I'm Tanzil -- debated policy at Chandler High School and Arizona State University for a total of eight years, coached policy debate at Hamilton High School for four years. Currently a graduate student at Cal and help out here and there with ASU and HHS's debate teams. Policy paradigm follows from here, paradigm for other forms of debate continues below, follow the bolded headers.

2022 Update:

I have not judged debate at all this year and have basically no familiarity with the topic. If there are buzzwords or acronyms specific to this year's topic, please use the explain and/or use the full phrase at least once before reverting to the buzzword/acronym.

Quick Coronavirus/Virtual Update:

Main thing is that y'all should slow down in virtual debates -- speak at, say, 60-70% of your in-person speed. Obviously this is dependent on internet connection and all so this won't hurt your speaks or anything unless I call repeatedly for you to slow down (which I'll do verbally with a "CLEAR" or "SPEED"). Obviously virtual debating is still newfangled so let's all be patient with each other as we figure it out. Much love.

Send speech docs and questions to tanzil.chowdhury98@gmail.com -- please include me on the email chain.

Functional Tidbits: Prep time ends when the email is sent out or the flash drive leaves the computer, unless you are a novice, in which case please just do your best to be speedy with your technology. I will not disclose until your wiki is updated. My speaker point baseline is 28.7, which means that if you are somewhere between 3-3 and 4-2 and sounding pretty alright that's the sort of score you'll get. I won't look at your speech doc/cards during your speech, and will not look at them at all unless i am a) explicitly asked to and/or b) feel as though I cannot make my decision without looking at them because some unresolved question about the evidence remains at the end of the debate. I generally flow straight down an excel sheet on my computer and do the work of lining things up as I make the decision, unless something is very clearly flagged (which I do appreciate). I make decisions quite quickly in many situations, though this usually is not a signal that the debate was not close -- it's more that I am constantly evaluating the quality of arguments at every point in the debate, and usually things clear up re; argument quality well before the 2NR/2AR. Please do take notes as I give my RFD, there's not really a point in my spending time to explain my decision and give feedback if you won't write it down. I love to hear questions from the debaters afterwards.

Actual Paradigm: I don't think that I believe anything that is radically different from any other competent policy debate judge out there, so for the most part I'm good for you on most any strategy or style of argumentation -- everything except that which is outright offensive is equally valid in a vacuum. There are a few specific places where my opinion may differ from others, so I'll try to outline those for you below.

a) I have a very hard time voting for fairness as an intrinsic impact on Framework. Winning that debate is a game does not automatically make you win that fairness is an intrinsic good; "debate is a game" is a descriptive claim that very well may be true, but framework is a debate about competing models, meaning that the prescriptive claim "debate ought not be a game" will almost always beat that. Given that every (competent) 2AC to framework will say that, you're better off just defending why your model of debate is a good thing if you're the negative, usually meaning that it is a more educational model.

b) The thing I appreciate most during the rounds I judge is the ability for teams to make clear decisions and then communicate those decisions to me. It shows me that you have the ability to understand the debate as more than just a series of disconnected arguments and that you have considered the strategy of what you are saying before you say it. As such, I am very much against the concept of the judge-kick. This is usually a big problem during Kritik debates; I will never kick the alt "for you", and in a situation where the alternative is not explicitly kicked, I will evaluate the debate as Aff v. Alt. This means that even if you win a significant risk of a link and impact, I will still likely vote for the affirmative in the absence of an alternative which can resolve that link. The reasoning behind this is debate 101: the alternative exists to provide uniqueness for the link, and I cannot vote for a non-unique DA. To be clear, I'm totally for you kicking the alt and establishing the uniqueness in some other way, if you think that is the best strategic move.

c) For K debaters, being "wrong about the theory" is offense, assuming there's at least a bit of impact work done on the consequence of being wrong about the theory. What this means is that in debates where there is a high-level theoretical basis for your opponent's arguments (i.e. for certain flavors of afropessimism, "anti-blackness is ontological"), you ought draw clear lines of comparison between your theoretical disagreement with that claim (i.e., your analysis of anti-blackness concludes that it is not-ontological and is instead [insert position here]).

d) Ethos and Pathos matter in my decisionmaking, the former generally moreso than the latter, though not by much. I'm a big believer in the idea that the way you choose and execute your arguments at every point in the debate is constitutive of your "ethos" as debaters. To be clear, I don't mean this in the sense of a personal judgment of the debaters, but rather in the sense that your ethos and ethic(s) are inherently intertwined. It shouldn't be a controversial statement that judging is done based on the way the debaters formulate ethics, so obviously one's ethos must then also play a role in the decision.


For the other debates:

LD:
Having had to coach one lad in LD for the past year, I've developed some thoughts on the activity that may be relevant to you, if for some reason you have to deal with the perils of having me as a judge. For what it's worth, if both of the debaters have agreed to run the round as the mutated, gross, slug-like abomination you all refer to as "progressive" (it really means anything but! words mean things!) debate, then effectively everything in the above section applies to you. Everything in the "Other" section likely applies to your regardless of how you debate. If not, the following is what you should keep in mind: LD's value lies precisely in its form, and while that form may shift (I certainly am not some sort of reactionary that believes you ought to lose if you don't tell me your Value, your Value Criterion, and remember to say "Thus I affirm/negate" at the end of your speeches), we ought to understand why that form existed in the first place, and how such forms color the way we debate things. What this means for you LDers is that you should not shy away from the central question of your event: ethics. It is upon the question of ethics LD (and all debate, really) lies, and to act as if you don't have an ethic (you most certainly do), or to obscure your ethic (which you all seem to have a great penchant for doing), is to shy away from any of the value of this activity. And this is precisely why the form of LD has existed as such (it's my view that what we call "the K", or at least its central questions, has existed in LD since LD's inception), with defenses of the whole resolution, with the Values and Value Criterions, with every case beginning with a Framework etc. I know you may feel that it is strategic to treat this as a one-person policy debate, and it very well may be in many cases, but that is just because you decided to make the switch before truly getting a grasp on why the activity has been as it is for so long. Tell me, what is the value of reading the K as an "off-case" position when the traditional case-structure already has the in-built mechanisms for making the criticisms you want to make? Of course this is rhetorical, and the answer I believe to be true is that it is cowardice. Stop being cowards. Take a stand upon your ethics (even if they are the conventionally boring ethics of our Kants and our Humes and our Benthams, that purely English phenomenon himself [speaker point bonus if you know who called Bentham a purely english phenomenon]) and tell me why I as a judge should stand upon the same grounds you have chosen to stand on. And I bet (after a year of teching unsuspecting folks down on this very question when they did not expect it) that you will find competitive success in doing so.

PF:
I really don't understand this activity. I don't think it's possible for me to have any sort of stable, objective, or predictable method of judging PF because I'm not really sure if PF debate exists (I suppose I'll decide to explain what I mean by this as I'm writing the rest of this section, or maybe it will just become evident, though it likely does not mean what you think it means). To be fair, I don't think I have that for any form of debate really, but it's especially erratic when dealing with your lot. I suppose you should just do what you do, but I really have a low, low, LOW tolerance for inane stupidity, which is what I've had to deal with in the PF rounds I have had the displeasure of judging thus far (except one, which was surprisingly very good for a novice debate). If Policy and LD suffer from an over-reliance on the logical appeal, PF has the opposite problem where the logical appeal is so rarely used (and I know you all believe yourselves to be making such appeals, you just aren't actually doing so) that the debate is just nothing-speak for whatever ridiculously short amount of time (the only redeemable aspect of this activity) you all are allotted to torture me with. So, all I ask is that you speak of something, and when you speak of something, you are referring to something that is not totally positioned in a fantasy dreamt up in the empty space of your brain in that moment. As such, do not say things like: "Islamic Terrorism kills millions of people every day", or "THAT IS YOUR BURDEN TO ANSWER" when it is clearly not, or [insert overtly racist comment about Black people here that you, for some reason or another, do not believe to be racist]. Instead, make significant reference to the authors that supposedly (I write supposedly because more often than not, there is absolutely no care for evidence in this activity) provide the warrants and data for your arguments, and by reference I mean that in the direct, verbatim sense, because in all likelihood they know far more than you do about whatever it is you're talking about this month, and they can say it in a much better way than you can. There is a reason the other forms of debate are so reliant on the "card" (pieces of evidence cut as needed), and it is because they realized a long, long time ago that having vague name-drops and out-of-context quotes plopped into a poorly-written 10th grade English paper does not a good debate make. All forms of communication require a mutual intelligibility, some level of stable ground upon which those doing the communicating can stand upon and hurl their signs, and hopefully that which those signs signify, at one another in the hope of arriving at some new sign, which hopefully also signifies something that was previously not signified. And this is why I believe PF does not exist as the other debate forms do: I do not believe you all have such a ground. You all speak but the words are not meant to transcend themselves, they are words for the sake of words, and in this sense maybe it is best to call PF a form of collaborative literature rather than debate. Anyways, this is not a problem that cannot be fixed, and really the fix is quite easy: develop a common point to stand on (reference to evidence), and then draw out the consequences of such references. If you treat your "debates" like this, you stand the chance of having actual debates (and the chance to win my ballot, which is likely what you care about the most as you finish reading this unnecessarily long section about an activity I will probably a judge a total of 2 more times in the rest of my life, and I don't really blame you for wanting the ballot).

Congress: In the words of Rolling Stone's Greil Marcus, reviewing Bob Dylan's 1969 album Self-Portrait, "what is this s**t?"

I am open to all types of arguments, but if you run a problematic argument, I won't evaluate it.

My least favorite thing is when people are rude during cross. There's no reason for it, so if you are rude, I will drop your speaks.

Tell me how to vote. I prefer voting on impacts, but if you tell me where you've won the round on the flow, I'll vote there.

Conflicts: Desert Vista, Chandler Prep

Yes email chain: rsferdowsian@gmail.com

I debated at Chandler Prep for 3 years and currently debate for ASU

LD-specific section at the bottom

General:

- I don't care what types of arguments you read, as long as they're (a) well-explained and warranted and (b) well-impacted out (by which I broadly mean implication-work as to why winning your args wins you my ballot, not just straight impact-calc)

- Framing is key, especially in the last 2 rebuttals - you're not going to win everything, so tell me what's most important for my decision and deal with what the other team is saying is most important

- I default to an offense-defense paradigm unless told otherwise

- I won't judge kick unless 2nr says so. For both sides: don't let the 'judge kick good/bad' debate start in the 2nr/2ar, esp. if the status of the CP is clarified earlier. The neg should say 'status quo is always a logical option' or even something more explicit in the 2nc for 'judge kick good' not to be new in the 2nr; similarly, aff should say judge kick bad before the 2ar, even when not extending condo bad as such in the 1ar. If the first times I hear the words judge kick are in last two rebuttals, I'll be forced to actually evaluate all the new 2ar args, so don't let that happen neg

- I might not know as much as you about the intricate, technical aspects of the topic, so be clear and slow on topic-specific phrases/acronyms, especially with T

Case:

- 2acs are generally terrible on case, the block should point this out, exploit it, and protect itself from new 1ar stuff

- Good case debating by the neg (and aff) = good speaks

Topicality v policy affs:

- I default competing interps. I've personally never understood intuitively or theoretically how one would decide whether an aff is "reasonably" T or not, so if you're going for reasonability on the aff, make sure you are very clear on what that means/how judges would determine reasonability under that frame or I'll be persuaded by the neg saying reasonability is arbitrary

- I usually view the relative interpretations as 'advocacies' the provide uniqueness for/solve each side's offense and the standards on both sides as net benefits/advantages to that standard/disads to the other, like a CP+DA debate. (If you don't want me to view it that way you should tell me). This means that impact calc is super important, eg "aff ground outweighs limits", "precision outweighs", etc.

Theory:

- I'd love to hear a super in-depth "condo bad" debate, if the aff goes for this and does it well I'll probably give pretty good speaks

(Personal opinion: condo is good; being neg is hard; but I can be easily persuaded otherwise.)

- Everything else: I default to rejecting the argument, not the team; if you want me to reject the team, explain why it's justified/what the (preferably in-round, not just potential) abuse is

- The CP+DA thing from the Topicality section above applies here too, which means interpretations matter a lot (a good example of this is that the aff going for "states CPs with uniformity are not allowed, non-uniform states CPs are allowed" would solve a lot of neg offense while also allowing you to go for unique offense to uniformity being uneducational, cheating, etc.)

Disads:

- "DA turns case" is important and should be answered in the 1ar

- "DA solves case" is underutilized

-*Impact calc* - not just magnitude/probability/TF but also filtering arguments (e.g. 'heg solves everything'), filters for evidence-quality ('prefer our empirics over speculation'), etc.

- Again, I default offense-defense but I am ok with concluding that there is 0% risk of a DA. It's really important for the aff to be explicit when doing this (e.g. say something like "offense defense is bad for policymaking and decision-making")

Counterplans:

- I'm probably much more open to theoretically cheating CPs than most judges, just win the theory debate (for this, confer above on Topicality).

- Really techy CPs should be explained in the 2nc/1nr to a certain dumbed-down level

Ks v Policy Affs:

- FW matters a lot; the negative needs to set up a framing for the debate that shifts the question the ballot is answering away from whether the plan is better than the status quo/some competitive option, or at least provides a very specific set of criteria about how that question should be answered (e.g. ontological come first, reps first, etc.). Make sure to be clear about *what winning framework means for how I write my ballot*; i.e. does it mean I refuse to evaluate the consequences of the plan altogether? or just that the way in which I evaluate it changes? or something else?

- If you don't make FW args in the 2nc (at least implicitly), 2ac args like "Perm: double bind", "alt fails/is utopian", "state inevitable", or "extinction outweighs" become serious threats if extended well by the aff.

- The 2nc/2nr should explain your theory of how the world works and explain why I should think it's true relative to their policymaking stuff - isolating a specific section of the flow where you explain your theory (especially with high-theory kritiks), or just weaving it into the Line by Line, can go a long way

- Examples are always good for K debate, in all its different components

- Aff args I find true/persuasive: extinction outweighs, institutions matter, debate is a game, perm (if alt is explained as a CP instead of as a framework argument).

- I honestly don't care if you're going to read a long 2nc overview, but please be honest about it before the speech so I can get a new sheet of paper (I'll probably flow on paper, not laptop); I try hard to maintain the Line by line would prefer you just be up-front about it.

FW versus K affs:

- I have read K affs against FW, but I have also read FW against K affs, so I'd like to think I'm not too ideological when it comes to these debates. My voting record in these debates is probably ~60/40 in favor of the neg on FW, usually due to a lack of well-warranted arguments as to why the neg's model is bad (instead of buzzwords) as well as a lack of answer to significant defensive claims like TVA/SSD.

- Impact framing is paramount in these debates: the impacts the two teams are going for are often radically different -- e.g., how should I weigh a slight risk of unfairness against a risk of the neg's model of debate being a bit neoliberal/racist/X-ist? I'll probably end up voting for whoever does a better job answering these types of questions

- For the neg: TVA is important but Switch side is really underutilized as a defensive argument imo.

- Fairness can be an impact in and of itself if you explain why, although, all else being even, it's probably not the best 2nr impact in front of me since it begs the question of the value of the game it supports.

- Better neg impacts to FW for me: clash, dogmatism, truth-testing, even institutions good offense

- Limits and ground are (probably) just internal links, not impacts

- For the aff: *explain a clear vision of what your model of debate looks like under your interp*.

- I'm down for the extremist K strats that just impact turn every standard the neg goes for, but I'm also down for running more to the middle and explaining why your model is still topical/debatable 'enough' but with some significant net benefits over theirs. If you're doing the latter, your interp should be super well-explained in the context of their limits/predictability offense

K v K:

- These can be some of the best or some of the worst debates - worst when neither side gets beyond tagline extensions, best when each side speaks as if they were an actual scholar in whatever field they're deploying, doing comparative analysis of the other team's theories in relation to their own

- Impact calc and framing is crucial, esp. in rounds where both sides are discussing some identity-related oppression impacts. This doesn't mean saying certain lives or groups matter more than others, it's precisely to avoid that: you all should discuss your theories of the world in ways that don't put me in the position of having to 'pit' certain lives against one another, otherwise I'll have a rough time and so will you

- I'm down for not giving the aff a perm in these debates, BUT it's got to be explained much further than "no perms in a methods debate" - that's not a warranted argument. To win this, the neg should explain why perms in debates where no one advocates gov. action are uneducational, unfair, incoherent, bad for radical pedagogy, etc. and, ideally, also provide an alternate model for what the burden of rejoinder looks like if the neg doesn't have to win that the K is an opportunity cost to the aff.

- Cf. "K v Policy Aff" section above on long 2nc Overviews

***LD-Specific***

1. Fair warning: I tend to vote neg... a lot, seemingly too much, usually on technical concessions in the 2ar (damn speech structures).

To deal with this if you're aff:

- make sure you win your case - I've noticed I have a tendency to vote neg on presumption when the NR makes some circumvention args that the 2AR just straight-up drops in the last speech.

- also, make sure you frame the debate for me such that, even if there are some tech-y drops, I'm more likely to vote for you

2. Full disclosure: I don't get LD theory, like, at all. I don't really get RVI's, I don't know how they function, and I'm convinced most LD'ers don't either, so generally, if theory is your thing, just be very clear on these three components of theory debates: (a) interps, (b) violations, and (c) standards. As long as that basic template is there in some form, I can do my best.

Random things:

- I probably won't read that many cards unless it's brought up in the debate or I'm stealing your cites

- Flashing isn't prep but be quick

- Clipping means you lose and will get bad speaks; I'll try to follow whatever the tournament procedure is for this

- Extra speaks to anyone who brings me some flavored iced coffee beverage/bothered to read this far down.

Good luck!

I am a former Lincoln Douglas debater and current assistant coach of La Cueva High School in Albuquerque, NM. My last competitive experience was at the 2008 National Tournament in LD. LD is my absolute favorite style of debate and where I feel most at home, but I frequently find myself judging policy rounds. I've judged policy at both the 2017 and 2018 national tournaments and lots of local and regional Arizona and New Mexico tournaments.

I believe that debate is meant to be a persuasive activity, and I lean toward preferring a slower style. I will not understand much if you spread. I am pretty traditionalist and value/criteria are really important to how I weigh a round. I am not entirely fluent in policy style argumentation or lingo and I expect logic and reasoning in your case. I will count flashing against your prep time and I'm not a fan of things like flex prep, taking over your partner's CX answers, etc.

If I'm judging you in a Public Forum round, know that I am even more traditionalist in PF than the other two debates. I love PF for what it is and what it was meant to be. Don't use Policy lingo or spreading.

I never tolerate rude, sexist, or racist behavior in a round and speaker points will reflect that if I see it. Be eloquent and persuasive. I need to see clash in the debate. Please clearly signpost for me and sum it all up for me with clear voting issues in your final speech.

Brandon Sumner

Brophy College Prep

Arizona State University

Debating Experience:

4 years in high school

Debated briefly at Wake Forest University

Coach at Brophy College Prep

Tldr;

My philosophy shouldn’t change the strategy of the 1ac or the 1nc, all it should do is help the way you frame your arguments in the round. You should run what arguments you want to run/are strategically viable, and at the end of the day if you debate better than your opponent I’ll vote for you.

Logistics:

Tech > truth – I won’t vote on what your evidence says or if your argument is more true real world, I’ll only vote on what is said within the round. Even if I ideologically disagree with everything you’re saying, I’ll vote for you if the other side doesn’t respond to your arugments properly.

Prep time – keep track of your own/your opponents prep time, if you steal prep I’ll drop your speaks heavily so don’t do it. Prep time should stop when the email is sent/flash drive leaves the computer.

Evidence – please include me on the email chain (bsumner16@brophybroncos.org).

Speaks – I give 27-30, if you go below 27 its because you were offensive. Best way to get high speaks is to be efficient, clear and have arguments with intention. Beyond that, I like puns and witty one liners about people I know/myself, but those come far after making sure you debate well. Demonstrating mastery of your arguments/the topic climate in cross ex will also boost your speaks.

Speaking style – Any speed/style/form is fine as long as I can understand what you’re saying. I will only say “clear” twice during a speech. After that if I can’t understand what you’re saying I won’t be flowing it. I will not flow off the speech doc.

Argumentative Positions:

Aff -- I read a K aff for 4 years in high school so I’m fine with any form of subversion from the resolution, be it tangential relationships through some critical/identity issue, or performance/high theory rejection of the topic. On the flip side, I have grown to love more traditional policy affirmatives lately, and I think there is a certain ethos to running a big-stick impact and defending your reps. I feel like I might be more qualified to judge “K on K” style debates, but I probably prefer judging a 6+off debate vs a traditional policy aff. Run whatever you want.

Disads – I like good link analysis, and unless the aff is running a lot of “big impacts bad”, “your internal links are bad” or good impact defense, focus more on the link and uniqueness. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t explain your internal link chain, I just think that UQ/Link are easier for the aff to contest than the idea that there is a 0% risk of the disad impact.

Counterplans – I have grown to love counterplans over the last year. Advantage cp’s, pics, multi-plank addons in the 2nc to respond to 2ac addons, generic cps (states), all of them. Uptopian fiat, pics good/bad, solvency advocate requires/not required are all theory debates to be had however, so make sure you answer any theory the aff brings up.

Theory – I’ll vote on theory, and you don’t necessarily need to prove in round abuse. Don’t just read your blocks, I like specific in round examples of how strategies have changed, how the round could have been different, what the aff justifies the neg doing, etc.

*Berkeley update* condo: I will vote on condo, but I think it's good to know that I probably lean slightly neg in my personal ideology (if the debate is 50-50 I'm more likely to default to condo good). If you want condo to be a viable option in the 1ar and the 2ar you should have examples of what types of offense/arguments the negative's interpretation prevents you from using - and why those arguments are important for the topic. On the neg, you should point out what arguments the 2ar can make that solve their offensive claims and what specific ground/education/type of debate you lose when I vote on the aff interpretation. Also, I haven't decided yet if I think condo should be a question of what model of debate is justified or if in round abuse is a magnifier for your interpretive claims, so tell me instead so I don't have to think about it.

Framework – I’m 50-50 on this issue. Probably the best answer to K affs in my opinion, but I was also a 2a against framework for 80% of my high school rounds so I understand how the arguments interact with each other. Please make the distinction between substantive framework and theoretical framework – I am persuaded by the argument that the neg went for only theoretical fairness and the affs 2ac was an impact turn to substantive framework.

Topicality – Love in depth topicality debate, both sides should describe what their model of debate does for the case list, the neg ground on the topic, and the theoretical implications of their interpretation. This debate, even more so than others, is a tech>truth flow. For this topic specifically, don't assume I understand how all of the mechanisms of the aff work in conjunction with the topic literature so if that's going to be a key argument do a little extra work on it.

K – I have predominately been a K debater, and I’ve read a lot of the literature base for most kritiks on the circuit. For me, you need to win a) the link to the aff and analysis on why the perm doesn’t work and aff doesn’t outweigh b) either win framework or that your alt solves the K/the aff. I won’t judge kick the alt for you unless you tell me to (and aff can answer that pretty easily) but if you win that you don’t need an alt, I will vote on reps/method/unethicality. Explain the thesis of your critique, even if I know the argument well I won’t vote on it unless you explain it well. I prefer the 2NC to be more flow/line by line heavy than your 2.5 minute rhetorical block. The only time I think you should wax poetic is if you have specific historical analysis for root cause/proximate cause or you need to explain the more nuanced parts of your critique that frame the rest of the line by line or specifying your argument to historical events/philosophical movements.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me

Shion Nakamura Wagoner

Judging for Desert Vista HS

Did Policy for 3 years in High School mostly read ID Ks

Judged last 2 years mostly Novice

fine with what the other people in the room are fine with as long as it isn't harmful

I will probably not keep track of prep

I don't like when teams act "superior" if that makes sense

even though i will flow everything i should be able to see who picks up based on 2nr/2ar and i usually flow those separately because it's easier for me to make sense of things

tell me where you want me to flow what (please!)

Probably will find K rounds more enjoyable

Probably can't give any Varsity teams any advice but will try anyways

personal stuff:

I like my home city a lot (Phoenix)

TLOP > Yeezus/808s > College Dropout/MBDTF > KSG > Late Reg/Ye > JIK/Graduation > WTT/CS

IGOR > Cherry Bomb > Wolf/Flower Boy > Goblin/Bastard

TPAB > GKMC > Untitled > Section 8.0 > Damn > Black Panther

although all of that is subject to frequent change