is there going to be a judge that ever says "No line-by-line"?)

SIGNPOST

Part and parcel with the idea of line-by-line format is signposts. I think it's incredibly important for teams to make sure they give proper sign posts. Give me a remider of where you are, let me know where I should be flowing, let me know what's going on. Give me a sign that you're about to move to the next card (usually a "AND NEXT" is a good indicator). Signposts help keep you organized, help your opponent stay organized, and helps the judge stay organized. It's an important skill to have... and all I ask is that you try your best.

ROADMAP

Please. There are four things I've been seeing that drive me absolutely insane - and apparently there's enough for me to even write about it.

1) Roadmapping the 1AC. Don't do it. It's not necessary. It's not a thing.

2) Asking if I want a roadmap. The answer is YES. The answer is always YES (with the exception of the 1AC, because, once again, don't do it).

3) 1NC roadmap - just tell me how many off, and then where you plan on going on. Don't tell me what the Off cases are, that's not necessary.

4) Roadmap by being clear and concise: "DA, K, Case in order of solvency then advantage one." Do not roadmap: "I'm going to go a little bit on solvency, and then maybe the K...and if I have time maybe the DA...."

TAG TEAM

Tag teaming is okay as long as 1) the other team is okay with it and 2) as long as it is not abused. The person being questioned should be responding to a majority of the questions. The partner should be able to help but should absolutely not be dominating the cross-ex. Keep it minimal if you are not "standing up" during cross.

DEFAULT PARADIGM

I like policy rounds. I think debate is a forum for analyzing policy so my default is always to be a policy maker. But, with that said, I've been engaged in this activity enough that I also just see it as a free-form open game space for debaters to discuss whatever issues, in whatever format they want to. If you are making arguments that deviate outside of the traditional policy arguments that's totally cool! I'm down (with caveats I'll explain on each specific argument below) but you need to give me a paradigm to judge in otherwise it probably won't go in your favor (or at least it'll be more of an upward climb).

THEORY

I used to debate theory all the time. I don't think abuse necessarily has to be proven within a round to win this argument. I do think you need to make well articulated, well warranted, well impacted out arguments though. I am more on the side of rejecting the argument and not the team but depending on the flow of the round I can be convinced otherwise. I think a well run theory argument is something a debater can fill a full 8 minutes with, if necessary. That is the level of analysis I love for theory. The quick 10s blips are not particularly compelling.

K

Okay. I really do like Ks. BUT I need to see that the team running it (whether as a negative argument or aff advocacy statement) has a very good understanding of the Kritikal arguments. I think too many K cards are incredibly power tagged and full of unnecessary jargon. Keep things simple, pretend I've never heard of your literature/author, and explain it to me, do not assume I know your literature or author. For example, if you use the term "war machine" repeatedly but never explain what the "war machine" is, I will not do the mental work for you. You need to at a minimum explain it in the beginning of your speech. I think the K debate ultimately is made or broken at the link level -- generic Ks will not really do that much for me. I want to see that you understand the K you are running, and that you can actually find specific, concrete links, into your opponents' arguments.

Second, I think alternatives should actually be viable alternatives. Tell me what the altnerative is and show me how it can work. I think that should come without saying but often I hear alternatives that don't necessarily connect with the thesis of the K or ultimately just don't make sense. If the argument does not make sense then I will very unlikely vote for it.

FRAMEWORK

Framework arguments are kind of boring these days to be honest. Try and keep it interesting by being specific. Show me how the framework interacts with the rest of your arguments. Explain to me how your framework works. Give me analysis, bring it outside of the world of generic cards and let me know how the framework works within the round we are in.

CP

Ideally CPs are non-topical and competitive. I think they are viable options but there needs to be a clear solvency story presented and particularly good impact analysis to balance the world of the plan against the world of the counter plan.

DA

DAs are great. The more specific the better. Generic DAs happen, of course, but the better the link story the better. If you can give me a good DA to the case then you have a significant chance of being able to win the round but it has to be well articulated, it has to be well warranted, it has to be well impacted out against the world of the plan.

CASE

Let's be real, the more specific case arguments you can make the better. Who doesn't like clash and actually engaging in the arguments?

ANALYSIS

Give me analysis. It's not good enough to give me impact calculus in the form of magnitude, timeframe, and significance. I need to understand how you reach the world of the impacts. I need to understand why the impacts are even a possibility. The magnitude, timeframe, and significance formula is fine and all but I need much more than that.

DEBATE FORMALITY

I strongly prefer both teams time themselves, accountability is a good skill to have, but at the request of Tab I will also be timing rounds as necessary. I don't really care where you're speaking from. I'm not particularly formal about the rounds.

--------------------------------------------------------------

* I generally view the role of the judge as being up to the debaters. If you think I should be voting on a movement, tell me why and how the ballot functions. If you think I should be the President making a decision, tell me why and how the ballot functions. I try my best to go into rounds with as few assumptions and biases as possible (recognizing that it's impossible to remove all bias as a human) and you would never see me make a claim that I am the President of a round before it starts (as an example). In short, as much as humanly possible, I try and be a tabula rasa judge so it is on the debaters to make their case for how I should view the round, how I should weigh my decision, and how my ballot should function.

~ A comment on speaker points if I am judging a Wisconsin, non-national circuit tournament. My default speaker point calibration is set to a 28.1 in accordance with national debate trends. Within the state of Wisconsin I have traditionally held an average of 27.5/28 with the idea that points should not and cannot go lower than a 25 (as a matter of custom and as a matter of rule at many tournaments since at least 2002). However, I have recently seen ballots within the state of Wisconsin where points within the low 20s (e.g. "23") seem to be acceptable and endorsed by the state. With that in mind, I am specifically calibrating my average point distribution to a 26 to ensure consistency with state practices.

Short Version:

Yes, put me on the email chain: jtierneyiv@yahoo.com.

Background: I am a former CX debater and head coach at Marquette High. I also was a lab leader and instructor for a number of years at Michigan National Debate Institute.

Paradigm: I vote for the team that wins their arguments in the round. I can handle any speed so long as you are moderately understandable.

Theory/Framework/Topicality: Raw Theory arguments. I do not love them, but if they are applicable, I will vote on them.

Counterplans: I like a good counterplan. I do believe it must meet its burdens of topicality and competitiveness, however.

K: I will support a good K. Like any set of arguments, I expect strong warrants.

Disadvantages: I enjoy a good disad debate. I have no problem with extinction level impacts, but I like a good internal link story.

In Round Character: I do not like offensive language, treating your partner or the opponent with disrespect, or other similar behavior. I also do not have a problem with prompting, calling out time or even assisting with C-X. However, there is a limit. If you are giving your speech or C-X for your partner, I won't really enjoy it.

My ideal debate is a good, fast policy debate with lots of clash.

My preferred form of address is "Warchief!"

Thank you!

LONG VERSION

General Paradigm

I am a former debater and head coach at Marquette High. I also was a lab leader and instructor for a number of years at Michigan National Debate Institute. I had multiple bids to TOC in multiple years. It was fun. I recommend it.

I'm open to any type of debate except those that mock the debate form. My favorite debates to judge are fast policy debates with clash. I will attempt to limit my in round intervention, but if there's little explanation, I will consider intervening. Don't make me do it.

Everything in this paradigm is a predisposition, not something I will absolutely hold to. I try to limit the application of my pre-conceptions in the debate round. I am not a fan of judges importing their politics or worldview into a decision. In other words, I might vote for an argument I personally loathe if the debater won it and won its weight in the round. You should win because you're a good debater, not because you made me feel good about my life choices.

Disads

Like I said, I love a good DA debate. Immigration bad DAs are okay with me if they are based in evidence. If you think that's objectionable, then why are we even debating immigration policy? Tell me why immigration is bad in a thoughtful manner, though. Racist or political tripe from either direction on the spectrum will given the weight it deserves--almost none. My threshold for explaining the story of a DA is pretty low. As long as you extend all the levels of the DA, I'm likely to understand it, new DA or old. On case turns- refer to what I said above regarding immigration bad.

Counterplans

Unlike my son, I do think counterplans should be competitive and non-topical. A counterplan which is not competitive does not argue against the resolution. I will accept advantage level cps, but you will have to work hard on net benefits. ...and I expect actual research and solvency.

Condo is good up to 1-2 CP and 1K. Condo's fine/debatable at 2CPs and 1K. After that, I become open to abuse arguments. I'll vote for condo, don't be afraid to go for it in front of me.

International or state fiat can be ok. Tell me why it works. Process is fine. Just have a solvency advocate please. This applies to Aff teams as well.

T

I like a good to debate, but I prefer policy analysis. Don't run silly T arguments. Tell me why your interpretation is important. If you are presenting a limiting argument, be prepared to support your limits with specificity. Don't assume your limit is good, tell me why! I am more in favor of a looking at T from a clash or neg ground perspective.

Ks

I like well-developed, clear link stories that clash with the affirmative and turn the case. If you can give me impacts that make me evaluate the actual consequences of hypothetical implementation of the Aff's policy action, I like it. I like a solid ALT.

K Affs

I generally think that topic education and clash are intrinsically good things. But the Aff can win by showing the resolution debate is bad---it just might be a fairly high threshold.

Speaks

Obviously 27-30 because kids now get grade inflation. I like clarity and speed. If you can't be clear, dont speed. Don't be a mush mouth.

Overall, Have fun.

Noah Trilling
noah.trilling@gmail.com

Background

I did policy debate from 2003-2007 (Oceans-Service) at Sheboygan North High School with Jon Voss (currently coaching at Glenbrook South High School) In 2007-2008 (Poverty) I was an assistant coach at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, WI under head coach Bill Batterman (currently coaching Woodward Academy) In 2008-2009 (Energy) I was the head coach of Brookfield Central High School. From 2009-2013 I judged frequently at National and Regional Tournaments.

Overview
Paradigm-Tabula Rasa: I’m an open-minded critic but, like everyone, I have certain argument preferences. Don’t let my personal argument preferences alter your strategy, however. You should run arguments based on your pretournament preparations and the arguments you hear in the debate. The arguments that you feel most comfortable with and believe are appropriate for the round will be your best arguments. I’d rather hear arguments you’re familiar with than have you alter your strategy and not know the evidence. I will evaluate all arguments presented in the debate and attempt to minimize judge intervention (to things like mischaracterizing evidence, cheating, etc).

Delivery: Since I've been out of practice evaluating debates for a while now, I've come to prefer evaluating slower debates with more comparative evidence analysis than rounds won by spreading the other team out of the debate. If you are speaking very quickly it is possible I will miss some nuances of your analytics. You need to slow down and highlight these arguments or I may miss them.

Evidence Quality: Researching high quality evidence, explaining warrants effectively, and executing case-specific strategies is the surest way to win in front of me. At the end of the debate I almost always call for evidence. If you are overstating the quality of your evidence or mischaracterizing its claims I might simply disregard it entirely. You are absolutely responsible for providing truthful evidence from qualified sources that accurately represents the nature and scope of your claims.

How to Win
Topicality: I find reasonability claims a bit illogical and unfair in the same way that I find “Counterinterpretation: Only our case is topical” illogical and unpredictable. Any offensive reason that you are "reasonably topical" should be applied as a standard for a definition that includes your affirmative. Alternatively you can spin these arguments as offense against the negatives interpretation. If you can not meet the negatives interpretation AND you can not provide an interpretation with sufficient offense to win the debate, I fail to see why the affirmative should win a topicality debate. Although competing interpretations can be a race to the bottom, the affirmative still has the burden of providing a reasonable, predictable interpretation that includes the affirmative. Instead of making vague claims about reasonability, invest time in how your counterinterpretation is grounded in a literature base, preserves core affirmative cases or preserves negative counterplan, kritik and disadvantage ground.

That being said, I don’t like voting on topicality. I’d much rather resolve substantive issues about the plan than deal with absurd distinctions on the definition of increase or substantial that have no effect on the division of ground. Negatives need to spend a substantial amount of time in the block and the 2NR explaining the significance of the violation in terms of specific ground and education losses or prove an instance of abuse in the round.

Theory: I am growing increasingly disturbed by the proliferation of blatantly non-competitive plan-inclusive counterplans designed to conform to generic disadvantages (spending, politics, etc). Negatives need to be more creative, plan case-specific strategies and cut advantage counterplans instead of avoiding debating the case.

However, like topicality, I would much rather resolve substantive issues about the plan than vote on cheap shot theory arguments. PICs are one of the few theory arguments I have strong feelings about. I also typically find theory as a reason to reject an argument, not the team. Especially with PICs though winning theory can be a significant blow to the 2NR’s impact calculus.

Kritiks: Kritiks are excellent when they are executed properly. However, it is important that you are able to explain the significance of your impact, especially if it is operating outside the traditional utilitarian/policymaking framework. You also need to explain how the alternative functions to overcome the status quo and solve the 1AC.

Many teams have difficulty answering kritiks and I don’t understand why. Kritik alternatives tend to greatly overstate the impact of their adoption. Its important for affirmative teams to highlight the specificity of 1AC solvency evidence to create solvency deficits to the alternative. Instead of allowing kritik hacks to dominate the internal link debates, remind me of the practicality of the affirmative and its ability to create incremental positive change.

Counterplans: Counterplans need to be functionally competitive and have a solvency advocate. As I noted above, I am not a big fan of a lot of Generic PICs. Most generic PICs cede too much of the solvency and impact debate to the affirmative. At the same time, PICs rarely capture the intent and the specificity of the 1AC cards, leaving the negatives with a solvency deficit. Instead of running generic PICs to capture 1AC solvency evidence, run advantage counterplans or case specific PICs with specific solvency evidence, internal net-benefits, case-specific disadvantages and impact turns on case.

Disadvantages/Case: I generally file all globally cataclysmic events (environmental collapse, nuclear war, extinction, etc) in the same category of terrible fates. To win you should emphasize probability in impact analysis. Having high quality evidence and extrapolating their warrants will go a long way to convince me of the probability of your impact scenarios. Focusing on smaller impact scenarios is a great way to distinguish your plan from the solvency claims in PICs, big disadvantages, and kritik impact turns and alternatives.

Speaker Point
30/29.5-Perfect/Excellent: A perfect or nearly perfect performance.

29/28.5-Above Average: A good performance that combines technicality, strategic execution, and impressive evidence quality. These speakers should be in contention to break and receive a speaker award.

28/27.5-Average: This indicates an average performance. I would give these to a team with sufficient technical skills and execution to win the debate, but perhaps not in contention to clear or win a speaker award.

27/26.5-Below Average: This indicates a poor performance such as a major strategic error or technical error that had an effect on the outcome of the debate. These will usually be given to a losing team that struggled throughout the entire debate or a debater who made an especially serious strategic error.

Current Director of Debate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, previously coached at Wake Forest (2 years), University of Central Florida (2 years)

(They/Them Pronouns)

I believe debate is for the debaters. Do your thing, and do it well.

I try to leave as many of my argumentative preferences at the door as possible, but I generally believe a few things:

1. Debate is both a game and a site of activism, and the best conversations about aff and neg ground take both those functions into account.

2. Debaters who tell a story and make strategic decisions about where to apply nuance are more persuasive than those who delve into intricacy but don't frame it as part of a cohesive narrative of the round.

3. Quality > Quantity (of arguments, neg positions, etc)

4. Process > Product

Some things I love

- Mechanistic analysis- how do things happen in your scenario?

- Cards that are highlighted to include full sentences and warrants.

- Innovation.

- Getting strategically aggro in CX.

- Caring about your opponents. Just don't be the worst pls.

Yes, include me on the email chain: CVVitolo at gmail

Jon Voss

Northside College Prep

I coached high school policy debate full-time for 12 years, National Service through Legal Immigration. I've been around debate, first as a debater and then as a coach, since 02. I sat out Legal Immigration and Arms Sales, but I judged and researched some for the Criminal Justice Reform, the Water Resources, and NATO topics. Debate is not my full-time job – I work in higher education as a program/product manager – so I don't cut a ton of cards, I'm not really up on what teams are reading, I don't know what topicality norms were established over the summer, etc. I can still flow just as well as I used to, which is to say "deficiently."

Yes email chain: jvoss1223 AT gmail DOT com. I don't read along during the debate, I just like it so that I can ensure nobody's clipping cards and also so that I can begin my decision-making process immediately after the debate ends. This is important for how you debate -- using the speech doc instead of your flow as a guide is to your detriment.

-- fiscal redistribution topic - I heard a few debates on it before the season started but (as of the early season tournaments) you should consider my topic knowledge extremely limited, especially as it relates to topicality norms and complex explanations of fringe economic theories. I do have a basic understanding of the academic concepts that undergird the topic, however, and I will be somewhat involved in argument production this year.

-- Almost every debate I've seen so far this year has collapsed into a very-hard-to-resolve "growth good"/"degrowth good" debate. These have been late-breaking and I spent the bulk of my decision time wading through ev that didn't get me any closer to an answer I found satisfactory. In each instance, I was unhappy with amount of intervention and lack of depth involved in my decision. In that regard:

*if there's a winning final rebuttal that does not require you to wade into these waters, give that speech instead. I am willing (and maybe even eager) to grab onto something external and use that as a cudgel to decide that the growth debate was difficult to resolve and vote on <other thing>. I think I would be receptive, too, to arguments about how I should react in a debate that you think might be difficult to resolve, but this is just a hunch.

*you would almost certainly be better-served debating evidence that's already been read instead of reading more cards. This is especially true if the 1ac/1nc/both included a bunch of evidence on this issue...your fourth, "yes mindset shift" card is unlikely to win you the debate (or even the specific argument in question) but debating the issue in greater detail than the other team might.

*debated equally, I'm meaningfully better for the standard defenses of growth, especially as it relates to successfully achieving the changes that would be necessary to create a sustainable model of degrowth.

-- a note on plan texts: say what you mean, mean what you say, and have an advocate that supports it. If the AFF's plan is resolutional word salad, will be unapologetically rooting for NEG exploitation in the way of cplan competition, DA links, and/or presumption-style takeouts. I guess the flip side of this is that I have never heard a persuasive explanation of a way to evaluate topicality arguments outside of the words in the plan text, so as long as the AFF goes for some sort of "we meet" argument, I'm basically unwilling to vote NEG. "The plan text says most or all of the resolution (and another word or three) but their solvency evidence describes something very different," is an extremely persuasive negative line of argument, but I think it's a solvency argument.

-- Rehighlighting - you've gotta read itand explain what you believe to be the implication of whatever portion of their evidence you read. I'm somewhat sympathetic to allowing insertion as a check against (aggressively) declining evidence quality in debate, but debate is first and foremost a communicative activity.

-- I don't need nor want a card doc at the end of the debate. I have everything in my inbox already. I know what cards you did/didn't read because I was flowing. I'm honestly a little skeptical of debaters providing judges a lens through which to evaluate different controversies after the 2AR has ended. And to be frank, most of these debates aren't so close that judgement calls on ev are necessary to determine who won.

-- In favor of fewer, better-developed 1NC arguments. I don't have a specific number that I think is best: I've seen 1NC's that include three totally unwinnable offcase arguments and 1NC's that include six or seven viable ones. But generally I think the law of diminishing marginal returns applies. Burden of proof is a precondition of the requirement that the affirmative answer the argument, and less ev/fewer highlighted words in the name of more offcase positions seems to make it less likely that the neg will fulfill the aforementioned burden of proof.

-- Highlighting, or lack thereof, has completely jumped the shark. Read more words.

-- Clarity, or lack thereof, has been bad for awhile, but online debate really exacerbates the problem. I won't use the speech doc to bail you out. Just speak more slowly. You will debate better. I will understand your argument better. Judges who understand your argument with more clarity than your opponent's argument are likely to side with you.

-- I am generally bad for broad-strokes “framing” arguments that ask the judge to presume that the risk of <> is especially low. Indicts of mini-max risk assessment make sense in the abstract, but it is the affirmative’s responsibility to apply these broad theories to whatever objections the negative has advanced. “The aff said each link exponentially reduces the probability of the DA, and the DA has links, so you lose” is a weak ballot and one that I am unexcited to write.

-- I am generally better for a narrow solution that tackles an instance of oppression than an undefined/murky solution that aims to move the needle further than the pragmatic alternative. Some of this new stuff about philosophical competition and associated negative framework arguments that block the AFF from leveraging the 1ac as offense is wild.

-- I am often way less interested in "impact defense" than "link defense." This is equally true of my thoughts toward negative disadvantages and affirmative advantages. For example, if the aff wins with certainty that they stop a US-China war, I'm highly unlikely to vote neg and place my faith in our ability to the big red telephone at the White House to dampen the conflict. Similarly, if the neg wins that your plan absolutely crashes the economy by disrupting the market or causing some agenda item to fail, I will mostly be unconcerned that there are some other historical explanations for great power wars than "resource scarcity." The higher up the link "chain" you can indict your opponent's argument, the better.

-- Sort of a related point, but I thought it might be good to separate this out. I have found myself mentally exhausted at the end of almost every Zoom debate I've judged. There is something about flicking your eyes across three screens while transcribing an entire debate that's occurring in my headphones that is so much more draining than what debate looked like back in the day. I think this impacts how I judge. I certainly don't have any inclination to spend the decision time reading a bunch of evidence if I can avoid it. I don't think that's laziness (but maybe...) -- I'm just tired of staring at a screen. Anything the 2NR / 2AR can do to help craft a simple path to victory that allows me to minimize the number of "decision tree" questions I need to resolve is highly recommended.

-- Don't clip cards. If you're accusing a team of it, you need to be able to present me with a quality recording to review. Burden of proof lies with the accusing team, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is my standard for conviction. If you advance any sort of ethics challenge, the debate ends and is decided on the grounds of that ethics challenge alone.

-- Yes judge kick unless one team explicitly makes an argument that convinces me to conceive differently of presumption. Speaking of, presumption is "least amount of change" no matter what. This could mean that presumption *still* lies with the neg even if the aff wins the status quo is no longer something the judge can endorse (but only if the CP is less change than the plan).

-- Fairly liberal with the appropriate scope of negative fiat as it relates to counterplans. Fairly aff-leaning regarding counterplan competition, at least in theory -- but evidence matters more than general pleas to protect affirmative competitive equity. I could be convinced otherwise, but my default has always been that the neg advocate must be as good as whatever the aff is working with. This could mean that an “advocate-less” counterplan that presses an internal link is fair game if the aff is unable to prove that they…uh…have an internal link.

-- T-USFG: Debate is no longer my full-time job, so I think I have a little less skin in the game on this issue. I also suspect the Trump presidency and the associated exposure of explicit racism within the United States may have made me a better judge for affirmatives that do not instrumentally defend the topic/federal government action. I'm not sure how much better, though, and I'm probably at best a risky bet for affirmatives hoping to beat a solid 2NR on T-USFG. If you do have me in this type of debate:

**Won't vote on any sort of argument that amounts to, "debate is bad, so we will concede their argument that we destroy debate/make people quit/exclude X population of student, that's good."

**Affirmatives would be well served to prioritize the link between defending a particular state action and broader observations about the flaws of the state.

**Procedural fairness is most important. The ballot can rectify fairness violations much more effectively than it can change anything else, and I am interested in endorsing a vision of debate that is procedurally fair. This is both the single strongest internal link to every other thing debate can do for a studeny and a standalone impact. I am worse for the “portable skills” impacts about information processing, decision-making, etc.

I am a PF judge for Fort Atkinson, although I have judged policy in the past. I judged policy from a traditional policy-maker position and tend to prefer cases that are on-topic and had a course of action that I could take. While we are not looking for a plan from Public Forum debaters, arguing the topic directly plays right into my preferences, so it will be tough for PF debaters to go wrong with me.

Speed should not be an issue for public forum debaters, however I know that some students compete in several formats. Having judged policy in the past, I am comfortable with a novice-to-varsity level of speed, however, if I think that you are speaking too quickly for a public forum setting, I will say "clear" up to 3 times. If you speed up again, I will merely start to take off speaker points. If you are speaking so quickly that I cannot flow the debate (which should never happen in PF; this isn't policy!), that will simply be to the detriment of your case. I will not judge what I cannot flow.

I judge primarily base on the arguments/analytics that are presented in the round. I feel that speaker points are best suited to reward debaters for style. In other words, while arguments, facts, and logical deductions are the bread and butter of any debate, if you make it look good or convince me that you know your case backward and forward, that will be reflected in speaker points.

If you are arguing from a moral high ground, please be sure to emphasize that I should be considering moral obligations before considering other aspects (such as utilitarianism) and why. For example, I need something in your arguments telling me why I should value human lives above, say, dollars and cents, but from there on, this can be referred back to as a moral imperative without having to re-argue the original moral argument. Just be sure to include something in your summary or final focus that mentions that I should vote based on moral obligation above all other considerations.

When you are wrapping up the debate, please indicate clearly which arguments you think are the most important for me to consider and why. If there are flaws in the opposing argument, or if you want to toss some analytics, I am fine with this. Analytics are the application of logic to draw a conclusion based on the evidence at hand and they indicate to me that you've been seriously considering the side of the argument that you are presenting.

On my ballot, I try to indicate areas of improvement for everyone along with what was done well. If I indicate a mispronunciation, it is only to improve your debate for the next round, not to embarrass you. While a large vocabulary is desirable, nobody can claim to be perfectly familiar with every single word. English is far too large of a language and it can be terribly inconsistent.

You should also know that I am an Air Force Brat. I grew up on an Air Force Base, near a naval station, that housed Navy personnel and Marines. I am familiar with military equipment of various kinds, how they function, and the role they play in current and past military strategies. Tactical maneuvering for military and political advantage are not unknown to me and I have a good grasp of recent conflicts and their history. Please don't quote conflicts and dates unless you are certain because I will not find it convincing if it's incorrect.

Quantum.ShidoWolf@gmail.com

_

Public Forum

Until recently, I have judged mostly Policy Debate. So my views on judging a round stem from that experience. I tend to look at a PF round in pretty much the same way. I am used to looking for what the plan is, what issues are currently there, and how do you solve them. I do however, understand that some PF topics don't tend to nicely allow for this kind of debate. With a few PF rounds under my belt, I have come to shift my focus a bit more on the quality of your arguments in the round.

So things to understand when you debate in front of me:

· Don't speed read. I understand there are time constraints in the round, but In the short constructive times, I don't want to have to try and hear and understand 20-30 different pieces of evidence and arguments. Be clear and understandable.

· Give me a quality framework in which I should be judging the round. For example, If you argue morals are key make me believe it and show me WHY and HOW the round should be judged under that framework.

· When presenting impacts please make sure that they are realistic. I don’t want Bob yelling at his dog to cause a nuclear war, but I am willing to listen to geopolitical tension leading to war.

· If you plan on giving me a roadmap, make it a bit more than just. "I'm gonna go over there stuff, then mine.." Tell me the order of the opponent's arguments you're going to talk about, and then the same for your own arguments. In PF time is limited, knowing where on my flow I need to be looking is helpful.

· If you're going to denounce an opponents source, make sure you have quality evidence to back up the claim. Don't just read something that says "well this small little group says he sucks." or "I don't think that place is a good source.

_

_

_

POLICY DEBATE

It's been a few years since I judged Debate. (you won't see those rounds on Tabroom). But I used to judge both Novice and Varsity. I just recently started Judging again. With that in mind:

My policy paradigm comes from when I debated 10+ years ago under my coach. I have adopted an old-school policy paradigm much like my coach and fellow debaters from that time. I judge and evaluate the round based on what I feel is the best policy for the Unites States under the given resolution. Everything you do in my round should be argued under that framework; I am a president. Not specifically any president, just a hypothetical president.

Line-by-Line

Speed - I'm not a big fan of speed. So Don't. I understand that because you have time constraints, you'll have to speak faster than you really would in a normal debate atmosphere. I understand that. You still wouldn't argue auctioneer-style, especially in front of the President. Quality, not Quantity, is going to sway my decision. Reading 20 cards in a round does you no good if they are not on my flow. No amount of "but they didn't counter the six T-blips we fired off in the first two minutes of our 1NC" is going to help you...because I didn't bother writing them down. Clarity is a big part of this - Especially Tags on Evidence. I give a only few Clear/Slow warnings before I stop flowing.

Topicality - You might think this can't be argued, but it can. If, as president, I hired two teams of advisors to debate what I should do on a topic, and one of them did something besides what I hired them to argue, I'd fire them. In the case of the round, I drop them. It also means that if the other side isn't really non-topical, and you're just showing off your silly squirrel definition, I'm likely to just through it out of the round. So make sure you have a good case in reality, not in debateland. I am by far more of a "story T" judge than a "technical T" judge. Tell me the abuse story (in-round or potential) and explain a small number of good theory points. More is not better.

Advantages / Dis-Advantages - Clearly, the president has to be concerned about nuclear war. But to suggest to him that everything leads there? You'd be quickly dismissed as a nutcase and never allowed back. This goes for both sides. Go there and all the other team has to do is spend 20 seconds showing you to be a nutcase and your impact goes away. I like real impacts because I am trying to (fictitiously) decide real policy. On politics DAs, I'm not delusional. I know I'm not the president and I'm not trying to artificially limit your ground. DAs/Advantages that argue Trump good or Trump bad or whatever are still okay in the round. The only thing I will not allow is a DA that destroy affirmative fiat. So, do not run “you spend capital to pass plan” DAs. However, “reaction” DAs, even those that involve political capital, are obviously very important.

Counter-Plans - Absolutely, within the framework. Tell me we should let China do it; we should consult the EU first, etc. You must keep the CP non-topical and competitive however. I hired two teams of COMPETING advisors, not lobbyists who will each sell me their own aff plan.

Kritiks - Be selective. Kritiks that function in the real world with policy alternatives are great. The president absolutely should care about the moral underpinnings of the Aff case or neg counter-plan. They don't always, but I will. On the other hand, if the American people will laugh me out of office for rejecting a good idea because of some bizarre solipsistic construction a strung-out philosopher dreamed up, I'm not voting on it.

"Performance" I'm trying to do what's best for our country ON THE RESOLUTION. If your performance makes the resolution tangential, I'll treat you like a nutcase and throw you out of my office (i.e. I won't vote on it). Also see the comments on non-realistic K above.

Additional Notes -

1.Teams that just say "On the X Flow" and then read a card. I have seven cards on that flow. Where do you want me to put it? I'm not going to do your work for you.

2. Perms. You don't just get to throw out one-sentence perms, do nothing else, then make them a 5 minute rebuttal. If I don't understand how the perm functions after the 2AC, I'm not voting on it. It's the same with a K alt - fair ground, folks.

Finally, the president is a busy man. You do your arguing and don't expect me to do it for you by calling for all your cards at the end of the round. If you didn't make it clear enough, I guess you didn't consider it a very important point for me to consider. I'll only call for cards that are questioned in the round if I need to see them to make a decision.