C_boreczky75413@berkeley.edu

Brief update for Stanford LD competitors - I primarily judge circuit and CA-circuit policy debate, but much of the below should apply. I'm not primed for any category of LD arguments over another, and don't have an inherent preference for circuit arguments and styles, but I'm very open to them.

Four years of policy competition, at a solid mix of circuit and regional tournaments. I generally do enough judging these days to be pretty up-to-date on circuit args.

Generally comfortable with speed but I tend to have issues comprehending overly breathy spreading. And please, for everyone's sake, make sure your tags are clear and don't try to give theory analytics at full speed. You can do whatever feels right, of course, but I can only decide based on what I catch.

Broadly, I default to an offense-defense paradigm and a strict technical focus. It's not exactly hard to get me to depart from those defaults, however. I'll vote for anything, and it doesn't take any 'extra' work to get me to endorse performance advocacies, critical affirmative advocacies, etc - just win your offense, and framework if applicable.

I'd love to be a truth over tech judge, but I just don't believe that's an acceptable default orientation for my ballot. That said, engaging with that preference and doing it well is a pretty convincing approach with me. This most often comes across in impact calc.

Evidence quality is extremely important to me. I tend to grant much more weight to card texts and warrants than to tags, and I'm perfectly happy to drop ev that doesn't have warrants matching the tag, if you articulate why I should do so. That said, I don't discount evidence just because I perceive it to be low-quality, and if it gets conceded, well, it might as well be true.

My bar for framework and T/theory tends to depend on what you're asking me to do. Convincing me to drop a states CP on multiple actor fiat bad requires fairly little offense. Convincing me to drop a team on A-Spec is going to be an uphill battle, usually.

I have a higher threshold for T and independent voters, if you go for it, you can win it, I won't pull the trigger as easy as I would on a solvency card. It is more interventionist than not for me.

I debated one year at Stanford, and have debated policy and LD since high school on both the national circuit and local level. I’m Black and if that makes you reluctant to pref me, check yourself. Run whatever you want, however you want to run it. My job is to fairly facilitate the round that will allow both debaters to do their best. My ear might be a little untrained for unclear or incredibly fast spreading (i.e. varsity college spread level), but otherwise I should be good. I will let you know if it’s too fast. Just noticeably slow down on tags. Slow down on authors. Emphasize key warrants. If you speed through key analytical args, all of them aren't likely to make the flow.

I love K’s, BUT do not run them because I like them. Run your own game in your own lane. Avoid being problematic about theorizing what is best for marginalized communities if you are not from them. Your speaks can get docked for explicitly discriminatory and offensive positions. I'm not as much of a fan of T, but I do enjoy it if it is creative and well flushed out. I'm down for a good theory debate too. Again, if it is flushed out. Nothing is beyond me voting on if it is well warranted and impacted out. I will not vote on a floating PIC, UNLESS you spend time on it. A one line argument at the end of your speech will not give you the ballot. Don't berate me about it in the RFD. YOU GOTTA PUT WERK IN FOR THE BALLOT. I will note it though and give some weight.
Weigh everything, tell me how I should evaluate the round. I don’t have a default framework. However, if you give me none, I will simply evaluate both sides equally on each contesting level. I know I’ve said I love a lot of stuff, but I REALLY love performance args. That being said, if it is terrible, it is terrible and I will pull the trigger on T if they won it. I also like PETTINESS and HUMOR. I’m human. I like to see people put in work. If you don’t make it a boring round, you’ll see some speaker points. (*DJ Khaled voice*) I promise you. Keep me awake and entertained with substantive arguments and I will keep you happy with them awards.

All this being said, I am here to help you have the debate you want to have. Do you.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Email: juliaisabellhunter@gmail.com (please put me on the chain)

Background: I debated policy in high school at St Vincent de Paul High School in California, went to the University of Michigan and didn't debate there. I did a little bit of coaching/judging policy throughout college, and now I'm a coach at The Harker School.

TLDR for prefs: If you want to have a technically executed K debate, I'm your girl. I love a good framework debate. Classic substantive topic-based policy debate is great too. If you rely on theory tricks or are big on phil, I'm probably ~not~ your girl. Above all, be respectful and kind.

Lincoln Douglas: I judge Lincoln Douglas now. I coached at an LD camp (SJDI) a few years ago, but still be gentle with the quirks of the activity please. Some thoughts:

• If you want to persuade me on theory arguments, you're going to have to actually debate and explain the theory arguments. I'm not the best judge to go for conditionality in front of. This isn't to say I won't vote for theory arguments, because I will - just note that I have a low tolerance for bad theory arguments and theory debates that arent warranted and fleshed out. Any LD-specific theory arguments (tricks, etc) please take extra time on (or avoid).
• I love a good K debate, but note that my K background is in policy debate (gender, queer theory, high theory, identity stuff, cap, colonialism, etc etc) and I'm less familiar with LD phil stuff so you'll need to be clear/slow and really write my ballot for me.

• RVIs - I will not flow them. Not gonna happen for you. Goodnight moon, game over, no.

• There's a painfully bad trend in LD of sending analytics and then zooming through them in speeches as if they're card text. They're not card text! And I don't flow anything I can't understand! You should not be relying on judges flowing off the doc.

General thoughts:

Debate is a game. I will vote for literally anything* if you argue it well, frame the debate, and have good evidence supporting it. Techy line-by-line is the way to go always but especially in front of me. If someone drops an argument, don't just say they dropped the argument and move on. Explain how the dropped argument impacts the debate and why I should vote for you with it in mind. The same is true of critical moments in cross-ex. Framing in the last two speeches is incredibly important - write my ballot for me.

PLEASE slow down on taglines, analytics, theory arguments. If you are not clear I will let you know. If you don't adjust when I tell you you're not clear, speaker points will start to go down.

*Literally anything still has its limits. I will vote for "death good" type arguments, impact turns of critical arguments (heg good, war good), and really any silly argument that you win but I will NOT vote for any argument that defends racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other form of oppression, or for personal attacks on your opponents' character.

Ks: This is my wheelhouse (any and all). Note that this does not mean it will be easier for you to win a debate just because you read a K - because of my background in this type of debate I will hold you to a higher performance threshold. For the love of god please do line-by-line.

K affs: When I debated, I consistently read a K aff without a plan text. I also consistently went for framework/topicality against other planless K affs. My knowledge is strong on both sides of this debate, so if you're going to do it, do it well.

DAs/CPs: Not sure if I have anything special to say here. Make sure you do deep impact analysis and case turn work. I err neg on condo + counterplan theory most of the time.

T: Make sure your definitions aren't from silly sources. You have to do internal link and impact debate for topicality too. Topical version of the aff is huge.

Theory: As said above, this is probably my achilles heel in terms of debate knowledge. If you're going to go all in on theory arguments, go slow and explain things.

Public Forum:

I'm new to this, but thus far my policy and LD experience has served me well! A few important things:

1) If I am your judge you must have an email chain or google doc. Calling for cards is a waste of time -- send your speech docs before your speeches WITH YOUR EVIDENCE IN THE DOCUMENT! If you do not do this, I will be taking the time it takes you to find the evidence and send it to your opponent out of your prep time.I cannot emphasize this enough.

2) I don't want your "off time road map" to be a list of the arguments you're going to answer. Just tell me which flow goes where - a simple "our case, then their case" works fine.

3) CLASH IS KEY - in the final speeches I NEED some sort of impact and link comparison or else I end up having to intervene more than I like to. Draw lines through the entire debate - your speeches are not islands. Connect them.

Yes, put me on email chains: allenkim.debate@gmail.com

Top-level:

1. Do what you do best... Although my personal debate career was nothing to write home about, I've engaged in a lot of the literature bases the activity has to offer, from reading exclusively Policy Affs at the start of high school to performing Asian identity Affs towards the end of high school/in college and giving lectures on pomo stuff as a coach. At a bare minimum, I will be able to follow a majority of debates.

2. ...but write my ballot for me. Judge intervention is annoying for everyone; the best debaters in my opinion are those that identify the nexus questions of the debate early on and use where they are ahead to tell me how to resolve those points in their favor. That involves smart comparative work, persuasive overviews, incorporation of warrants, etc. that I can use as direct quotes for a RFD.

3. Speed is fine, but in the words of Jarrod Atchison, spreading is the number of ideas, not words, communicated per minute. I will say clear once per speech and then stop flowing if it remains unclear.

4. CX: I'll flow portions I think are important. Tag-team is fine, but monopolization is not. I would prefer that questions about whether your opponent did/did not read a piece of evidence happen during CX/prep, but this practice seems to have been normalized during online debate—which I am begrudgingly okay with.

5. The only particularly strong argumentative preference that I have (other than obvious aversions to strategies involving harassment or personal attacks) is that I will not vote for warming good. I won't immediately DQ you for reading it, but I will not sign my ballot for you on it. My research concerns how to work against climate denialism in the American public, which I find difficult to reconcile with voting for authors like Idso. I'd like to see the debate community phase out this "scholarship" as soon as possible, and I definitely don't want to have to listen to it.

Specifics —

Policy Affs - Great. I love a detailed case debate and will reward teams that engage in one.

T vs. Policy Affs - Love it, but if it's obvious you read your generic T shell solely as an effort to sap time, it loses most of its persuasive value for me. Specific and well explained violations and standards are key; to vote for you, I need to understand why your model of debate is preferable, not just why your interp evidence is better. I find myself about 60-40 partial to competing interpretations.

CPs - Two quirks: first, I prefer when the block elaborates on Solvency deficits to the Aff that the CP resolves instead of just relying on a large internal/external net benefit to make the CP preferable. I believe it's strategic to do so because if the Aff wins a low risk of the net benefit, the desirability of the CP vis-à-vis the plan gets thrown into flux—paired with the reality that most good 2ACs will include analytical reasons why the CP doesn't solve the Aff. Second, I think that CPs that could result in the implementation of the plan (i.e. consult, delay, process) are probably abusive, which makes me more conducive to theory arguments against them. These biases are far from absolute, but you should be aware of them.

Given no other instruction, I will not judge kick the CP.

DAs - I dig grandiloquent OVs with smart, in-depth sequencing/turns case arguments that decisively win that the DA outweighs the case (and vice versa). The link story and the internal link chain are the most important for me; the more specific your link evidence, the better. Zero risk is possible.

I'd love if more Aff teams were bold enough to link/impact turn DAs, it certainly makes for more interesting debates than four minute UQ walls.

Ks - The best 2NCs/blocks I have seen here typically involve 1) extensive contextualization of the links to the 1AC or the Aff speech acts, and 2) more generally, a high degree of organization that strategically chooses specific areas of the debate to extend/answer certain arguments. On the first: while evidence quality obviously matters a lot in terms of the analysis you can do, I'm also a big fan of references to/direct quotes from Affirmative speeches and CX to analytically develop the link debate. On the second: I think many speeches on the kritik get overwhelmed by the intensive burdens of both explaining their own positions and answering the 2AC and end up putting everything everywhere. In contrast, well-structured speeches that do things like explaining the links under the perm or putting the alt explanation before the line-by-line to 2AC alt fails arguments provide a great deal of clarity to my adjudication of the page.

The two points above also demonstrate that I am not the best judge for particularly long overviews. In most scenarios, having substance on the line-by-line where I can directly identify where you want each argument to be considered is much better for me than putting it all at the top and expecting me to apply it on the flow for you.

Lit base wise, I'm less experienced with "high theory" arguments (e.g. Baudrillard), so pref me accordingly. The Leland teams I've worked with have mainly gone for cap/setcol/race-based Ks, so that's where my personal familiarity lies as well.

K Affs - Ambivalence is a good word to describe my thoughts here. I think that debate is a game with pedagogical benefits and epistemological consequences, and that Affirmatives should be in the direction of the resolution/provide a reasonable window for Negative engagement. What that means or where the bright-lines are, I'm not entirely sure. Subjects of the resolution and even debate itself may have insidious underpinnings, but I need to understand what voting for the advocacy/performance (if applicable) does about the state of those issues. As a judge, I find myself asking more questions than before about what my ballot actually does; providing the answers through ROB analysis and explanations of the Aff's theory will serve you well.

FW - Both 2NRs and 2ARs are most likely to win my ballot if they collapse to 1-2 pieces of offense that subsume/turn what the other 2nd rebuttal goes for and are ahead on a risk of defense. For example, a 2NR could win a strong risk of a limits DA to the Aff's counter-interpretation with a well-articulated predictability push that it's a priori to any educational/discursive benefits of the 1AC, paired with a sufficient switch-side debate solves component to reduce the gravity of exclusion-based offense. A 2AR could win large impact turns to the subject formation of the 1NC's interpretation of debate that implicate the desirability of fairness/skills, followed by an articulation of the types of Neg ground that would be available under their interpretation that resolves residual fairness offense. There are many different ways in which this type of 2NR/2AR can materialize, and I believe I'm an equally good judge for fairness/skills/movements—so do what you're best at!

I place very high importance on the 2AC counter-interpretation. This stems from a belief that framework is ultimately a clash between two models of debate, and the counter-interpretation is the first point in these debates where I'm given explicit constructions and comparisons of them. Negatives should capitalize on poorly worded counter-interpretations, using their language to create compelling limits/predictability offense and articulating reasons why they link to the Aff's own offense. Affirmatives should aggressively defend the debatability of the counter-interpretation, outlining a clear role of the Negative and being transparent about the types of Affs that they would exclude to push back against predictability.

Theory - In general, I have a relatively high threshold for rejecting the team; this doesn't mean I won't vote on theory, it just means that I want you to do the work. There should be be ample analysis on how they justify an unnecessarily abusive model of debate with examples/impacted out standards.

I don't have any specific biases either way on condo. I'd strongly prefer if interpretations were not obviously self-serving (e.g. "we get five condo" because you read five conditional off this particular round); while I understand this is at times an inevitability, it's also not the best way to make a first impression for your shell.

Lay - If judging at a California league tournament/a lay tournament of equivalence, I'll do my best to judge debates from a parent judge perspective unless both teams agree to a circuit-style debate.

If you get me on a panel and some of the other judges are parents/inexperienced, PLEASE don’t go full speed with a super complicated "circuit" strategy. It’s important that all the judges are able to engage in the debate and render decisions for themselves based on the arguments presented; if they miss those arguments because you’re going 700 WPM or because they don’t know who this Deleuze person is, you are deliberately excluding them from the debate, which is disrespectful no matter how inexperienced they may be. I’ll still be able to make decisions based off your impact framing and explanations, so cater to the judges who may not understand rather than me.

Last thing: please be respectful of one another. I hate having to watch debates where CX devolves into pettiness and debaters are just being toxic. I will reward good humor and general maturity. Have fun :)

If your name is Hannah Lee and you are reading this, you are amazing, have a nice day

Hello Everyone!

As stated above my name is Maria Jose, you can also call me MJ. I am originally from Bogota, Colombia and moved to the U.S at the beginning of high school. I debated for St. Vincent De Paul and have been judging at high school debate tournaments over the last couple of years. I am currently the assistant coach for Lowell High School.

Please include me on the email chain mjlozano96@gmail.com

(Avoid flashing, it takes too much time)

I am open to any arguments but please do not be offensive or disrespectful. I am familiar with both policy and K styles, however, I am not very familiar with high theory or obscure K’s.

I expect you to be well versed on whatever arguments you choose to run. It is your role to write the ballot for me. You should tell me how to evaluate the debate. I think framing is really important in any debate.

Preferences:

1. Do not heavily rely on your evidence. Reading cards is important but there is way more to a debate than that. Whenever you extend a card, remind me why it is important for the purpose of the debate.

2. I love good overviews and analytics.

3. Discourse is important.

4. I will not vote on T, unless you substantially explain to me why it is a voting issue. Similarly, if you run a CP you must convince me that it is competitive and has a net benefit.

5. Line by line debate is a must along with good sign posting.

6. K aff’s: I like them. You do not have to read a plan text, however, I do prefer if the AFF is related in some way to the resolution.

7.K’s: You must be well versed on the lit.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me!

BACKGROUND

I currently debate for the Cornell University Policy team (Class of 2020).
I did Policy Debate for four years at Lynbrook High School (2012-2016), debating under the Transportation, Latin America, Oceans, and Surveillance topics.
I've also served as a student coach for Miller Speech and Debate (PF only) 2013-2016.
**Last Updated 10 Jan '19

POLICY

General Info

bobby803.ma@gmail.com
Please add me to the email chain (if there is one). If teams are flashing, I do not need to be included and will count prep time until the flash drive comes out of the computer.

Be respectful to your opponents at all times.

Tech > Truth (but only slightly)

MLK Logan will be my first tournament seeing the high school topic. This means I will not be as well versed on common arguments and jargon that you will be used to judges being (so make sure to say what acronyms are and explain in greater depth what your plan/CP/disad does). Also this means I will have a fresh perspective on topicality and will not have the community consensus on aff/neg ground ingrained in me yet.

Speed

Don't go fast unless you can be clear. To put it into context, I can perfectly understand the 1NCs of Georgetown AM (NDT winners 2012 and 2014, around the 50 minute mark).

T vs Affs that try to be Topical/Theory

I have a pretty high threshold on Topicality and place heavy emphasis on the limits debate. The negative must impact out the limits debate. If I can't explain to the affirmative team why violating the interpretation is bad at the end of the round, I will not vote on T.

While I do slightly lean towards competing interpretations, I feel the reasonability/Competing interps debate is unresolvable. Unless both sides make the best arguments or do not say anything about it at all, I will go with whoever had better arguments for their claims.

T and Conditionality are reasons to reject the team. But for most other procedurals, I default to reject the argument unless convinced otherwise.

If you say dispo (not sure if people do anymore) be sure to say what it means. Everyone literally has a different interpretation of its definition.

Especially in the rebuttals, please explain and impact out your theory objections. Short and blippy repeats of shells are hard to catch and probably not a good enough reason to reject the argument or the team.

Kritikal Affs/Framework

I think non-traditional affs are a valuable form of scholarship in the community, and am open to listening to any speech act.

That said, framework is a viable strategy if done correctly. Many kritikal affs don't have a good reason they can't be topical and framework can be very engaging if argued in the right way.

Against identity arguments, I place heavy emphasis on the TVA as that is a necessary component towards arguing how the topic includes the affirmative social location/scholarship in the activity. Against high theory and other non-identity, the TVA is not as necessary (though can still be helpful) to win the debate.

Ks

I have primarily debated policy positions, but have read K affs and gone for Kritiks. I am familiar with most empirical Kritiks (cap, security, etc.), post-modern philosophy (Heidegger, Foucault, Agamben, etc.) and identity arguments (the most common type of argument encountered in district 8 of college). I am not as well-versed with high-theory (DnG, Baudrillard, Psychoanalysis, etc.), but will listen to them.

The permutation must be explained, especially in the rebuttals. Short blippy extensions of "perm do both" until the 2AR will not fly as it does not give the neg the chance to answer reiterations of the permutation.

CPs

I lean towards the idea that CPs should be both textually and functionally competitive (unless the neg team can persuade me otherwise). I do not really have an opinion on CP theory and vote on the team that argues their theory impacts the best.

Any types of Counterplans are fine (agent, process, advantage, etc.), but the more abusive it is, the more convincing aff theory arguments will be.

I believe it is important to have a solvency advocate, but I will vote on a CP w/o one if the aff does not point it out.

DAs

Please have specific links to affirmatives as they make the disadvantage much more believable.

I like the ptx disad and believe it is legitimate and will err neg to theory on that argument.

Please do impact calculus! It is very hard to vote for you if you don't explain how the disad outweighs. If you do not, be prepared to feel judge screwed as I will be forced to intervene if the analysis is not done for me.

Case Debate

The case needs to be talked about every single aff speech (even if dropped by the neg) or else I will be very uncomfortable voting aff. If I do not understand the scenario/link chain, it will be hard for me to compare it against the CP/DA.

I enjoy a good impact turn debate and find the interaction of those arguments with the off case very interesting. While I will vote on presumption if the debate is super super close, I do lean towards try-or-die (unless ppl provide a reason that framing is bad).

Make sure to do lots of impact calc (should start in the 2AC).

LD

It is my understanding that LD has adopted a lot of the style of Policy, and I will be most effective as a judge if those are the arguments that you debate (whole res, plans, CPs, DAs, Ks).

I have a limited understanding of philosophy and its function in debate, but will do my best to understand/evaluate them. But make sure to impact out in the round the application of the arguments you are making.

I will have the same threshold for theory as I will in policy. This means I will never be voting on things like "AC theory spikes needs to be in the same place."

PF

I do not care much about the "rules" of public forum. If an argument is made, and it makes sense, I will vote on it. Impact calculus is very important in a format where there are many arguments talked about in the last speech and very limited time explaining each. Also, my biggest pet peeve is when teams talk a lot about an argument in the final focus when it was not in the summary. I will not evaluate any arguments if I cannot draw a line from the constructive/rebuttal -> summary -> final focus.

Ryan Mills - Archbishop Mitty High School, CA

Competitor: Damien HS 1980-1984, Loyola Marymount University (LMU) 1984-1987

Coach: Loyola HS (Los Angeles) 1989-1994, Pinewood 1994-1995, College Prep 1995-2000, Archbishop Mitty 2016 - Present

Please put me on the email chain: rmills1916@gmail.com

[My] Framework - Or how do we achieve our best selves by doing this thing called 'debate'?

I approach debate as an educator so for me the primary reason we spend our nights and weekends together is our appreciation of the activity's ability to help us improve our critical thinking skills and articulate complex concepts in a logical and persuasive way. To that end

• Tell the story - the team who ends the debate with a coherent, compelling narrative is generally rewarded. Resolve, rather than merely extend, arguments in the 2nr/2ar.
• 'Debate the debate we're in.' Reading canned blocks, especially through rebuttals, means you're not clashing (or listening, or flowing) which also means I'm left to resolve the debate myself - no one's happy in that scenario.
• I'll be on the email chain, but I'm not reading along and won't fill in my flow from the speech doc what I don't hear comprehensibly. I prioritize flowing the card verbiage over the (very often overpowered) tag, so please don't do the slow tag line/incomprehensible high-speed card read routine. I flow, on paper, which is my detailed record of what transpires in the debate and is what I reference when rendering a decision. If it's not on my flow, it's not considered, so please make sure you tell me where your 2nr/2ar extension originates earlier on in the debate.
• Card clipping is cheating - loss and zeroes if caught.
• If the debate centers around whose evidence is better on a particular argument, best you do the evidence comparison work for me because...
• If you *do* ask me to read a piece of evidence, you are inviting my intervention in the debate regarding the 'quality' of the evidence (whether it actually says what you claim it says). Once you invite me (or any critic) into *your* space, you've lost control of how far that critic engages your invitation.
• Overtly racist, sexist, misogynistic, anti-LGBTQ discourse, etc. results in a loss and zero points.
• I welcome a spirited discussion during the RFD, but sometimes we simply won't agree on the outcome. Most judges make decisions on 'meta' arguments governing the overall direction of the debate, not some claim buried in the quickly-spewed third-level subpoint in a block. Even if you come away from my RFD thinking I'm a complete idiot, the best way to approach any critic is to ask probing questions about how we arrived at our conclusions. That way next time you debate in front of me you have a beat on how I think and can craft your approach accordingly (or decide my view is just so antithetical to yours that you strike me, which is fine too). If you treat these exchanges as a training ground for successful future, much higher stakes exchanges you'll have both personally and professionally, you'll have absorbed the best of what this activity has to offer.

That's my framework. Now, a few words on how I default if you leave me to my own devices.

Overview - 'You do you' as long as you warrant it

I do my best to suspend my predilections: whether I love or hate a particular argument, I'll vote for you if you win it unless it's fundamentally reprehensible (genocide good, etc.).

Primary guidance: debate the debate we're in rather than read canned blocks written months ago in a land far far away from the round we're sitting in. Clash is paramount.

Default views on argument types

Topicality

I prefer to understand what specific ground the negative is rightfully entitled to that the affirmative interpretation precludes access to. I care more about what you do than what you might allow. Conversely, I am also receptive to arguments around T as language policing resulting in the exclusion of marginalized voices, so don't be afraid to go for that either. I'm a former English teacher, so to me words matter in both directions.

Plans/Counterplans/Permutations: Words Matter!

Document the exact plan/counterplan/permutation(s) wording before engaging. If there is a real grammatical flaw in the text, don't be afraid to stake the debate on it, properly impacted (the 2003 ToC was decided on a plan flaw argument so it's a thing, at least to me).

Won't 'judge-kick.' It's up to the negative to make strategic decisions about advocacy in the 2NR.

Disads

No link means no link. Offense always helps, but I will easily vote on a well-executed no link/internal link/low risk of impact approach.

I lean toward probability over magnitude. Focus on uniqueness and the link/internal link whether on aff or neg. Debate solvency on case and do the work to weigh impact vs. aff advantage remaining in the rebuttals. Extend impacts in rebuttals and tell the comparative story (again resolve, don't just extend).

Accordingly on the neg, your time is better spent making the link bulletproof than reading impact extensions unless the aff is impact-turning the disad/k. If you want to win on framing/framework invest time there.

Critiques

• Read extensively in the literature of the criticism you're advocating and compile your own positions. CX can be devastating with these arguments, so if you've read the literature you can tease out nuances that teams who take the lazy way out won't be able to account for.
• I'm receptive to specific link and impact assessment. Better to establish how this particular affirmative triggers a unique link to this specific criticism rather than rely on a generic indictment of a particular normative framework or 'you use the USFG' - i.e. a link to the status quo. Advocate an alternative and explain how you access it. 'Refuse' isn't a great option since that just puts the resister on a pedestal divorced from efforts to materially improve the lives of the marginalized, but I'll (reluctantly) vote on it if well defended.
• If your strategy is 'high theory' I'm not the best judge for you so please pref me accordingly. I strive to read enough critical literature to be conversant, but I have a day job so will not be PhD-level familiar with any critical argument. Please debate with this level of familiarity in mind or risk disappointment with the outcome.
• Critical affs/planless affs/Performance: Fine, again just want to understand what I'm endorsing if you're asking for the ballot.

If you have questions about something I haven't covered, please ask before the debate starts.. The activity is meant to be educational, fun, and inclusive - if it's not, we should all be doing something else.

I am an old school policy debater.  The kind that used tape, scissors and highlighters to cut evidence.  I debated for Jeff Jarman at Wichita State University, went to the NDT twice and broke at CEDA Nationals at some point.  I debated with Jeremy Hathaway who I met at the World Debate Institute at the University of Vermont, debate nerds.  I coached at Chico State for two years when I was in grad school.  I am from Sacramento, California and debated in high school for 4 years for Kennedy High School.  I am currently a healthcare attorney and I have a daughter who is debating for West Campus High School, Hi Abby!

I don't judge a ton of debates every year.  I think I am a decent judge because I try really hard.  I was a 1A and 2N.  I expect a clean flow and lots of sign posting.  I dont like prep time stealing, be considerate of when you are prepping.  I am probably started running your clock already.  I flow on paper with two different colored pens, I am that old.  I try to keep up with what you are saying when you speak fast, thats fine with me.  I will tell you when to slow down or if I cant understand you, but I am not your mom, you need to listen and adapt.  I will make faces and give you some signs that I understand or I am listening or I have no idea where you are on the flow.  When I put my hands up like, where are you, i really mean, where are you, and at some point i will just start flowing on a new piece of paper, so i have your arguments, but that means that they are not getting applied correctly, and that is your fault, so if you dont like the decision that is your bad.

I like impact calculations.  I like topicality.  I like rules, I try and follow them in life and i think you should too.  I am one of the most liberal people you will ever meet, although I dont think you would ever know it.  I dont let that interfere with my judging but c'mon how can that not play into your decision calculus, its like saying that we are all colorblind, ridiculous.  I call it like i see it.  I dont understand framework arguments, but I am open to hearing them, if you tell me what to do with my ballot, I will do it.  I will entertain arguments that my ballot means something outside of the round, but honestly after seeing thousands of debates I understand that it is the totality of the experience and not the individual round that really matters.  I will never say that I wont listen to an argument, I will listen to anything that you have to share and you have researched.  And I will vote for things that I dont agree with because that is how the game is played.

I have been participating in debate for over 25 years and that gives me some perspective.  I love this activity, I love what it teaches and the hope that it inspires.  I have met my best friends in this activity and people who i think have changed the world for the better.  I believe in the goodness of people within this activity and I hope that you do to.  Treat each other kindly and dont be a jerk.  Life is a series of awkward moments strung together by eating and sleeping, embrace it, admit when you are wrong, and figure out how to get yourself out a jam in a debate round, you cant win everything, pick and choose what you can win and have the tenacity to go for it.  Good luck and dont be afraid to ask me any questions.  

This is just a basic overall paradigm, feel free to ask me more specific questions during a round.

I have experience competing in college for the last few years in Parli and LD and I.E's. I've judged for the last few years of high school policy, LD, PF, Congress, some I.E's, and Parli.

I'd like to consider myself a flow judge meaning that I will examine every argument and evaluate the debate based on what is on the flow.

That being said I usually follow the rules of each syle of events whenever I'm judging unless I'm told otherwise in the debate as for examples why rules are bad.

In terms of speed/spreading, I'm ok with it since I can keep up with it. That being said I care more about accessibility into the round, meaning if you're going too fast for your opponents and they try clearing you or telling you to slow down, it is probably a good idea to try and adjust your speed in those situations.

I'm open to any type of argument. My only preference is that arguments are impacted out in the round. I'm a lazy person by nature and like to do the minimum amount of work, meaning I prefer when teams tell me exactly where and what to vote for on my flow. Don't assume I know which arguments you are going for at the end of the debate. I also tend to protect against new arguments in the final speeches. Additionally, treat me as someone who has no sense of direction and needs to be given clear instructions to any destinations that you need me to go to.

And finally, don't be jerks to your opponents.

So the bottom line is to do whatever you'd like to do, have fun and throw in a joke or 2, even make references to anime, European football, or anything for that matter.

UPDATE CAL 2024

I haven't judged a debate in over three years. I don't really think I have any coherent thoughts on substance of debates anymore but I do think I am more ardent in the belief that it should be about whatever you want it to be as long as you're able to explain it to me.

UC Berkeley 2018

East Kentwood Highschool 2016

Put me on the chain:

michaelobuchi@gmail.com

I like:

warrants, line by line, effort and humor

I don't like:

rudeness

I will hold the line on:

speech times, evidence quality and clipping

I'm currently a student at UC Berkeley and an assistant coach at Sonoma Academy. I debated policy two years in high school and cleared at several national tournaments, so I almost know things. That said, I have been out of the game for a while so...

I will not shake your hands bc germs are real, but it's not personal I promise.

If possible, I'd prefer an email chain to flashing. most times, flash drives take forever to use and drag debates out for too long.

I don't have super strong argument preferences, i.e. I won't reject anything immediately (except for blatantly racist/sexist/transphobic nonsense). That said, I probably do have higher and lower thresholds for certain arguments, which I'll try to lay out here.

Meta-Stuff:

Every argument should be a viable 2NR/2AR option, don't read clearly throwaway arguments just to waste time. you might as well just shorten your speech.

BE INCLUSIVE. if your opponents ask for pronouns, content warnings etc. you should provide them.

I default to offense/defense paradigm to start with, but I can be persuaded otherwise, just make the argument

I believe that my role as a judge is to evaluate the desirability of the affirmative. Take that as you will.

DO THE STUFF YOU'RE GOOD AT!!! Please don't read arguments you don't know just b/c you think they'll make me happy. they won't, and I want to watch you do you, not you do me (weird phrasing but its late and you get it).

Style - you do you. I'm a big fan of jokes, and the will make me pay attention to you more. If you aren't funny though, don't try too hard :)

Signpost/be clear when you transition between cards, I don't want to look at the doc unless I need to read evidence.

I like nature, so make some tree jokes and teach me something new about this planet and I'll be stoked.

I'm fine with speed, but please be clear and limit spitting bc GERMS and it is distraction.

Specific Args:

Counterplans - They pretty cool. I love CP texts that are specified to specific parts of the aff and thing that original CPs (not the states CP) are severely underutilized.

Disads - no reason I wouldn't like them. they go well with counterplans. I don't think zero risk is a thing, but I do think it's easy to win a much larger risk of the aff.

Kritiks - I'm down. I'm well versed in most literature, but that means I also expect you to be well versed in it. And I will notice and evaluate sloppy explanations. That said, I have preferences: Baudrillard and his cohorts are frustrating and offensive, and I'd rather not listen to these debates. If you are going to read high theory, I'll have a similar threshold for explanation. The higher the theory, the higher the threshold. you also should answer questions in CX. MAKE THE DEBATE ACCESSIBLE. Winning debates by being an asshole is not cool and will be reflected in your speaker points.

!!!I do not think that performance in JV debate is a good thing. When executed properly, performance debates are some of the most interesting and important arguments that take place in this community, that being said, in JV debate that execution is not there, and it almost always devolves into some form of name calling or other disaster. I do not care if you are an amazing performance debater, in a JV pool, the chances are low that your opponents are similarly qualified, and I really really don't want to judge a debate that devolves into calling an antiblackness team white supremacist (it's happened and negatively affects the community).

T - default to competing interpretations, but will go either way. Don't read throwaway T arguments. Impact it out. Why does fairness matter?!!

Policy Affs- I'm down. I think that you should be ready to beat the advantage counterplan, and be reasonably topical. solvency advocates are a must - you should have a person that says we should do the plan and have NUANCED WARRANTS.

Non-Traditional Affs - I went to the UTNIF, so I'm familiar with the lit. That said, I have preferences: Baudrillard and his cohorts are frustrating and I'd rather not listen to these debates. Other than that, updating K-aff uniqueness (trump makes state x) is a really persuasive argument, and something I'd love to judge. That being said, I have a very high threshold for pomo nonsense because I tend to think that stuff exists, and really do think that you should have a concrete advocacy statement.

a few arguments I think require more nuance-

I don't understand why debate as a home, or a survival strategy requires you to win ballots. Losing is probably the most valuable thing debate can do for you, because it's loss that educates you and hones your skills. I never felt like I was no longer part of the debate community after going 2-3 at Fullerton.

you must be able to beat the Topical Version- I think that a TVA, even just being able to access your literature takes out almost all of your offense against framework. you should try to provide reasons that topical action (under the neg interpretation) specifically excludes your lit base.

NEG TEAMS - I'll appreciate you a whole lot if you just go for case turns. A lot of times, these affs don't make sense, and you can probably think of a cool way to turn them. obviously don't do it if it isn't a winning strategy though.

Framework - It's always good to know when theoretical or substantive strategies are strategic. Other than that, you should have a TVA, and offense against the counter interpretation.

Pet peeves:

please please please don't ask the other team "what cards did you read". Flow the speech, not the speech doc :)

explain. your. solvency. If I don't know how your aff solves the impacts at the end of the debate, I'll be comfortable voting neg on presumption, and uncomfortable weighing aff offense against framework or literally any other argument, because I don't know if the aff solves. on the flipside, if I do know how and what your aff solves, I will be impressed and very happy with you/very willing to leverage the aff as a reason framework is bad.

speaks -

>29.5 you should win this tournament, I'll probably tell my friends about you

29-29.4 - deep elims, you should do well at this tournament

28.5-28.9 - good, needing some improvement but should probably break

28-28.4 - average

27.5-27.9 - decent, but with some big rhetorical or strategic mistakes

27-27.4 - needing serious improvement

<26.9 you made me sad or said something evil

0 you clipped cards (this comes with an emphatic L)

If you show me that you've posted the relevant documents (1NC opensource, new offense) on the wiki after the debate, I'll give you a .2 speaker point boost because opensourcing is good and should be encouraged. If you don't know how, ask me and I'll help you set up a wiki.

A few things on the top,

I believe in debate as a communicative activity, so present your case in a more formalized manner. Faster than conversational is cool, but don't go too fast. I am definitely more towards the traditional spectrum, but I'll vote your way on the more progressive arguments as long as they are articulated clearly. A few specifics:

Speaker Point Scale:

29.3+ — the top speaker at the tournament.
29.1-29.2 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.
28.8-29.0 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.
28.6-28.7 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.
28.4-28.5 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.
28.0-28.3 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.
27.7-27.9 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

Aff-I definitely prefer more traditional affirmatives, but if you can clearly articulate the harms demonstrating the necessity of your affirmative, I should vote on it. I definitely have a harder time voting on performance affirmatives, but it's really gonna come down to the justification provided in your 2AC/1AR. For both, you need to have extremely clear line by line, and I haven't had any experience on this topic, so assume I'm not familiar with your affirmative. K-wise, presume that I'm not familiar with the lit. I won't vote on RVIs

Policy Negs-Make sure you clearly articulate your arguments, slow down a bit on the line by line. I enjoy these kinds of args the most on neg, but I'm not usually gonna be convinced by a 5 T violation 1NC. I'm heavily truth>tech, and make sure you tell good link and impact stories. I vote on reasonable arguments, not heavily technical ones. On disadvantages, I appreciate arguments that link really strongly into the given affs, try not to just read your generic disad/cp shell.

K Negs- Articulate your arguments, presume I don't know the literature. You need to go slow through the high theory argumentation, and weigh your arguments against the affirmative really well. Again, good line by line is necessary.

Last thoughts: Don't be rude to your opponents, don't run blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic arguments. I need really strong line by line and a clear weighing of your arguments against that of the affirmatives. If you can make the debate entertaining, make the debate entertaining. If debate isn't fun, you might be doing it wrong.