For email chains ... my email is amod (at) oes . edu

I am a former the HS policy debate coach and CEDA Coach. Founding member of the Portland Urban Debate League - expanding debate opportunities to underserved schools in Portland Metro.

I was a policy/LD debater for Lincoln High School in the early 90s and CEDA debater for The American University in Washington, DC. Upon graduation, I returned to coach the American CEDA program for three more years. After a long hiatus, I’ve been called back to the activity that I love. Beyond my coaching experience, I am a founder of the Portland Urban Debate League.

Debate is awesome! But … it’s only as good as we, as a community, make it. I am coming back to the activity to make sure that it continues for future generations. Teams that disrespect their opponent, or this activity, will be dealt with severely on my ballot. Integrity is not something to trifle with for short-term strategic benefits.

1. Homophobic, racist, religiously intolerant, or sexist language and/or behavior will not be tolerated.

2. Rudeness, dishonesty, cruelty and vulgarity devalues the activity.

3. Have fun! Strive for creativity, humor, debate scholarship, humility, compassion, and being strategic.

Stylistic Overview

1. CLASH!

2. Quality over quantity. Just because I can handle a faster round doesn't mean that it impresses me.

3. Smart analytics is always better than lazy warrantless evidence.

4. Debates about evidence QUALITY and CONTEXT are to be encouraged!

5. I am ok with tag teaming during cross ex so long as it provides greater clarity and isn’t abused.

6. So long as it’s not a new case, advantage/scenario or neg position. The negative and affirmative positions should be disclosed pre round, if asked.

7. If asked, evidence must be made available to the opposition.

8. Provide a clear decision-making calculus from the start throughout the round and please do all the impact analysis for me.

9. I believe one or two prestandards (a propri) arguments are sufficient, anything more and I lean towards abuse.

10. I've been away from the activity for a few years and online debating creates some clarity issues. Let's bring it down a notch or two while my ear gets retrained to the activity.

Positions

Kritiks

I’m more than open to them. But know that I’d probably rather judge just about anything … than a postmodernism debate. Even if you argued this in front of me 5 times this season, debate a K as if I’ve never heard the topic before.

Topicality/theory debates

Slow down for clarity, these debates tend to be nuanced. Try to limit these positions to only abusive situation

Disadvantages

Not shockingly, case specific disads are better than generic.

Counterplans

Competition is key. Aff leaning on Conditionality. Legit perms must include all of plan and part of the counter plan.

I will try to judge whatever you want, within reason, so long as you justify it.

MacLean Andrews—Gonzaga Prep

I debated policy in high school and NPDA/NPTE parli at Point Loma. I then coached NPDA/NPTE at PLNU. I am now the Director of Forensics at Gonzaga Prep in Spokane, WA. I mostly coach and judge high school CX and LD now. I see debate as an academic game and that’s how I will judge the round. Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round or email me if you have questions while filling out pref sheets (first initial last name at gprep.com)

1.Speaker points

1. 28-29.9 usually.

2.Critical Arguments

1. I think there are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. I am more than willing to listen to any type/kind of arguments but nothing will make me cringe more than a bad K debate. In the end it is up to the debaters in the round to tell me what framework I am to use to evaluate the round.

3.Topicality.

1. I tend to see T through a competing interpretations framework unless told so otherwise. I used to say that I have a fairly high threshold for T but I am finding myself voting for it more and more. If it is the best strategy you have to win the round go for it.

4.Theory

1. I am willing to listen to all theory arguments as long as a team can give me a reason to vote on the position. Theory positions should have a framework/interp, arguments for your position, and voters/impacts. Simply stating fairness or education as voting issues usually isn’t enough to win. Impact out why fairness or education or (insert voter) is important.

5.Weighing Arguments

1. I will default to Net Bens…but if you want to use an alternative weighing mechanism please explain and provide justification for it.
2. I appreciate it when weighing is done in the speeches. The last thing you want is for me to have to weigh your arguments for you.

7.Random Thoughts

1. Speed is great if clear.
2. The round is for the debaters, do what you have to do to win. I will try to adapt to you instead of you adapting to me.
3. Impact calc wins debates
4. Debate should be fun.

MacLean Andrews—Gonzaga Prep

I debated policy in high school and NPDA/NPTE parli at Point Loma. I then coached NPDA/NPTE at PLNU. I am now the Director of Forensics at Gonzaga Prep in Spokane, WA. I mostly coach and judge high school CX and LD now. I see debate as an academic game and that’s how I will judge the round. Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round or email me if you have questions while filling out pref sheets (first initial last name at gprep.com)

1.Speaker points

1. 28-29.9 usually.

2.Critical Arguments

1. I think there are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. I am more than willing to listen to any type/kind of arguments but nothing will make me cringe more than a bad K debate. In the end it is up to the debaters in the round to tell me what framework I am to use to evaluate the round.

3.Topicality.

1. I tend to see T through a competing interpretations framework unless told so otherwise. I used to say that I have a fairly high threshold for T but I am finding myself voting for it more and more. If it is the best strategy you have to win the round go for it.

4.Theory

1. I am willing to listen to all theory arguments as long as a team can give me a reason to vote on the position. Theory positions should have a framework/interp, arguments for your position, and voters/impacts. Simply stating fairness or education as voting issues usually isn’t enough to win. Impact out why fairness or education or (insert voter) is important.

5.Weighing Arguments

1. I will default to Net Bens…but if you want to use an alternative weighing mechanism please explain and provide justification for it.
2. I appreciate it when weighing is done in the speeches. The last thing you want is for me to have to weigh your arguments for you.

7.Random Thoughts

1. Speed is great if clear.
2. The round is for the debaters, do what you have to do to win. I will try to adapt to you instead of you adapting to me.
3. Impact calc wins debates
4. Debate should be fun.

Debated for four years at Topeka West High School in Kansas. The topics I debated were increasing social services, reducing military presence in a sundry list of countries, space exploration, and increasing American infrastructure. I participated for six years in shared governance at University of Kansas and I am currently an attorney for a state agency in Kansas.

SIGN POST ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS. IF YOUR ARGUMENT DOES NOT MAKE IT ON THE FLOW IT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE ROUND!!

*Be respectful. If you put down your opponent it's vote against you. Racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, -insert other "ism" here- are all votes against you.

*Content warnings are very much appreciated, especially if your entire speech is going to be about it

The "meat & potatoes": I'd like to say I'm tabula rasa but I'm really not; I will vote on whatever teams tell me to vote on...as long as they can explain WHY. If not, I will most likely default policy because this activity is, at its base, about discussing policy impacts. Speed is absolutely not allowed. You can go faster than the average conversation level, I naturally talk a bit faster than other people, but there is a threshold. Speed is not an argument and to suggest it is an argument is ableist. Kritiks are fine, but please explain them to me. You can that capitalism is bad, but you need to explain in a policy context why the aff makes it worse or uniquely empowers it or something.

Traditional v. Non-traditional affs: I'm not super familiar with them, but if you can explain why your non-traditional aff is better than I might be inclined to vote for it.

Specific Arguments:

Case debate: I'm not a stickler on having a card to back up an obvious lack of solvency. That being said, unless you are an expert in a particular scientific field, or philosophical doctrine I do expect evidence. But, if the aff says XYZ but there is an huge hole that can be pointed out by saying ABC then do that without fear of me punishing you for not having a pundit say it instead.

Clarity v. Speed: I already talked about this, but a somewhat faster pace is fine for the majority of case arguments. Slow down on your tags and your signposting so I can actually flow it. (If I can't flow it, it doesn't exist in the round) Do go slower on theory and your case analysis because often those become the most important parts of the round. I don't want to have to say "clear" because you are talking too fast.

Cross-Ex: I don't flow it, but I do listen. This is where those comments from above about being rude are really going to come into effect. I prefer closed cross-ex, this isn't Public Forum Debate. Caveat: If you are asked a simple yes/no or question that is easy to answer but you don't have the answer your teammate can answer it for you.

Topicality: Honestly, I don't like T. You can run it, but it has to be a pretty blatant issue for me to consider voting for it. Squirrelly T's will be punished by me. For example, please do not kick out of all of your arguments and go solely for a T on defining the USFG as the "United States Fauceter's Guild" because the plan text is USFG and not USfg.

DA's: They're fun. I like them. I don't mind generic links, but eventually you are going to have to kick out of them or get a specific link because they aren't good policy.

Counterplans: I like these too. The only issue that a lot of teams face is that they don't kick out of them in the 2NR and their CPs link into their own disadvantages, this will cause me to either judge-kick the CP or all the DAs, depending on what the aff tells me to do, so run conditional arguments at your own risk. The aff should always run theory on a CP.

Kritiks: Kind of already explained my feeling on these. I understand the basis of most K theory and if at the end of the round neither team has sufficiently explained to me what the K does, I will most likely ignore it when making my final decisions. I am most familiar with fem, queer theory, anthro, and colonialism, but if you can explain something else well go for it.

Theory: I really enjoy theory if it done well. I think that debate should still be rooted in policy ramifications, but that doesn't mean that theory has to be ignored completely. If you want to do a lot of theory work it better actually mesh with your arguments. If you want to do something uncommon with theory it better make sense, or at least you better be able to explain how it makes sense. An example of this is when I was debating on the aff the neg brought up a topical, unconditional CP with several DAs that linked to us but not them. It was a really good CP and it link turned all of our advantages. My partner and I decided that we would kick out of our entire aff and perm the CP as our aff. We explained our theory rationale and we won, you can do something like that if you wanted.

If you have any questions about my paradigm just ask me before the round starts.

I align with the tabula rasa paradigm, if you can defend an argument you can make it.

I like critical theory, and will default to reasonability on T unless Neg proves a real violation.

T and theory are a priori and I will evaluate them before any post fiat imps

I personally think the base DA is cancer but of course I'll still vote on it if you really want to run it.

I did policy in hs and now do NFA LD for Lewis and Clark

Affiliation: Clackamas High School

Competitive experience: 2 years of NPDA (college parli), 1 year of CEDA (college policy)

Coaching/Judging experience: 6 years of NPDA coaching with 45-60 rounds judged per year, 10 years coaching high school policy

Pronouns: He/him

Post the order in the zoom chat ((especially when someone is afk) credit to Wichita BM and Gerrit Hansen for this one)

I’m into philosophy. It was my major for my decade-long undergrad, so that won’t change anytime soon.

I'm also a former law student focused on immigration, employment, and labor.

Although I have run topical affirmatives with a plan in the past, I have generally moved towards the critical as I have continued (From a Heg and Econ National Security Courts aff to Lovecraft performance and high theory).

In CEDA, I have gone for the Cap K with a Historical Materialism alt in every one of my 2NRs. This does not mean that I will automatically pick you up if you run it, but I will be familiar with most of the arguments and authors involved in that debate.

I have come to grips with the fact that I am not very good at evaluating Framework. This does NOT mean you shouldn't run it in front of me or go for it. I think Framework is a valuable debate to be had in most rounds and I encourage people to look at varying forms of this argument in debate. You should be aware, however, that I am not going to be able to fully appreciate the nuances of Framework arguments. It's really not you, it's me.

I hold a high regard for creativity in debate, both in strategy and style. In my mind, creativity is the reason debate is such a fantastic activity. I particularly like arguments that are novel, strange, or Weird.

I am also pretty expressive in round. If you notice me nodding my head or or making a face that suggests "Hey, that sounds reasonable" then that probably means I'm thinking that. If I look up in disgust or confusion, then that means I am probably experiencing one of those things.

All that being said, I am open to most any position or style so long as you can articulate why your arguments are preferable.

Also, feel free to find me outside of rounds and ask me about a round (please bring your flow or be specific about what went on in the round, I can only remember so much on demand) or about general arguments and strategies or whatever.

Clarity: I flow all speeches in the debate and I stick to that flow when making my decision. I will call clear if I can’t understand you. If you are still not understandable to me after I call clear twice, I will stop flowing what I cannot understand.

Clipping: If there is a challenge relating to clipping cards, it must be brought with video evidence. If a team has been shown to be clipping cards in my round; that team will receive a loss and the clipper will receive 0 speaker points for that round.

Email: forensicsresearchinstitute@gmail.com

I've coached for 10 years, I currently serve as the Executive Director of Portland Urban Debate League, I coach at Franklin HS and Centennial HS, and I have judged very few rounds on this topic as I typically am tabbing tournaments.

Put me on the email chain mallory@portlanddebate.org

*Everyone should be respectful. If y'all are rude/racist/homophobic/ableist/sexist etc. I consider that a reason to drastically reduce your speaker points. You can be nice and still win debates. If y'all aren't reading a content warning and describe trauma/violence/etc that need a content warning, I will seriously consider giving you an auto loss.

Overall: Tabula rasa, default policymaker. I prefer you go at a moderate speed and slow for tags. I'm probably not your ideal K or counterplan theory judge. I understand the basics of Ks and some of ideologies, but I tend to get lost without robust, slow explanations at every level of the flow. I flow CXes of K debates to help with my understanding of what is going on. On T- I default to competing interpretations. If you’re not rejecting the topic, you should be topical.

Framework vs non-traditional affs: If you think the aff should be topical, tell me why your model of debate is better than theirs. I prefer external impacts, but will still evaluate fairness as an impact if you go for it.

Specific Arguments

Aff: Need to have a method through which you solve your impacts, if you’re topical, that means you’re using the USfg and have a plan. If you’re reading a K, I want a clear articulation of how your advocacy is adopted/changes the debate space/matters in terms of impacts.

Case Debate: You don’t need carded evidence to point out solvency deficits of the aff. Analytics are generally smarter and more true than the arguments that take you 20 seconds to read the card.

Clarity>Speed: I’ll say clear once, but if you don't slow down you run the risk of me missing arguments that are key to you winning the debate. Please don’t assume you can go as fast as you want just because I’m on the email chain. SLOW on theory/T/analytics. Embedded clash in the overview is nice, but don’t put all your answers to the line by line there.

Cross-x: I flow cross-ex, and I think you should have a strategy for cross ex that helps you set up or further your arguments. If there is truly a part of the aff that is confusing, go ahead and ask for clarification, but your CX shouldn’t give the other team an opportunity to re-explain entire arguments.

Topicality: Describe to me what type of debate your interp justifies, and what type of debate theirs justifies. Whose interpretation of the resolution is better? Impact T out, for example limits in a vacuum don’t mean anything, I want you to explain how limits are key to your education and fairness. I could be persuaded to vote on reasonability, but for the most part think that competing interps is the best paradigm.

Disadvantages: Link controls the direction of the disad. Specificity over generics.

Counterplans: Presumption flips aff if the 2NR goes for the CP. I would judge kick the CP even if not explicitly told by the 2NR, unless the 2AR tells me a super cool reason why judge kick is bad that I haven't heard yet.

Kritiks: Run what you want, articulate what the alt is and how it solves for the impacts you’re claiming. Not enough teams explain HOW the alt works, which I think is devastating when compared to an aff’s clear mechanisms for solving their harms. A conceded root cause explanation or a PIK (“alt solves the aff”) would be a way to win my ballot if explained well. The floating PIK needs to be clearly made early on for me to evaluate it. I’m most familiar with fem, anthro, and neolib, but would listen to other K’s.

Theory: I rarely, if ever vote on theory. Mostly because most teams don’t spend more than 1 minute on it in the final speeches. If the aff thinks the neg reading 7 off was abusive, then the 2AR should be case + condo bad. Dedication to explaining and going for the argument validates it as a reason to consider it. If you spend 30 seconds on extending a dropped ASPEC argument, I’m definitely not voting on it.

+0.5 speaks if you tell me your zodiac sign

Hey! I'm Kristen East, I debated Policy in high school, judged on-and-off while in college, and have been working as an assistant coach for Gig Harbor High School for the past 5 years. My email is eastkristen@gmail.com

I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during crossfire; these are strategies that I've found help me to pay attention and keep my mind from wandering during rounds. If I'm distracting you at any point, then please politely ask and I'll switch to a different strategy.

Public Forum: I technically did public forum in middle school, so I guess that's relevant? I've also watched a lot of public forum rounds and judged it on and off over the years. I tend to be less formal than some public forum judges. I care more about competitors being considerate of others and having fun than I do about pleasantries and formalities. Please don't be "fake nice" to each other. That being said, I mean don't be offensive (i.e. making arguments based on racial or cultural stereotypes, or making personal ad hominem attacks).

-The biggest thing to know is that I am a "flow judge." I will be flowing/taking notes for each speech, will be writing down rebuttals next to the argument they are addressing, and will draw arrows for argument extensions. What this means for you is that you should be clear about which contention you are talking about, and also that I will be looking for consistency between partners' speeches. There should be continuity of arguments throughout the round. That does NOT mean your last speech needs to have the same arguments as your first speech, but all arguments in your last speech should have been introduced in one of your team's 4-minute speeches. I also will not consider brand-new arguments in any of the 2-minute speeches.

-I like rounds with clash, where each team explains how their arguments interact with the other team's arguments. If you're citing evidence, make sure to mention the warrant (the author's reasoning or statistics that support your claim). Please make it clear during your speeches when you are about to directly quote a source (i.e. saying "in 2019 Santa Claus wrote for the North Pole Times that...") and when you stop quoting them. You don't need evidence to make an argument, and well-reasoned analytics (arguments without an external source) can be just as powerful.

- I will decide the round based on impacts. Please compare your impacts to your opponent's (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.). If no one tells me otherwise, I'll probably default util when evaluating impacts. Be specific about how your impact is connected to the resolution, and who/what the impact will affect. Tell me the story of the impact (i.e. If we stop sanctions on Venezuela, then their economy will recover and then xyz people's lives will be saved because they won't die of starvation).

Parli: I've never judged or watched a parli round before. I've heard it has some similarities to policy, which I do have a background in, so feel free to read my policy paradigm to see if that's relevant. I'm excited to judge parli! From what I've heard, it should be fun!

Policy and LD paradigms are below.

Debate Style: I'm good with speed, just start out slow so I can get used to your voice. If you aren't clear, I'll yell at you to be clear. Start out a little slower on tags, especially for Ks and theory. Please don't mumble the text. If the text is completely unintelligible, I'll yell clear, and if you don't clear it up, then I'll count it as an analytic rather than a card. It's a pet peeve of mine when people cut cards repeatedly (i.e. cut the card here, cut the card here). PLEASE, please put theory arguments as a new off (i.e. Framework on a K, Condo bad, etc.). A tag should be a complete idea with a warrant. One word ("extinction" "Solves") does not count as a tag or an argument. I don't care about tag-teaming in CX, but it might influence speaker points (i.e. if one partner is being rude, or one never answers a question). Be nice to each other. I will vote you down if you're a complete jerk (threaten physical violence, harass someone, etc.). I am somewhat sensitive to how mental health, suicide, rape and disabilities are discussed and expect such sensitive topics to be approached with appropriate respect and care to wording and research.

Arguments: There are a few arguments I just dislike (for rational and irrational reasons) so just don't run them in front of me. If you don't know what these args are, you're probably fine. Basically, don't run anything offensive. No racism good, no death good (including Spark DA or Malthus/overpopulation arguments). I also hate Nietzsche, or nihilism in general. Also, arguments that seem stupid like time cube, or the gregorian time K, or reptiles are running the earth or some crap like that is prolly not gonna fly. I'm not gonna take nitpicky plan flaw arguments like "USfg not USFG" seriously. I will not vote for disclosure theory unless someone flat out lies about disclosure. Like they tell you they will run a case and then don't run it. Arguments I'll evaluate but don't love/am probably biased against but will evaluate include: PICs, Delay CPs, ASPEC Topicality, kritical-based RVIs on T, Performance Affs.

Defaults: I'm a default policymaker but am open to other frameworks. I do consider Framework to be theory, which means 1) put it on it's own flow and 2) arguments about like, fairness and ground and other standards are legit responses. I have a strong preference for frameworks that have a clear weighing mechanism for both sides. I default competing interpretations on T. I was a little bit of a T/theory hack as a debater, so I have a lower threshold on theory than a lot of judges. What that means is that I'll vote on potential abuse, or small/wanky theory (like severance perm theory) IF it's argued well. Theory needs real voters, standards and analysis and warrants just like any other argument. If you're going for theory, go all out in your last speech. It should be 4 minutes of your 2NR, or all of your 2AR.

Note on Performance Ks: I have a high threshold on performance arguments. If you're doing a performance, you have to actually be good at performing, keep up the performance throughout the round, and have a way for the other team to compete/participate in the performance. I prefer for performance Ks to be specific to the current resolution, or in some cases, based on language or something that happened in this round.

Constructive speeches: Clash is awesome. Signposting will help me flow better. Label args by topic not by author because I'm prolly not gonna catch every author.

Rebuttals: In my opinion, the point of rebuttals is to narrow the debate down to fewer arguments and add analysis to those arguments. This applies to aff and neg. Both sides should be choosing strategic arguments and focusing on "live" arguments (Don't waste your time on args the other team dropped in their last speech, unless it's like an RVI or something). Both sides should watch being "spread out" in the 2nr and 2ar.

Note about LD: Being a policy judge doesn’t mean I love policy arguments in debate. In LD, you don’t really have the time to develop a “plan” properly and I probably lean towards the “no plans” mindset. I expect a DA to have all the requisite parts (uniqueness, link, impact). I’m okay with Ks, and theory. To help me flow, please number and/or label arguments and contentions, and signal when you are done reading a piece of evidence (either with a change of voice tone or by saying “next” or a brief pause. That being said, speed is not a problem for me. If you follow the above suggestions, and maybe slow a little on theory and framework, you can go as fast as you’re comfortable with. If I’m having trouble flowing you I’ll say “clear.” No flex prep. Sitting during CX is fine. I love a good framework debate, but make sure you explain why framework wins you the round, or else, what's the point? If framework isn't going to win you the round or change how I evaluate impacts in the round, then don't put it in rebuttals.

I like judging. This is what I do for fun. You know, do a good job. Learn, live, laugh, love.

UPDATE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2022: Please be aware that as of February 24, 2022, the post-Cold War geopolitical/international security world underwent a monumental (and likely permanent) change. If you are going to make any arguments -- whether you're AFF or NEG, asserting internal links or existential impacts -- built around a conventional war in Europe; America's, NATO's, or Russia's propensities to escalate; the threshold between conventional and nuclear conflict; etc., please ensure that your evidence is up-to-date and timely (and, yes, that probably means written sometime after February 24, 2022) and/or please be prepared and able to explain logically and analytically how any older evidence/logic still applies in light of real-world developments in Central and Eastern Europe. Also be aware that if you read evidence (or make an argument) that fails to take account of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I will almost certainly accept your opponent's analytical arguments -- provided they're logical and persuasive in post-February 24 terms -- as more valid than out-of-date evidence and pre-invasion academic theorizing. And your opponents should feel free to ask you, in CX, to explain how and why any pre-February 24 evidence/arguments are still applicable to the position you're advocating or negating. I'm not trying to be difficult, but the world of geopolitics and international security has been radically altered over the past six months. Also, be aware that I spent a large chunk of my 30-year diplomatic career working on NATO issues (including stints at NATO headquarters and on the NATO desk at the State Department). While I don't expect high school debaters to understand or appreciate every detail or nuance of how the Alliance functions on a day-to-day or issue-to-issue basis, please do your best to avoid completely mischaracterizing NATO decision-making or policy implementation.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Note on Timekeeping: In all forms of debate I expect competitors to keep their own time (to include tracking prep time for both themselves and their opponents). Also, debaters should keep track of their opponent’s time (including prep). I will make an exception for novices at their first few tournaments, but otherwise time yourselves, please.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

After retiring from a three-decade career in the U.S. Foreign Service, I returned to high school debate as a (volunteer) coach and frequent judge in 2013. I'm no longer the head coach at Oak Hill School (as of June 2020), but I still provide some assistance (to South Eugene High School) and judge fairly regularly. Beyond that, I teach public policy and international affairs -- as adjunct faculty -- at the Univ. of Oregon.

CX Paradigm (you should read this even I'm judging you in a different debate format because it speaks to my overall approach): My judging style and philosophy has evolved significantly over the past decade. While I still consider myself more of a truth-over-tech/policymaking-paradigm judge, I don't believe -- as some would suggest -- that policymaker automatically equates with a simple utilitarian approach. Far from it. Essentially, I view the two teams as playing the role of competing actors within a government or other policymaking body, each trying to convince me to endorse their policy option. But I remain open to an alternative framework if one of the teams can convince me that that alternative framework should or best applies.

And while I have an inherent bias toward the realistic (particular as it involves global security issues such as nuclear weapons, NATO and Russia, and the nature and distribution of power and influence within the international state system), I'm fine with K debate. That said, although I know my Marx/Engels/Lenin pretty well from my academic training and Foreign Service experience in Moscow and the former Soviet bloc, if you want to run French post-modernist arguments -- or anything of that sort -- you'll need to explain it to me in terms I can understand and appreciate. And that may mean slowing down enough to make yourself more comprehensible and persuasive. I would also advise you against running any sort of performance AFF...I'll judge it if you run it, but it's as difficult for me to evaluate as Dramatic Interp. For better or worse, I still view the resolution as the starting point of any policy debate, and I still believe that an AFF case needs some version -- however abbreviated -- of a case and a plan. And case matters. A significant percentage of the AFF ballots I write end up noting that NEG essentially conceded case...that shouldn’t be the norm. (And, yes, on the other side of that I still very much believe that presumption lies with the NEG...and that going for it is a legit approach that can easily win a debate for NEG if AFF fails to meet its burdens.) Unless something is truly and grossly abusive, I am not particularly keen on RVIs or similar arguments for a behavior as opposed to a policy issue on the flow.

As for T, I am more than open to T arguments and will vote NEG on T if the AFF can't make a coherent topicality defense. But be aware that I have a very inclusive topicality threshold (to put it in 2014-15 oceans topic terms, if a case involved salt water I was ready to accept it as reasonable... provided the AFF made that argument).

I'm good with aggressive spreading, but recommend you slow down enough to allow me to hear and easily flow your tag lines and organizational structure; sign-posting may seem old-fashioned, but if you want me to flow your argument in the correct spot, intelligible sign-posting remains an important element in the process. Pet peeve addressed to 1NCs: LABEL YOUR ARGUMENTS, please. 'Next' is not a label. Off-case, tell me whether you're reading T, a DISAD, a CP, a K, or something else. Similarly, ‘case’ is not a label. Tell me where you want your argument flowed. It may seem 100% clear to you, but it may not be as clear to me (even if I have your speech within the email chain). Assuming there is an email chain, I expect to be part of it: eddinska@gmail.com.

Tag-team CX is fine, but recognize that if the debater who is the designated questioner or respondent is completely overwhelmed by their partner, both team members will likely receive reduced speaker points.

Lincoln-Douglas and Parli Paradigm: I'm pretty much tabula rasa in both these formats, happy to judge the debate as it's presented and debated. I will always be a flow judge (who values line-by-line clash as much as possible). But I'm generally more 'progressive' in judging LD and Parli than I am in judging Policy. Go figure. In both LD and Parli, I very much appreciate theory/framework arguments. I also think both LD and Parli debates benefit from explicit plans/advocacies, which thus opens up the NEG option of CPs/counter-advocacies. Ditto K debate in LD and Parli...go for it, provided you know what you're doing (and can present the K clearly and coherently). Basically, the more LD and Parli resemble Policy, the better.

Public Forum Paradigm: You should follow the rules, of course, but I'm comfortable with pushing the limits (in terms of advocacies and counter-advocacies and such)...that said, I'm open to the other team pushing back on PF rules/norms regarding plans and CPs and such (i.e., to debate the very theory of PF). In a more traditional PF round, I see framework as a key element; it's important to establish (and win) your framework (and then, having secured the framework, explain how and why it matters to your case). I will always evaluate the debate off my flow, so line-by-line clash and full coverage of the key issues are important. That means that what passes for spreading in PF is fine with me...you don't have much time for each speech, I know, so use what you have to the fullest. Again, PF is kinda/sorta Policy Lite, and I'll always prefer -- but not insist upon -- a more Policy-like approach.

My background is in policy debate.

As a judge, I appreciate organization and a debater's ability to "connect the dots" between their arguments and responses. I tend to view things through an offense/defense paradigm. I want debaters to clearly impact out their arguments, or in other words, tell me why what they are saying matters, and it matters more/is more true than whatever your opponents are saying. At the end of a debate, I do not want to be trying to guess what a team meant or be in the position of relying on an assumption to decide a round.

Debate rounds have winners and losers as well as individual speaker points. Debate is also a persuasive activity and is meant to be a competitive educational extracurricular activity. These are all reasons to consider how you approach cross-examination and interacting with people during the round.

Please do not speak loudly during each other's speeches & clearly state when you are/are not taking prep time.

Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.

CX Paradigm

Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.

Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.

Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.

Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.

Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.

For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.

LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards. *For this January/February topic I understand it is essentially a Policy topic in LD so to be fair on this that doesn't mean I can't understand progressive LD but like shown in my Policy Paradigm above I have disclosed what I am cool with and what biases I have tread carefuly if you don't read it thoroughly.

PuFo Paradigm:

Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.

south eugene ’18

harvard ‘22

add me to the email chain: henrylininger[at]college[dot]harvard[dot]edu

when i used to pref judges, i liked when their philosophies quickly/easily answered the general questions i ask when reading them (see: john spurlock, jeff buntin, etc). so, here are the answers to the questions i usually ask:

how does this person feel about framework?

aff: i am a good judge for an aff that impact turns framework. if you’re doing this, i don’t really care very much about your topic tie.

neg: i am a good judge for the neg when they go for skills/deliberation framework impacts. i am a good judge for fairness as a terminal impact when the negative wins that an aff ballot does not change debate, and debate doesn’t change us as people (i.e. it is only a game). i don’t think this is particularly hard to do. i will very quickly (and happily) vote neg on presumption vs a k aff that claims to change things via the ballot (if you’re doing this, i don’t think you really need cards). (k teams: get better at explaining your solvency/why you get your impacts).

a thought for the neg: try going more than one off against a k aff (add: a k, cap good/econ da, etc). you don’t (usually) need all those framework cards, and you might have a much easier time in the block.

what about the k?

aff: when i was a debater, i mostly read critical arguments, so i have more experience in that vein. however, the result of this ended up being that i strongly sympathize with policy arguments vs a lot of the things i ran. logical analytics beat illogical ks (which is many). i have no preference w/ soft-left or hard-right vs the k. aff framework arguments that go beyond the words “fairness” and “plan focus” repeated in the 2ac/1ar/2ar are very persuasive to me.

neg: go for it. explain why your overarching theory means a neg ballot. give examples = get speaker points.

will this person judge in a competent/predictable way?

competent: i broke/received speaker awards at most major tournaments i attended, i like to think i am competent but i admit i have less experience in policy vs. policy debates.

predictable: i think i have a relatively high standard for explanation for critical arguments. cheap shot args are ok (in k and policy) if they have at least a sentence of explanation/an impact. logical arguments don’t necessarily need to be carded. line by line matters a lot — i will feel very uncomfortable making cross-applications for you if you do not do it. evidence comparison is a good tiebreaker. i don’t think i have any weird quirks with das, t (not usfg), cps, etc.

how does this person feel about [x] argument?

the only arguments i dislike are:

1. ks that you don’t understand

2. non-competitive ks (usually vs k affs) that attempt to compete on “no perms”. if this is your jam, go ahead, but i will be sympathetic to logical “we get a perm” arguments from the aff. k-affs should be making framework-esque arguments (competition good, etc) in these situations.

everything else is fair game. if you’re unsure, it’s probably fine. if you care about making me happy, i have a soft spot for the politics da and clever cps (but who doesn’t?).

if you are reading this before the round:

i would much rather see what you enjoy debating/are skilled in than anything else. if you want to go for heg good vs a k aff, i would very much enjoy that if you are enjoying that too. clever neg strategies > generic ks that you dig up because you think i would like them more.

misc thoughts

judge kick = say it (“status quo is always an option” in cx = ok)

0% risk = yes

mark the card means marking it in the doc = yes or you get a 28 at most

multi-round condo/perf-con = please no

“inserting” re-highlighted ev = no

Email chain: little.pdx@gmail.com

Affiliations

Current: OES (Oregon Episcopal School) 7 years

Past:

- Cornell assistant coach

- UW debater

- Interlake debater (long time ago)

TL;DR

1. Open to any argument.

2. Debate is a game. You get to set the rules, except for speech times, speech order, and prep time.

3. Tech > truth. I am deeply suspicious of truth claims in debate. I endeavor to be flow centric in my judging.

4. Don't steal prep.

5. Debate is a scholarly activity. Sharp use of excellent ev is compelling to me.

6. If I seem grumpy, it just means I'm engaged and interested.

Comments on specific lines of argument:

T

The general rule is that T is great, subject to the exceptions below in the "Substantive arguments" section. Innovative interps or well carded args on T are refreshing.

Theory other than T

I vote for and against theory args.

- Condo / dispo: make no assumptions about the number of neg positions a team gets. Default to dispo (its ok to kick). Need justification for condo (its ok to contradict). Willing to change these defaults.

- Framework / T USFG: sure, but you will be more successful if you also engage substantively with the aff even if you don't ultimately go for those args in the 2NR.

- ASPEC, OSPEC, etc: if they are meaningful arguments, no problem voting for them.

- Novel or resurrected theory: explain it, win it, and the ballot is yours.

CP/Disad

Straight forward. A couple of pet peeves:

- "Perm do both" is not an argument. Perms need an explanation of how they function and why they disprove competition.

- "Perms are severance and VI" is not an argument. As a default, perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy, barring an actual shift by the aff.

K

Mild preference for Ks grounded in the topic or with meaningful links to the aff. Links of omission are usually not persuasive.

Updated January 2024

Debate is the best game ever invented and we are all lucky to play it.

My name is Mat Marr and I am the Director of Forensics for Able2Shine and manager of the BASIS Fremont team.

Background: I debated policy in high school for three years including nationals. I qualified for nationals all four years in Foreign Extemp. I switched to LD my senior year and qualified for Tournament of Champions after a strong season on the national circuit. In college my partner and I broke at Parli nationals as freshmen. (Summary, I was decent at debate 20 years ago, but not the best, and I have some experience with all the styles but from judging and coaching in recent years and I am enjoying how debate is evolving.)

I try to be a pure flow judge. I don't flow CX.

Make sure you tell me where to record your arguments and use numbering, so I can track them. Be clear and direct in your refutations to your opponents arguments.

I have no strong biases for or against certain arguments (as a judge). That also means I do not assume impacts, such as topicality being a voter, unless argued in round. Tell me why your arguments are superior in reasoning and/or evidence.

I am fine with speed within reason but think its tactical value is limited.

Most importantly remember what a privilege it is to be able to spend our time debating and treat each other with respect. Thus, please be polite, inclusive and friendly and make the most of the opportunity to debate the important issues in a safe and supportive environment.

Good skill and have fun.

Specific event notes:

Parli- Please take a few questions in each constructive speech.

ToC Parli- I will not protect against new arguments in rebuttal if you choose not to use your point of order. I will vote for any well-argued position but generally enjoy topic specific policy debates.

Public Forum- Feel free to answer rebuttal as the second speech.

I am happy to discuss flows after rounds, find me and we can talk.

For email chains feel free to use my email : AshlandDebateTeam@gmail.com

Background:

Practicing attorney for 15 years; one year of high school CX experience; one year of high school LD experience; and worked as a paid LD judge during college.

CX Debate Paradigm:

Formerly tabula rasa, now policy maker/hypo tester.

Frame the debate reasonably, argue the resolution as a problem solver, and explain why your solution makes things better.

Life is complicated and facts are disputed, so arguments in the alternative are useful and valuable.

However, if you want to focus the debate on a specific judging criterion and explain why the resolution at hand is best understood through that rubric, I am willing to go along for the ride.

Finally, you may have had every possible deep thought on this topic before the round back in September, but flashes of insight on your toes (either actual or performed) are scored higher. Rebuttals need to rebut. Canned arguments, regurgitated in a spread, are frowned upon, literally.

LD Debate Paradigm:

Topical counterplans, disad's, historical argument (including counterfactuals), logical fallacy arguments, and philosopher critiques are all viable. Nontraditional cases are fine, as long as they are topical and offer a clear weighing mechanism.

I don't mind the use of debate jargon or terms of art, but their use should not supplant an explanation of substance, and they certainly aren't a shortcut to impacts. You have to educate and motivate your audience (in this case, me): show clear impacts, link back to the value structure and provide me with a clear weighing mechanism for the round.

Although I do not mind a brisk pace, I have a low appreciation for policy-style spreading in LD. Moreover, I shouldn't have to read your cards to understand what you are running. I am familiar with many philosophers, but my ballot is won or lost by how well you use, analyze, extend, link, and weigh evidence and theory (not on how well I read it).

Background

4 years of parli and policy debate in high school. I pretty much read cap every round.

Freshman LD debater at Lewis and Clark

Arguments

I will listen to any argument. Fine with CPs theory and Ks. Will probably understand any K you read unless it’s super obscure, but please understand the lit base if you plan to read a kritik. No neg fiat holds a special place in my heart.

Speed

Fine with speed just be clear and don’t spread out opponents when it’s clearly unnecessary. I shouldn’t miss anything unless you’re speaking unclearly.

Preference

I default to probability on impact weighing and competing interpretations on theory unless you tell me otherwise. Your link story needs to be clear to win on probability with minimal weighing and I love theory when it’s well run.

Flow

I’ll flow every speech, and everything you tell me to extend will be extended.

Speaker Points

24-25: you were offensive or disrespectful to your partner or other debaters

26-27: your speech was missing major necessary components

28: average, not highly impressive but covers all the basics

29: good speech, clear, well-articulated arguments, you deserve to break

30: flawless, if you get a 30 I think you should be winning the tournament

I probably won’t call any cards at the end of the round, but please be ethical and don’t cherry pick.

My decision is ultimately only based on the flow and not on your speaking ability. You know what you need to do to win the round.

Hi! My name is Emma Rosander and I am a senior at the University of Oregon. I have been involved in the world of debate for a while now. I usually end up judging policy but I have competed in all debate events and am comfortable with their various rules and structures.

TLDR: Generally do whatever you want in the debate. Have fun!

Speed: Unfortunately I'm not as proficient at flowing high speed rounds as I used to be. If I say "clear" please slow down a bit. It won't help your speaks or my flow if I don't know what your saying. I (maybe obviously) won't extend arguments that I didn't know were made.

K AFFs: Make sure you are a pro at answering FW. The solvency mechanisms of your advocacy have to be intelligible. I won't fill in the blanks for you. I am proficient at a large range of K lit. If you want to run something like psycho-analysis or Deleuze you're going to have to hold my hand through the round because those arguments honestly confuse me.

NEG Ks: Have a better link than a link of omission or a general link to the USFG as a whole.

FW: I love neg FW against K AFFs, though it won't be an instant win you still have to be competent. Too many teams read a page of FW on their Aff/neg K and then forget completely about it until the 2NR/2AR and it makes it really hard to vote for it. If you have a ROB make demonstrating why that ROB is important and how you uphold it and the other team doesn't the center of your debate or else it will be a low priority in my decision making.

DAs: Great

CPs: Love them

CX: CX will be flowed. If you let your partner answer everything for you your speaker points will suffer. Don't feel like you have to have an answer right away, I won't dock your speaks if you take a moment to think.

Condo: Yes

Turns: If you have them you should always be running turns on the solvency page. I will vote neg on a single turn if you argue it well enough.

Topicality: I am very sympathetic to voting on Topicality. If you have a legit claim, run it. However I won't let you get away with just saying "voters are fairness and education," tell me why they are voters. Worse comes to worse it just becomes a timesuck.

Theory: I don't think it's an effective argument to attempt to win on. But if you want to deploy it as a timesuck I won't stop you.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round starts.

Background:

I was a 3 year High School Debater for Clackamas High School (Transportation, Latin American Economic Engagement topics). I attended Nationals, and was 1 ballot away from winning State (Oregon) on the Transportation topic. I also did NPDA Parli for a year in college, and finished in the top 35 at both NPDA Nationals and the NPTE.

I am the assistant Speech and Debate coach at Glencoe High School. I cut evidence for my novices, so I am reasonably well read on the topic, and especially on the cases that my students read.

Beyond this - I hold a BS in Computer Science with a minor in Philosophy. I am an employed Software Engineer working for Intel Corporation.

General

Okay, let's be honest, spreading is kind of stupid. If debaters really cared about having an educational round, they'd send the speech docs to everyone (including the judge and audience ), have set word limits (say, 3000 words - as is done in online CX rounds), and would have everyone agree that evidence unread in the round still "applies". The only people this harms are the "Tech > Truth" types who win their rounds by "outspreading" their opponents. There's a reason why half of all competitive debate rounds posted to youtube have to have the comments disabled - the proles laugh at us for our elitism. (BTW, if you want to try this type of thing, I'd LOVE to judge a round like this, make sure your opponents agree)

But no one in the community seriously wants this, so I'm forced to conclude that debate is just a silly game to everyone and that "mechanics" matter (and that you all are not arguing about ableism in good faith), so spreading is "fine" in front of me, but please SLOW ON TAGS. If you do not do this, than in order for me to have a proper flow, I will either ask after your speech for you to repeat tags that I didn't get, or (if it's bad enough) I will ask to see the speech document so that I can properly flow the round. I consider this free prep-time for both your partner and your opponents. This is not meant to be a punishment, but rather is the only way that I feel that I can objectively evaluate the round.

Biases

I have a slight bias towards Truth > Tech, meaning that as the impact gets bigger, I consider specificity in the link and brink chain to be correspondingly more important. I tend to evaluate probability slightly more strongly than other judges in impact calculus.

NEW (1/23/19): I used to think I was a "Tab" judge, but I'm growing less fond of really out-there shit like affs that come out of sci-fi books. Bite the bullet and defend a (preferably) topical state action by the USFG

I also have a hard time voting for one if they start telling me blatantly false information about my own occupation - but I have not had this happen yet and don't anticipate it to happen this year.

Please do not be needlessly rude in front of me. Assume your opponents are acting in good faith until they have shown otherwise.

If I am not told how I should evaluate the round, I will default to a policy making / utilitarian paradigm, and I will take into account stock issues (I do not like voting for non-inherent affs unless given exceedingly good reasons for doing so)

Do NOT read graphic depictions of gore in front of me if possible - I have unconscious triggers which cause me to faint. So far, only an expos speech with graphic pictures from a medical textbook has caused this, but I must mention it since it has caused me to faint during a round.

DAs

Yup, I vote on em. No preferences

CPs

Articulate competition clearly please. Mutual exclusivity is the gold standard in front of me unless I'm told why this isn't best.

K's

I am pretty well read on German philosophy circa 1650-1870, and therefor I can offer a lot of analysis in a RFD on arguments using certain authors from these cannons (Stirner, Marx, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche).

I vote on K's. I like when they have alternatives/advocacy statements and am more than willing to punish theoretical abuse if a team is willing to all in on it.

Performance

I vote on performance arguments - just do not physically attack your opponents (I have seen pens thrown in college rounds). I tend to prefer that teams who read performance arguments do not just go back to the standard spreading paradigm and then tell me that they do some radical act to change debate. You know what a radical act would be to change debate? Not spreading.

Topicality

I vote on this. I tend to believe that definitions from the actor (that is, the USFG) are the gold standard unless told why I shouldn't default to finding these definitions best.

Theory

I will vote on theory, even the more divisive types like ASPEC or OSPEC

Framework

"Frame-work makes the game-work"

I don't time flashing. I will disclose my decision either directly after the round, or later on during the tournament.

jrskoog17@gmail.com

"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer

I debated at Brophy College Prep and then debated at Gonzaga University.

I now coach at Gonzaga in Spokane, WA.

Everything under this are my defaults but obviously any argument that is contrary to any of these override my presuppositions. I'll try not to intervene to the best of my ability.

The Highlights:

I don't like when teams read evidence from debate coaches. It is absurd and self-referential.
Tech over truth
I'll call for ev, but only if it is a key part of the debate or I have been told to look at it. I put a lot of stock into the quality of evidence when deciding debates.
I default to reject the arg for everything except conditionality unless told otherwise.
Awesome strategic moves will be rewarded.
For the love of Przemek Karnowski, please don't cheat.
I'm not particularly expressive, but it doesn't mean I hate your argument, I'm just thinking to myself.
Keep your shoes on in the round.


Specifics:

Evidence:
Read warrants please. I will reward fantastic ev. Quality outweighs quantity. Use spin and compare your evidence to theirs.

Case/Impact Defense:
I do tend to default to less change and think that there is such thing as zero risk of the aff. Using very smart case defense arguments is awesome. Internal link defense and solvency arguments are, in my opinion, underused. That makes me sad. So please use them.

Counterplans:
I'm a huge theory nerd so I'm down with being convinced something is competitive. HOWEVER, I do think that a lot of counterplans that are commonly run are not competitive. Granted, I ran Reg Neg and Consult Russia a lot, and I understand why they are necessary sometimes, but I will reward case specific counterplans with net benefits that justify the status quo. To be clear: Artificial net benefits be dumb, yo. Counterplans should have solvency advocates--preferably normative one--which will go a long way in defending the theoretical legitimacy of the advocacy.

Against big stick affs, don't read stupid PICs like "the" or "should" because then I will cry. And I am an ugly crier.

I won't kick a conditional CP in the 2NR unless I'm explicitly told to in the debate.


Disads:
For politics, gotta have the goods evidence-wise.
Political capital key cards should say that political capital is key.
I think that an aff shooting apart the internal link chain of a stupid scenario is sufficient.
I would really like it if your DA was an actual opportunity cost to the plan.
Link controls direction of uniqueness.

Kritiks:
I exclusively went for the K almost all of college, so I know a lot of the literature. I've read a lot of Foucault, Baudrillard, Nietzsche and Deleuze but I won't pretend I know all K authors equally. Please explain it in relation to the aff, not just in high theory terms.
I don't think I'm the federal government. I am a sleepy coach judging a debate. However, I can be persuaded differently by args made in the debate.
Getting to weigh the aff is distinct from a "role of the ballot" argument because Role of the ballot determines how/what I am voting on or evaluating.
I love highly technical K debate ie. LINE BY LINE and clash.
Well researched and case specific Ks will make me smile.


Theory:
I really do enjoy theory debates if it is delivered at a rate consistent with the arguments. For example, if you are saying conditionality is bad in the 1AR don't speed through it because it is difficult to flow in its entirety. I will vote on unconditionality good, or 5 conditional CPs good. Debate is debate. If a theory violation is well impacted and explained, I will vote on it.

Topicality:
I default to competing interpretations unless told to evaluate it differently. I love when people read a lot of cards on tea, or have a hyper specific topicality argument. I evaluate it like a DA, so impacting things such as limits and ground is important.

Framework vs K affs:
I'm down to listen to really anything, and I was usually on the side of the team answering framework for most of my career. That being said, I really really enjoy framework debates. I think that "no Ks" isn't very convincing, but there should probably some agreed upon stasis point. This doesn't mean you need to defend the hypothetical implementation of plan in front of me, but if the other team wins that fiat is a good model of education, I will vote on it.

Background:
Competed in high-school, mid/late-2000s.
Judge/coach since 2015.
Professional background in security studies. (ETA for arms topic: Specifically, this background is in arms tracking & identification, and technical analysis, especially as it relates to harm to civilians and other IHL violations.)

General:
Default to policy-maker, balanced with games-player tendencies. This means I favor detailed debates about plan mechanisms (eg advantages/disads), but don't take the policy aspect too seriously (ie I enjoy quirky/tricky arguments for their own sake). This might be my starting position, but I have no problem changing how I view the round if alternative frameworks are presented.

I find evidence comparisons to be very persuasive, which includes unpacking warrants behind analytics.

I rarely flow overviews because - in my experience at least - teams tend to treat them as an excuse to read blocks instead of (for example) putting impacts in the impact debate, links in the link debate etc.

Flow management. Flow management. Flow management. Tell me whether you're on the link debate, the impact debate, etc. Tell me when you're moving from one flow to the next.

Topicality/Procedurals: I generally err towards not voting because they tend blippy. If you want me to vote on these arguments, the key requirement is a tangible description of what rounds look like in the real world vis-a-vis Standards. eg which cases are allowed, which are barred? why are the former examples more education/fair/predictable than the latter, etc.

Critiques: OK (whether plan or performance based), but burden is typically higher than policy arguments. Winning generally comes down to who can reduce the jargon to a simple narrative plus a clear articulation of what actually happens, who does it, and why it's important. If there are terms that are specific to the K that aren't in general use - eg "Spectre", "Ontological Death", etc - please tell me what they mean. Overall, this tends to mean that a K can be most easily lost or won on the alt debate (eg you prolly can't fiat a global post-capitalist world without telling me how that happens).

Misc
Tax team CX ok.
Speed OK (will yell 'clear' if necessary), but a) I'm atrocious at flowing authors, and b) if I can't clearly - hear/identify the warrants of a piece of evidence, I tend to give it less weight than cards whose warrants I can identify.