Experience:

Eight years of policy debate

2014-2018 Dartmouth

What you probably want:

1] Please add me to the email chain with adazrip (at) gmail.com.

2] I have experience with every type of argument. Read whatever positions you want.

3] For planless aff vs topicality/framework, I believe procedural fairness/competitive equity can be effectively explained as an impact. Aff kritiks of framework and limits are usually more effective when specific to the aff.

4] I am fine for topicality vs plan affs.

5] I probably lean more towards truth over tech compared to most, but cross-applications, even under-developed ones, are necessary to overcome concessions. For instance, a ten card slew of wishy-washy uniqueness cards can probably be beaten by two really good cards and a few smart analytics that seem to fall on the side of contemporary “truth.” However, dropping (zero cross-application on either case or the DA flows) lightly developed and somewhat silly turns case and solves case arguments on the DA in the 2AR is likely to not end well for the aff.

6] Please resolve argument interactions. I will make my decision by identifying what I think are the key points of contestation. If neither team writes a ballot for me by identifying these issues and explaining how I should resolve them, then the losing team is likely to be unhappy with my decision as they will probably have thought the debate came down to a different set of concerns.

7] Evidence quality is important. Evidence that is not highlighted to include a claim, warrant, and impact is not going to carry much weight for me. You’re better off reading one good card instead of seven two sentence cards. I love when debaters take the time to explain the merits of key quality pieces of evidence and why they matter in the larger puzzle of the debate.

8] I think I am moderately expressive.

9] Pick and choose arguments. For example, 2-3 well-developed case defense pushes in the 2NR will go way further than 8 shallow extensions.

Topicality:

1] I prefer limits arguments over ones about ground.

2] I like debates over interpretations on the basis of predictable definitions and research burdens. This includes comparative caselist arguments, as well as evidence qualifications.

3] For planless affs vs T/FW debates, please explain the competing arguments’ interaction with one another and how to evaluate the inevitably largely disparate standards/impacts. For example, the neg is likely to win some procedural fairness impact, while the aff is likely to win some educational and exclusion-based offense. Tell me how to resolve the debate and why I should prefer your way of resolving the debate over the other team’s proposed method.

DAs:

1] DAs are most persuasive when the neg tells a story. Especially with the link, try to tell me a story that is tailored to the aff and/or its internal links.

2] Good impact overviews will put you in a great position to execute the DA to its fullest potential. This includes smart external offense, solves case, and turns case claims.

3] It is likely that the aff will have some game on some parts of the DA. Explain to me how I should evaluate the holistic risk of the DA, both at the level of the specific components of the DA (e.g. link frames uniqueness) and in comparison to the likely somewhat mitigated (by a CP, turns case/solves case, or case defense) aff.

CPs:

1] I am okay for well-researched cheating CPs (distinct from a generic process CP like Consult X random agent without an aff-specific solvency advocate). If you can find a wonky process CP that is specific to the aff, more power to you. Evidence for the CP about the literature or topic expertise (note: this is distinct from just having a solvency advocate) is usually helpful/necessary to respond to theory.

2] That being said, I am probably pretty okay for the aff on CP and competition theory. Just debate it well and devote a fair amount of 1AR time to it.

3] The 1AR and 2AR should not include perm do both unless you can explain how one could do both and how that combination can shield the link. Absent explanation of the perm, a simple neg response of “perm do both links to the net benefit because it maintains the aff’s original link” is almost always sufficient. Smart, creative explanations will be rewarded. Silly perms that are well explained should be taken seriously by the neg - don’t just blow them off with “still links to the DA” if they explain how the combination could avoid the link. Even if the necessary response is only a sentence long - don’t just grandstand, explain the warrant against the perm. If the perm explanation is illogical, impossible, or unpredictable [interpretation of the plan], then just say so and explain why.

Ks:

1] Debates are won and lost with the alt. This applies to both teams. The caveat to this is when the neg successfully goes for presumption, which I am probably pretty good for if the aff messes up k framework/role of the ballot/impact framing.

2] Specificity is important for both teams e.g. links for the negative, solvency deficit/DA explanations for the aff, etc.

3] I am probably better for aff inclusive kritiks than most. The aff should probably defend their advantages as opposed to going for theory because the neg is likely to have some great discourses + assumptions matter cards related to their k’s genre. That being said, theory is certainly a viable option, but I am not as put off by AIKs as many others.

4] Please don’t assume I know the kritik’s or the aff answers’ literature bases much at all. Both teams will do well to paint a coherent story and explain as much as possible. Historical examples tend to help both teams.

5] “Not our [insert primary author’s name]” is almost always a lie. Aff teams - please don’t fold in response.

6] I am okay for a big policy aff against a kritik. I promise.

Other things that I like and dislike:

1] Clarity. Start speeches slow. Read analytics and theory slowly. Take deep breaths in between arguments. Tag your arguments with a 3-7 word header. If you blip through an argument or don’t label it effectively, I am likely to either miss it on my flow entirely or misflow it. Emphasize important phrases and key terms in cards. Hard number 2AC arguments on off-case. Reference aff arguments in order (unless explicitly grouped or if you said you were starting in a different place). Most of all, explain your strategy at some point (usually 2NR/2AR).

2] Well executed cross exes are awesome. If you manage to find and poke at a weakness in the other team’s argument, please exploit it (e.g. if their advantage’s uniqueness is wack, read a card about it in the 1NC after poking at it in 1AC CX). Also, let each other talk in CX, please. There are many ways to effectively cut someone off after a while, but if you keep interrupting every two seconds, your CX will not seem that worthwhile to me.

3] I strongly dislike when people dodge questions in CX. Unless you’re reading some form of the opacity K, your speaker points will suffer if you seem to be avoiding CX questions, especially if the other team is asking you to explain your argument. If prompted for an explanation about an argument you made, then you should want to talk MORE, not LESS! Chances are, that if the other team didn’t get it, neither did I - if they’re going to let you explain your argument’s thesis, take advantage and wax poetic!

4] I dislike new 2AR arguments to the point where I scrutinize my flow after the debate to see if all of the aff’s potentially important arguments were in the 1AR in some way or form. The bar is not high for an argument to be considered to have been in the 1AR, but little 1AR development usually means the aff is likely to be limited to little further development in the 2AR before it becomes too new.

5] Don’t grandstand as substitution for extension please. Saying the other team “massively undercovered/dropped X” or that you “are way ahead” on something is not an argument. It is obviously okay and somewhat useful to sometimes point out concessions, my point is just that an extension must go further than just an assertion about coverage.

Samantha Godbey, PhD

Director of Debate

West Virginia University

Debaters please send speech docs here: wvucoaches@gmail.com I only check this email at debate tournaments.

If you would like to contact me, not during a debate tournament please email at SamanthaEGodbey@gmail.com.

A note about my education-I started as a novice in 2004 (fossil fuels)- debated through college mostly in CEDA Northeast. My PhD is in Political Science, in particular my dissertatation is on the American public policy process in the area of human trafficking policy. I also have comped in International Relations and Comparative Politics- I have never taken a communications class in my life. All of that means literally nothing except that there are pretty good odds I have not read whatever it is you are reading (policy or k lit). It is your job to explain it to me and pursuade me, not assume that I already know what you are talking about.

How I feel about arguments

I want you all to do whatever it is you do best/ enjoy the most. There is nothing I won’t listen to/ vote on. I really like offense. It is very persuasive to me. I feel as if that is what I look for when I am making my decision at the end of the round, I also like when debaters tell me how they won. I don't like having to look for those reasons/ decide which is most important myself.

Im not crazy about judge intervention, I do my best to come in to every round as tabula rasa as possible. It is your responsibility to persuade me in one way or another to get my ballot.

I believe that I am extremely flow centric (unless you tell me not to be), also seems like I should note that I flow what you say not what is in your speech doc. I wont have your speech doc open at any time unless I am reading cards at the end of the debate. So, if its said in the round, it'll be on my paper. The round is therefore decided by my flow (again, unless told otherwise).

I vote for who wins the debate, I find all types of arguments persuasive from critical to straight up policy. I don't care what you do, just do what you do best (and impact it).

I also think it is worth noting in framework debates that though I have, and I'm sure will in the future, vote on fairness being an impact to framework, I do not find it very persuasive. I am much more into topic education, roleplaying government good, TVAs, switch side education good, etc being a reason why debate should conform to certain guidelines (i.e. framework).

Benjamin Hagwood, Director at Vancouver Debate Academy

About me - former college policy debater, flow-centric, like all arguments but the politics DA (Elections gets a pass)

Debate is a game that can be played in a multitude of ways. It is the responsibility of the students to determine the parameters of the games and to call "foul" if they think someone has done something abusive. I will judge the round as it happens. Here are a few things about me that you might find useful when preparing for a round:

1. Flowing - I do my best to have as accurate a flow as possible while trying to capture but the context and citation of your arguments. Dropping arguments could be detrimental if your opponents extend and weight those arguments properly.
2. Observer not a Participant - I won't do work for you or insert myself into your debate. You will win OR lose based on the arguments in the round not my person opinion.
3. Style over Speed - swag is subjective - bring yours.
4. Petty but not Disrespectful - don't be unnecessarily rude to your opponent - but I must admit being petty is strategic.
5. Challenges - if you challenge someone and lose the challenge you lose the debate (this could also apply on theory debates depending on the debate - but not RVI's)

Universal Speaker Point Adjustments: all students are evaluated on their level. A 29 in novice is not the same as a 29 in open. 28 is my base for completing all your speeches and using all your speech time.

1. Wear a bowtie (+.5 point)
2. Be entertaining (tell jokes...if I laugh...you get points...if I don't you won't be punished) (+.5 point)
3. Be rude (-.5 point)
4. Don't use all your time (-.5 point)
5. Steal prep (-.5 point)

If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me and ask. Students may request my flow and written feedback at the end of the debate if they want. I will only share it with the students in the round unless they consent to the flow being shared with other opponents.

Sherry Hall, Harvard, Judging Philosophy, East Region
Judged multiple College rounds this year.

Please add me to the doc chain: hallsherry2@gmail.com

I view my role as a debate judge as a "critic of argument." This means that I think the closest analogy to what I do when I judge rounds, is to act as an educator grading a class presentation. But Collegiate debate is not just an educational activity, it is also a competitive activity. Therefore, the judge has the additional role of acting as a "referee" or official who keeps time, and resolves disputes over the "rules". In resolving debates that focus on the "rules" - is topicality a voting issue, are PICs legitimate, must the negative provide an alternative - I tend to evaluate those questions based on the impact that they have on education and competitive equity.

I consider clash against the opponent’s ideas as one of the most important standards by which to evaluate whether or not a particular argument or practice is “good” or “bad” for debate. I do think that for the activity to continue to progress, creativity in arguments and debating styles is a good thing that should be encouraged. I also think that teams which are employing innovations, such as a “performance is all that matters” strategy, will do better with me if the debaters can isolate what standards I should use to evaluate rounds in this new way, and/or what ground is left to the other team. A strategy or performance that leaves nothing for the other team to respond to undermines the goal of competitive equity.

I have a few theoretical preferences, though none is so strong that I cannot be convinced to set it aside despite the arguments in the round. I will list some of these preferences, but the debaters should keep in mind, that these issues still need to be argued, and the side that plays into my preferences, still needs to articulate the reasons why a particular argument should be accepted or rejected.
1. I strongly believe that if asked, the affirmative must specify who does the plan. The fact that the topic does not lock the affirmative into a particular actor, means that the affirmative gets to choose. The whole purpose of having a debate where the negative can clash meaningfully with the affirmative case is lost, if the affirmative can say what their plan does after they have heard the negative strategy.
2. Almost all negative teams these days reflexively declare that the counterplan is conditional. I have seen many rounds this year where that unthinking choice has cost the neg the round. If you have a legitimate reason for your arguments to be conditional and you are prepared to defend it, go for it, but I think it is a bad idea to say that your arguments are conditional when they don’t need to be – you just open yourself up to more ways to lose. My preference is against conditionality. For the same reason that I think the affirmative has to say what their plan does for the negative to meaningfully clash with that plan, the affirmative needs to know what their plan and case is being compared to, in order to effectively clash with the negative’s arguments. It is not enough that the negative will pick one strategy by the end of the round, because too much time has been wasted on arguments that are irrelevant. More importantly, the presence of a counterplan in the round changes how the affirmative answers disadvantages and case arguments. If the negative can drop the counterplan later in the round, the affirmative cannot go back and re-give the 2AC. I think that the debate is better if both sides clearly stake out their ground and their positions from the beginning and the rest of the debate focuses on which is better.

3. I have a mixed voting record in "race" and "identity" debates. I am open to the arguments that they deserve a place in debate. However, I am not familiar with a lot of the literature, and I can therefore feel a little lost understanding some of the vernacular. It is better to explain arguments rather than to rely on terms that I am unfamiliar with. I prefer arguments that have some nexus to the topic or the other team's arguments for the reasons I outlined above when discussing my feelings on clash.

In addition to the theoretical preferences, I do have some views regarding decorum in the round.
1. As I mentioned above, I view myself as an educator and consider the debate round to be a “learning environment”. I believe that both basic civil rights law, as articulated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and subsequent state laws, as well as basic ethics requires that debaters and judges conduct themselves in rounds in a manner that protects the rights of all participants to an environment free of racial/sexual hostility or harassment. I am inclined to disallow language and performances that would be considered harassment in a regular class-room setting. I have no problem with discussions that include sexual issues, but if the incorporation of pornography, sexual simulation, sexual threats against the other team, nudity, etc., creates a hostile environment for the other participants in the round, then it should not be presented. If you think your debate performance potentially crosses the line and could constitute sexual and/or racial harassment, your safest bet is to warn the other team before the round and ask if they have any objections. I consider a request from the opposing team or me to not use explicit language/material/performance to be a signal of their/my discomfort and deserving of your respect. I view the intentional decision to create a hostile environment without respecting the feelings of the opposing team to be an unethical practice that will be treated the same way as other ethical violations such as fabricating evidence – loss and zero speaker points.
2. I detest rudeness, especially in cross-examination, or in comments directed at one’s opponents.

Ive done Policy Debate for 7 years from high school through to college. In college I debated for Rutgers University Newark. I qualified to the NDT 3 times and was a CEDA Quarter finalist in 2016.

Debate is about warranting, evidence comparison, and impact calculus. These three things are essential to winning my ballot.

Extending a bunch of claims without reasoning is not persuasive. Why should I prefer your evidence over your opponents evidence. Similarly you need to compare the impacts, do not just extend your own impact while ignoring the opponents, why does your impact outweigh? Saying evaluate the "cost benefit analysis" is NOT impact calculus.

If an argument is in the Final rebuttals but was not in the constructives I will not evaluate it.

Finally, if you use racist, sexists, transphobic, ableist, xenophobic, classist, heteronormative, or another discriminatory or oppressive discourse you will not win my ballot and your speaker points will be greatly effected.

Debate History: I debated for Towson University & Binghamton University (4 years college).

First and foremost, I will not tell you how to engage in the debate. Whether it be policy or K affirmatives I'm open to debaters showcasing their research in any format they choose. However, I do prefer if debaters orient their affirmative construction towards the resolution. 

When evaluating a debate I tend to weigh the impacts of the affirmative to any disadvantage or impact the negative goes for in the 2NR. Therefore, if the affirmative does not extend case in the 2AR it becomes more difficult for me to evaluate the debate unless you tell me the specific argument I should be voting on otherwise. 

Next, is framework. I evaluate this before anything else in the debate. If you run framework in front of me go for decision making, policy research good, learning about X (insert topic related policy discussion i.e. warming, tech, economy, education, etc.) is good, clash or ground. I do not want to feel as though your framework is exclusionary to alternative debate formats but instead debate about its inherent benefits. 

I also really enjoy case debate. If you are on the negative please have case turns and case specific evidence so that the debate for me is a bit more specific and engaging. 

CP's and DA's are also arguments I evaluate but I need to have a good link for both or it will make it difficult for me to vote for them. 

Please focus more on explanation of evidence and not on the amount of evidence introduced in the debate. 

I tend to keep up on politics and critical literature so don't be afraid of running an argument in front of me. I will always ask for preferred pronouns and do not tolerate racism, white supremacy, anti-blackness, sexism, patriarchy, transphobia and xenophobia. 

Modern problems require modern solutions.

P.S. I have never and will never evaluate a judge kick argument as if it were valid. If you make a 2NR decision, you've made it. You can't unmake soup. I'm not going to intervene into the debate to fix your 2NR mistakes.

none.

Email: vl_pavlov@hotmail.com (yea. seriously. it gets my emails to me on time and im not really looking for a change. i know the world uses gmail)

Please add me on the email chain.

NSDA things and thoughts

Ill add tournament specific things as we go through the weekend.

-- PF/LD notes at the bottom. TLDR -- with a couple minor exceptions I view my role very similar to how I judge Policy rounds. IMPORTANT: for PF make sure to have impacts. I find those are underdeveloped a lot of the time in PF. So for example if youre saying the bad thing is CO2 emissions, why is that bad? Are people going to die? Will the environment collapse? That's the next level analysis that I think will be VERY helpful to get my ballot in PF.

-- I have zero thoughts on the topic. I probably did a little coaching at the tournament so I know a little but by no means anything concrete.

-- Debaters get complacent with spreading -- blast through tags, cards and analytics. Dont. Have a clear transition word for tags and on analytics slow WAY down so I can actually differentiate between what argument is being made.

But Vlad, I wont get through my all my arguments!

Ok. I promise you'll still be in an infinitely better position if you do the above adjustments than if youre blitzing through everything.

-- I think I more and more lean away from giving affs the benefit of the doubt on theories of power or models of debate that they endorse. I think when we get to the 2AR and you basically drop and the aff and go for "our theory of power is..." or "our method of debate is..." but never actually warrant out why thats in any way true, my threshold for presumption neg ballots goes waywayway down. This just feels like lazy debating. Not a big fan.

-- I'm in law school now. I think the implication is Ive learned about more and more shitty things in the world and I've learned more and more how engrained institutions are. So what does this mean for debate. I think discussions about reformation of institutions are super valuable and its a shame that debaters generally fall squarely into the camps of "yay state" or "reject all instances of state". Specific criticism of the state and reformation tactics I think are valuable. This isnt to say that if you dont youll lose, in fact I dont think my actual debate judging stances have actually changed...just a thought on the discussions I think would be cool to have.

Side note: If you want to chat about law school, whatever aspect of it youre interested in, feel free to reach out (email or any time at the tournament) Id be happy to chat. Its a big decision so Id be happy to talk to anyone considering it.

Top 'things everyone should be aware of with me judging' level

I debated for NYU for 2.5 years. Most ran policy/soft left affs, but have gone for many things on the neg. Since I've coached and judged on just about every level from Middle School debate to College at the NDT.

A DROPPED ARGUMENT IS ONLY TRUE TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU EXPLAIN IT. The only thing that a dropped argument means you will get 100% of the explanation that you GIVE. It does not mean you get to say 'they dropped X so we get Y argument and we win (the flow/debate).' If anything you should be sitting on the argument for an extended period of time and not 5 seconds. Especially if its a good piece of offense.

I usually wont take any longer then 15 minutes deciding a round. At most. I strongly believe that once I start thinking longer then that I start making connections that were not made in round and end up inserting more of my own thoughts and think about things that I dont have on my flow. My process is mostly limited to the following: I will do my best to vote on the flow, when I look at my flow I look at arguments and warrants made by both teams and how they clash on my flow. If I am able to coherently come to a decision based on arguments and evidence in the round, I will. If there is a block in my decision making I evaluate what is causing the blockage and read evidence to resolve the block. I will refrain from making any extrapolations and building argumentative connections that were not in the round.

**while the above is true, there are two exceptions -- gross misreading and misrepresentation of evidence is a droppable offense EVEN IF the other team doesnt call you out. Other exception is author criticism, specifically if the claim is that authors perpetuate problematic systems, is likely where author criticism will elevate to a voter issue. Otherwise, I THINK its most likely a reason to reject an argument, not the team. I think its important that literature in the debate space isnt written by awful people. If that claim is made, but not super clearly and there is contestation, I might google more about the author to verify who they are. I'd rather make the right decision in regards to authors, rather than keep it within the scope of what was said in round.

Im happy to judge policy v policy, clash of civs and k v k rounds. I will however caution high theory teams against prefing me. While I will vote on it, a lot of high theory K teams seem to rely on a lot of jargon that doesnt mean much to me. (EX. if you framing for the round only extends to the following phrase 'our framing for this round is libidinal economy' that means basically nothing to me). If you want a judge who will hear that phrase and immediately have that mean something to them, in full transparency, you probably should have me lower on your pref sheet. If you are able to give real world examples and implications of your theory to the aff and the world you should be ok, but I do think these are the types of arguments I have the highest threshold for voting on. If you choose not to pref me, fair enough, but if you do get me as a judge dont change what you do best. I will do my best to vote off my flow and stay as objective as possible.

Impact framing makes my life and yours easier especially in clash of the civilization rounds. When in doubt, do it old skool, spell out why you win simply and how your args short-circuits the ability of the other side to access their impacts [too few negs do this and without that step, the 2AR has a lot of ground to play with unencumbered]. If both teams are winning impacts but no one tells me how I should evaluate the impacts it leaves it in my hands which impact is more important and leaves one team feeling sad. This goes for any round.

Timing ends when you tell me it ends. If the email chain takes over a minute to send Ill probably just start running prep again.

I started flowing on computer but I still actually type and im not the fastest typer ever. I also dont EVER just copy and paste things from speech docs onto my flow. This means, especially for rebuttal speeches, that if you make a blippy argument and move on in your speech, dont get offended if I dont vote on it since Im not able to get it down properly as I'll be moving on to the next arguments youre making and trying to get those down. If its a killer argument SLOW DOWN, FLAG IT and SPEND TIME ON IT.Generally a debate is won in the rebuttals by 5 very well articulated arguments, not 40 terribly executed arguments. Focus in on those 5 arguments you need to win and make sure you win them. If your strategy is to make 40 blippy arguments TBH I probably wont flow 50% of them and I certainly wont try to figure out why those arguments win you the round.

Generally Tech > Truth, but if a theory argument is dropped by a team but is just 100% not true I wont vote on it. For example, if the neg claims the aff severed from their aff but thats not the case I will not vote on dropped severance theory.

Affirmative: You do you.

Often times affirmatives get caught up in neg arguments and dont refer to what they are trying to defend. At the end of the debate I want a clear articulation of your affirmative story and what impacts Im supposed to vote on and why your stuff outweighs.

Case Debates: Really enjoy good case debates, unfortunately they dont seem to be very common. Smart analytics and close reading of aff evidence can get the neg far. Yet teams seem scared of going hard on case and feel like they have to win an off case position...you dont. If a team cant defend its aff, by all means, let em have it. Ive voted neg that was 6 minutes of just case in the 2NR. I think a 2NR thats 100% presumption is kinda hard to win. I generally presume that an aff likely does even just a little that I can vote on. Thus, you probably some offense somewhere.

Neg: You do you, and Im fine with voting on it. I think love hearing things that divert from typical strats. Ive gone for anything from DAs, to Ks, to T so Im familiar with a wide range of debates.

DAs: I like them. BUT. DO NOT READ 30 POWER TAGGED CARDS THAT HAVE 4 HIGHLIGHTED WORDS EACH. You've been warned. Generally the Links and internal links are pretty weak in most DAs, so try to have a clear articulation how you get to your extinction scenario. The more clear this is, the more happy ill be to vote on it. Topic specific DAs are cool. A great part of debate is the research and knowledge about the topic that debaters gain. When you read a well thought out DA it shows a great knowledge and effort into the topic.

CPs: Go for it. Im fine with PICS or consult CPs. Have a clear net benefit.

Ks: I think Ks are great and I love judging em. Lately there has been a frustrating trend where debaters have become real lazy with links. 98% of links feel like links to the SQUO and just 'you use the USFG'. I find this to be incredibly lazy debating and makes me sad. I have increasing had a higher and higher threshold for voting on these links. Make of that what you will.

I prefer alts to exist and I prefer that you have real world explanations of how the alt results in something. These are the best and most persuasive alts. Jargon without how it applies to the real world doesnt do it for me. Without an alt, usually I only vote neg when the aff horribly messes up.

FWK: Happy to vote on it. While I ran mostly topical affs, since I stopped debating Ive been coaching more borderline/non topical affs and definitely understand the benefit and necessity of non topical affs. I dont think I have a predisposition for FWK either way. Win the flow, win the round.

Fairness is an internal link, NOT AN IMPACT. Im sure Ive voted on fairness as an impact but I probably wasn't thrilled. Goes for T as well.

T: Especially this year there are some weird plan texts floating around. if its a well thought out violation Ill probably be happy to pull the trigger on it if its well executed.

Performance: Overtime Ive been finding myself judging more of these rounds. While its not something I've ever done and not literature Ive read, as long as you can clearly articulate why your aff is a good idea Ill be happy to vote on it.

Theory: Teams cheat. Ive seen affs in the 2AC sever out of the entire 1AC. Thats probably bad. Thats probably abusive. Theory makes sense. Teams read arguments that are probably unfair. If a team made it hard for you to debate let me know. I might vote on it. These arent my favorite debates to judge, but I also understand that 5 conditional worlds are hard to debate against.

Please dont read violations that didnt happen in the round or REALLY didnt impact your ability to debate at all. New Affs/Non-disclosure bad are uphill battles for me, I heavily lean towards both those things being legit and decent enough debate practices.

Generally becomes a debate of two teams reading blocks of text against each other with 10+ points. Unless one side horribly mismanages this flow it probably wont mean too much at the end of the debate. If you go beyond reading walls of text, and actually make an argument out of the Theory argument you go for, this could become a voter at the end of the debate. Although it seems like its really rare that a deep debate happens on this flow.

MISC THINGS:

1. Dont tell the other team to 'do X (flow, debate, read, etc.) better' and similarly dont say things like 'clearly only one team know what theyre talking about and thats us'. You arent perfect either. Nor am I. Above all else I view debate as an activity to hone vital life skills that debate uniquely promotes. I dont think policy or K or performance debate is any way exclusionary, but I sure do think that 'arguments' that directly attack debaters and their ability to perform in this space are exclusionary and problematic. If this is how you answer CX qs or if this is an argument you think is good, your speaks just became non existent. Im not sure where these types of 'arguments' are coming from but they are popping up and I really hope they get stamped out ASAP. UPDATE: Good news, havent heard this in a while. But just gonna keep this here for a little while longer anyways.

2. In final rebuttals: 3 very well articulated arguments >>>>>>>>>>>> 57 blippy arguments. If you ask why I didnt vote on your 47th blippy argument its probably because I was still trying to process your 28th blippy argument.

3. If I look tired, I probably am. Its also probably not your fault. I also probably just spent all night doing law school work.

Novice Things: If youre a novice and got down this far, congrats. Here are things that if I see in a novice debate your speaks will go up some arbitrary amount.

1. Time yourself.

2. I kinda hate to say it but use your whole speech time. Even if you feel like you said everything you need to say, trust me. You havent. If you feel like youre about to basically just repeat yourself, thats fine too. Theres a chance you might frame or articulate an argument that puts you ahead in the round. Maybe you need to take 30 seconds to think of something to say, thats fine too.

3. Overviews are cool.

4. Less cards, more engaging with the other teams args.

5. 2nrs that go for one off case position. (Or CP with a DA as a net benefit)

PF

My foray into PF has been fairly limited but I found myself evaluating most rounds according to the above. If thats incorrect...sorry. But here are a few thoughts and feelings:

1. I know final focus is short. But that doesnt mean 'we extend our card, that takes out their case' is an argument. If that card does in fact take out their argument, you gotta explain the card. Even if the other team doesnt respond to it, it's your responsibility to make sure I still evaluate it. If you dont explain it, I wont think about it, I wont read your evidence, I wont vote on it.
2. Impacts are cool. I think a lot of speeches, especially in the final focus forget about actually explaining why things matter. So what if the economy gets better under your resolution? I urge you to think about the broader implication of your impact, are there deeper issues that youre solving?

LD

I judge a tournament or two in LD a year. So far I havent found the need to evaluate these rounds any differently than Policy rounds. But I suppose here are just a couple thoughts:

1. I dont know what a trick is, but Ive been told by other LD people and coaches that I would hate them. So unless its absolutely necessary I will default to those coaches whom I trust. Lets keep me ignorant of what tricks are.
2. A couple years ago this thing happened where people would read MASSIVE underviews with 25 arguments, and each argument had 4-5 different subparts and decide to blow up dropped underview arguments in later speeches. IDK if it was just a glitch in the LD system or if that a pervasive thing that people do and Ive just been lucky since to not hear that anymore...If that was a weird year, great! We all move on. If thats still a thing and your A-level strategy is to do what I described above -- please strike me. Or if Im judging you I strongly suggest you switch up your strategy for the upcoming round.

Tripp Rebrovick

Director of Debate, Harvard University.

BA, Harvard; PhD, Johns Hopkins

Please put harvard.debate(at)gmail.com on the email chain, but see note 1 below.

Updated January 2021:

The first thing to know about me as a judge is that I take overviews in the final rebuttals very seriously. The team that correctly identifies the critical arguments for each side will generally win, even if they have problems elsewhere on the flow or if I have other reservations about the argument. In other words, most of the time, the team that gets my ballot has done a better job of (a) identifying the most important arguments in the debate and (b) persuading me that in evaluating those particular arguments I should believe them. Similarly, I've found that in most of my decisions I end up telling the losing team that they have failed to persuade me of the truth of their most important argument. Occasionally this failure of understanding is due to a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker(s), but more often it is due to a lack of detailed explanation proving a particularly significant argument to be correct.

As a judge, I am usually skeptical of anything you say until you convince me it is correct, but if you do persuade me, I will do the work of thinking through and applying your argument as you direct me. It is usually easy to tell if I am persuaded by what you are saying. If I’m writing and/or nodding, you’ve probably succeeded. If I’m not writing, if I’m giving you a skeptical look, or if I interrupt you to ask a question or pose an argument I think you should answer, it means I’m not yet convinced.

In close debates, in which there are no egregious errors, I tend to vote for the team that articulates a better strategic understanding of the arguments and the round than for the team that gets lucky because of a small technical issue. My propensity to resolve arguments in your favor increases as you communicate to me that you understand the importance of some arguments relative to others. I am usually hesitant to vote against a team for something they said unless it is willful or malicious.

A few other tidbits:

1. I will not read the speech doc during your speech. The burden is on you to be comprehensible. Part of me is still horrified by this norm of judges following along.

2. If what you have highlighted in a card doesn’t amount to a complete sentence, I will most likely disregard it. Put differently, a word has to be part of a sentence in order to count.

3. CX, just like a speech, ends when the timer goes off. You can’t use prep time to keep asking questions or to keep talking. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to alt use time.

4. Please number your arguments. Seriously. Do it. Especially in the 1NC on case and in the 2AC off case.

5. Pet Peeve Alert. You have not turned the case just because you read an impact to your DA or K that is the same as the advantage impact. For example, saying a war with china causes poverty does not mean the DA turns a poverty advantage. It simply means the DA also has a poverty impact. In order to the turn the case, the DA must implicate the solvency mechanism of the affirmative, not simply get to the same terminal impact.

6. [Since this situation is becoming more common...] If the affirmative wins that conditionality is bad, my default will be to reject conditionality and make any/all counterplans unconditional. Pretending that the counterplan(s) were never introduced is illogical (they stay conditional) and solves nothing (the affirmative can't extend turns to the net benefit).

my email for email chains is arevelins@gmail.com

Quick update 2018 - some years ago I drafted the rubric for speaker points that you see below. Since then I have monitored developments in the debate community on typical speaker point distribution across all judges/tournaments, as discussed online by people who keep track of such things. I don't really dwell on this data much, but I do try to be mindful of community tendencies. Also, I notice how my own debaters read judge philosophies in crunch-time right before a round, and realize debaters reading this want a tl:dr.

Therefore, note that I probably now give speaker points that inch higher than what I initially suggested. This means in most cases I'm giving 28 and above, for debaters who seem to be doing elim-level debate it's usually 28.5 and above, and for especially impressive debate it's 29 and above. I do still dip into the mid-to-high 27's in occasional instances where I want to make it clear that I think the particular speeches really could use some work. At the time of writing (Jan 2018) my average speaker points are about a 28.5.

*******Paradigm Edited 11/10/13, prior to Wake Forest 2013 *******

** Scroll past speaker point scale to get a shorter philosophy explanation **

Speaker point scale:

0 = the debater committed some sort of ethics violation during the round (e.g. clipping cards)

26 to 26.9 = one or both of the following things happened: a) the debater made some kind of major tactical mistake in the debate, such as a completely dropped off-case position, without any attempt to address how they might still win the debate even if that argument is charitably given the full weight that the opposing team prefers. (more leeway on this is given to novice debates) b) the debater was hostile or rude towards competitors in the debate such that opportunities for respectful discourse concerning different ideas devolved into a breakdown of communication. Debaters have different personalities and approaches and I encourage you to explore ways of comporting yourself that express these personalities and approaches (be proud, indignant, cunning, provocative, etc), but please at all times also communicate with each other as students from different schools who respect each other for taking the time to have a lengthy debate round, in whatever part of the U.S. where you may presently have journeyed for such an encounter.

27 to 27.4 = the debater's overall strategy made sense, but various parts of the debate could have used more depth when instead those parts were fairly 'paint by numbers' (e.g. addressing certain arguments with generic/block answers instead of dealing with them more specifically). Evidence comparisons were fairly sparse, but the basic story on a given sheet of flow paper was clear enough.

27.5 to 27.9 = the debater did a solid job of debating. A coherent strategy was executed well. For certain key issues, initial clash advanced into higher forms of assessment, including a charitable understanding of why your opponent's arguments might be good yet your argument is ultimately more important/relevant.

28 to 28.4 = the debater did a solid job of debating across all the flows that were alive in the round. The debater focused on what mattered, was able to swiftly discount what did not ('closing doors' along the way), and took initial clash on key points to highly advanced levels. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if a debater with points like this advanced to early elimination debates (e.g. double octo's)

28.5 to 28.9 = the debater did everything from the previous scale, but was also able to do this with incredible organization: the most important things were in rank order, the crucial arguments were made without repetition/with cogent word economy, and I felt that the debater's communication seemed to guide my flow along with me. If cards/evidence are in question, you're able to speak of the overall ideologies or motivations driving a certain scholarship/movement, thus "getting behind" the card, in some sense. If a point is made without evidence or without a traditional claim/warrant structure, the debater does so in way that requires translation/interpretation on my part, yet the manner in which I should translate/interpret is also elicited from me/taught to me over the course of the debate. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if a debater with points like this could advance past early elimination debates.

29.0 to 29.4 = the debater did everything from the previous scale, but approached a sort of fluency that amazed me. The debater not only did what they needed to in order to match or outclass their opponents, but I furthermore felt that the debater was connecting with me in such a way where your arguments trigger understanding almost as a gestalt phenomenological experience. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if you did well in any of your other debates, prelim or elim.

29.5 to 30 = If memory serves, I have rarely if ever given speaker points that inch this close to 30. This is because 30 is perfection, without any umms, ahhs, odd turns of phrase, instances where you just lost me or where, given a rebuttal redo, you yourself would probably have done that part of your speech differently. If you are this close to 30 then you have perfect command of your opponent's position, of whatever gap you have to bridge in order for things to 'click' with me, and you are able to talk about your research and core arguments in a way where you yourself are clearly ready to push the scholarship/performance that you draw upon to its next heights, if you are not doing so already.

Objectivity and consistency is an elusive ideal: the reality is that subjectivity and some variability is inevitable. I think a good judge should be attentive in debates and vigiliant with self-assessments, not solipsistically but in light of evolving encounters with others. One of the biggest lessons I got out of my philosophy work was the extent to which all humans are prone to habits of self-deception, on many levels.

***** Debate experience

- Debated policy 4 years in high school (won the TOC)

- Debated policy 4 years at University of Southern California (4-time NDT qualifier, elims in my senior year)

- I was away from debate while in graduate school for philosophy

- I have coached Policy and PF debate at two high schools (Notre Dame and Millburn)

- I have coached Policy debate at two universities (Binghamton and Cornell)

- I am currently Assistant Director of Forensics/head debate coach at Cornell University

***** Some views on certain arguments

Any kind of argument is fine by me: I wait to see how debaters respond to what happens in the round and try not to import any predispositions concerning the default way that I should evaluate things. There are various harms/impacts that can orient a given side’s concern, plus various meta/framing/sequencing arguments that grant, reorient, or block my access to consideration of those harms/impacts, depending on how these issues play out in a debate.

Various kinds of challenges to the resolution and norms of the community are fine by me.

Kritiks: I ran them often in high school/college. I studied philosophy in graduate school.

Counterplans can take various forms: bring it on. See below about having full cp/permutation text for the entire round (to check against ‘morphing advocacies’).

Topicality debates: if an affirmative is trying to present a topical example of the resolution being true, but the negative thinks the aff is not topical then it is the negative’s right to go ‘all in’ on such an argument.

I debated policy advantage/da/impact debates almost as often as kritiks. Any politics link and link turn debates need to be laid out pretty clearly for me - mind your jargon please. The same goes for impact scenarios: who, what, against what country, etc.

For any asserted advocacy or test of competition, the plan text, permutation, etc needs to be clearly articulated in the round and written down so that it can be evaluated. For any card that you want me to read in last rebuttals, you should be telling me what I will find when I read that card and why it matters for the debate. I won't sift through a series of cards if you have just mentioned them/rattled off the citations without making use of them.

***** final notes

I have an aversion towards 'cloud clash', i.e. rattling off 2-3 minutes of overview and then basically hoping that the judge plucks out whatever applies towards some later part of the debate. Line-by-line debate and the elegance of organization that it offers is in decline lately. This has a lot to do with recent norms and computer-debating. This is at the cost of clash and direct refutation, and can come across as being aloof/wanting the judge to do the work for you. So, overviews should be short and then get on with actually responding to individual arguments.

I prefer the email chain over jumping flash drives, when possible. One click of ‘send’ and there is no longer the agonizing wait of flash drive driver installation, throwing jump drives around, etc.

Please communicate with each other, instead of yelling at each other (see my speaker point scale above for the under 27 range).

At the end of any round, I will vote for one team over the other and indicate this with my written ballot. This will be the case for any debate round that I can presently imagine.

That is all I can think of. Feel free to ask me more questions in person.

*Include me in the e-mail chain: dhruvsehgal@utexas.edu*

Hey, I'm Dhruv. I have been out of the activity for two years, and live very much outside the bubble of traditional academia. I run a global merchandising company and teach English in Asia (currently living and working out of China).

experience: 4 years debating at Binghamton (2012-2016), 2 years coaching at UT Austin (2016-2018), competed in the NDT 3x in college (2014, 2015, 2016). I graduated with a BA in English. I coached and debated mostly K arguments during my time in the activity, but I am open to policy-oriented arguments as well.

On Flowing:

- I will be flowing on paper since it helps me feel more actively involved in the debate and ensures I retain more information throughout the round.

- I promise you that you will have my full attention and engagement throughout the round. I will flow on paper during the speeches, write notes during CX and offer a detailed RFD after the round with my thoughts on how each team can improve.

Rules (updated for online debates):

- "I stopped prep at" versus "stop prep." I want to hear the latter, not the former. The former requires me to take your word about how much prep you used and I don't want to do that. This is especially true since I will be keeping track of prep time during the debate so I need to know when you stop prep (rule adopted from Matt Liu).

- Zero-tolerance policy when it comes to ad-hominem attacks or personal insults either at the opposing debaters or your partner. I will severely lower your speaker points and contact your coaches after the round if I hear this happening.

- Given this *new* online format, please slow down and pause between different arguments. I will tell you to slow down in the first few speeches if I can't understand you, but if speed continues to be an issue I will no longer remind you after the first few constructive speeches.

- I tend to be very verbally expressive during rounds, so be sure to look out for that throughout the round.

Preferences (updated for online debates):

- EFFICIENCY/EFFECTIVENESS: Being efficient and effective in your argumentation throughout the debate highlights to me a degree of professionalism and confidence in what you are saying and your understanding of the round. Focusing on clarity and the development of your arguments in the context of what the opposing team is saying (i.e clash) is something I care a lot about and increases the likelihood of both high speaker points and my vote. Be clear about your arguments from the outset, focus on being as efficient and effective with your flow (as possible) and we will all have a much better time in the debate.

- IMPACTS THAT MATTER: 'Why does what you are saying really matter?' is a question I will pose to myself throughout the debate (i.e what is the impact?). When you raise the stakes of the debate not only does it make you a better advocate for what you are discussing, it also helps me as a judge figure out what to prioritize when deciding my ballot. Doing this type of Impact Framing / Calculus really matters, especially in close debates.

- CASE DEBATE: This applies more if you are negative in front of me. Having a specific and well-thought-out debate about the contents of the Affirmative's case is always better and more persuasive than having a generic link story you could have read against any Affirmative on the topic.

If you have any questions either before or after the round, please e-mail me and I will get back to you in a timely manner. We are still learning the set of best practices during this time of transition to online debating, and as such I will update my paradigm as the year progresses based on new information. If you have any suggestions or would like to see anything else included in my paradigm, please do not hesitate to reach out.

1. You have to have truth

I recently (time is a void) graduated from NYU after three years debating for the policy team, and coach for them occasionally, as I really love my team. In previous years, I also coached for Mamaroneck high school. I am open to most arguments - I tend to kind of adopt the style of my partner, so while I was running performance my last year, I still jive with straight policy.

I'm sure I make the wrong decision some times, but I do care about debate, and I do care about people, and I'll try my hardest to be as fair as I can.

Like to be added to the email chain: erinszczechowski@gmail.com.

For the Affirmative:

Give me what you got. Like I said, I've run both performance and policy affirmatives before, and see the value in each kind of debate. For performance debates, at least have some sort of relation to the topic, even if you don't endorse a plan. Other than that, go wild. Woo.

For the Negative:

Kritiks:

Enjoy them. Make sure the link story is clear. When I debate on negative, I often run Ks, but if you're not winning the link then you're not going to win the round. I prefer links that are actually contextualized to the affirmative, and not just links of omission. Make the alternative clear and consistent throughout the round. While I'm familiar with the basic Ks - biopower, cap, security, etc - if you're reading more obscure kritiks or high theory Baudrillard-type stuff then do yourself a favor and make sure that I understand what you're talking about.

Topicality:

Despite not always being the most topical, I also tend to enjoy T debates (when against non-topical teams, that is,...when you run T against a policy affirmative I'll begrudgingly vote on it if the other team terribly mishandles it, but I'll hate myself a little bit). I am willing to vote about equally for either affirmative or negative in performance rounds: just comes down to who is winning on the flow. In general, I think education slightly outweighs fairness, but you can convince me otherwise. A well-thought out TVA will make me much more likely to pull the trigger for you.

DAs:

I enjoy zany DAs that aren't just the same boring politics DA. That said, I will vote for that same boring politics DA. Make sure impact calc is tight, and good evidence comparison will notch up your speaker points.

CPs:

I really enjoy a smart CP! Pair it with a clear net-benefit (not just oooooh we solve the aff better) and I'll be intrigued.

Agent CPs and Consult CPs tend to make me sad.

I think PICs can be both really cool and really abusive. Figure it out for me on the PICs Bad/PICs good debate.

Theory:

Hmm. Don't spend most of my nights analyzing my views on various theory arguments, so not too much to say here. Conditionality is the first one that springs to mind. In general I think condo is good for a couple positions, but if we're getting to 3 and above then I'll be more receptive to your condo bad claims, even if it physically pains me to vote for conditionality (although if the neg drops conditionality bad even when they're running 1 or 2 positions, I'll still vote on it if you blow it up in the 2AR, and will likely laugh about it later). If you plan on going for condo bad in the 2AR then make sure the 1AR is already fleshing out the proper arguments.

In General:

Listen to your opponents arguments, and make sure you are responding to them, and not just re-establishing your own positions (although you should do that too). I'm a pretty easy-going person, and I stop prep time before you send out the email. If you offer me gifts of caffeine, I will not be anymore likely to vote for you, but I will like you as a person. Sometimes, those long debate tournaments with 3 hours of sleep can get exhausting, so if you're sassy without crossing over to asshole territory it might entertain me and boost your speaks.

T—I prefer limits over ground arguments. Rather than right to particular ground I would like interpretations argued in terms of the predictability of the research burden/definition. Case lists are important. I consider T an argument that doesn't specify the relationship between the debaters and the resolutional actor (i.e. how the debate is evaluated and what the role of the judge for evaluating the debate is still in question).  To me, framework is a category of arguments that establish a limit that restricts not just the resolution but the role for the judge.  I find most framework arguments unnecessarily restrictive in their interpretation about how we impact/assess a debate whereas a T interpretation can maintain significant freedom for different ways of couching an affirmative while providing predictable limits. For this reason kritiks of T are difficult for me to accept, while criticisms of framework have frequently been successful. 

DAs- I’m unlikely to assess uniqueness/link in absolute terms.  It tends to be easier to get me to consider direction/quality of link & internal link over uniqueness.   Evidence qualifications are important. I probably give analytic and defensive arguments more weight than many judges. 

CPs--I've rarely voted against CPs for theory reasons. This probably has more to do with what affs are willing to do/commit time to more than it demonstrates any real appeal of certainty-based competition arguments. 

K pickiness—I am more open to aff inclusion and textless alternatives than most. I am frustrated by debates where the alternative “vote negative” squares off against permute “do all the parts of the alternative that don’t compete with the plan.” Those are both just abstract descriptions of what any alternative or permutation entails. In depth debate on these issues might be helped by being less tied to a text and more to not being obnoxious in the c/x in describing an alternative. Pay attention to language/phrasing—pull quotes from evidence and speechs instead of debating author names (Yes, pot-kettle, but still). I prefer Ks that aren’t debated like disads—too much big impact/impact turn and not enough about the aff/alt from either side in most debates I judged. Neg link arguments should include reference to 1AC evidence/tags. Historical examples help a lot for either side.
 
Theory—I tend to dislike theory debates focused on narrow comparison of interpretations.  For the most part, people would be better off discussing the logical implications of a practice rather than a potentially arbitrary implementation of that practice (i.e. conditionality rather than "neg gets 1 CP and 1K").   I am biased in favor of conditionality, though not that strongly.  To me, "status quo is always a logical option" or other logic-oriented defenses of conditionality require a judge to evaluate the plan versus the status quo even if the negative goes for their CP.  I say this for clarifying purposes -- this has very rarely changed the outcome of a debate that I have judged.  I often judge debates that do not presume conventional plan-focused models for debate yet still contain theory arguments that presume a plan-focused terminology and its resulting constraints.  I point this out only to suggest that I think debaters should devote some time to thinking about the consequences of strucutral changes in the form of debate that they advocate for the smaller theoretical practices that occur within those debates. 

Evidence comparison. In most debates I’ve judged if I hear about the other side’s evidence it’s only in the 2NR/2AR or it’s about how the opponent’s evidence is “terrible.” Granted, many people read terrible evidence, nevertheless, sophisticated evidence comparison should begin early in the debate. I intensely dislike random unqualified internet evidence.

I prefer cross-ex strategies premised on listening to an opponent's answer and using it in a subsequent speech, not posturing/arguing as though c/x were another speech.

I'm a bit of grump, especially when it comes to my consistent facial expressions in debates.  It's not often that is about you,  the debaters.  I often talk a great deal after debates. 

I desperately wish I were funny so I will probably appreciate your humor even if I rarely laugh out-loud. My sense of humor is definitively geeky. My speaker point scale is lower than our current average.  I've tried to get more in line with current norms so as not to punish people for speaker point inflation.  That said, for high points (28.5+) I still need to be impressed. 

top level predispositions (Update 2024 Emory):

I'd truly prefer that you don't debate if you're sick. If you must debate, I travel to every tournament with headphones and a laptop sufficient to allow you to debate from a hotel room or space separate from other judges and debaters. If you are symptomatic (nausea, persistent cough, runny nose, etc.) I will stop the debate and politely ask your coach to see if we can set up a remote debate setup for the round.

I won't be reading along with you, and won't spot either team args from pieces of evidence that weren't made in speeches. I'll resolve comparative evidentiary claims, if necessary, after the round. If you feel so compelled my team's gmail is hrsdebatedocs.

Plan texts nowadays aren't really descriptive of what the aff will defend and I think negative teams don't take advantage of that enough. I will expect aff teams not to dodge simple questions about jobs they provide, how the plan is funded, etc. I will also tend to read the debate through answers to such questions in CX. Being forthcoming and orienting your strategy around what the aff does is a much better basis for a win in front of me than trying to hide your hand.

I don't like generic neg strategies, if you're going to do this don't pref me please - - this means nonspecific process counterplans, disads, CPs with only internal net benefits, etc.

No, CX can't be used for prep lol.

I'm not going to judge kick. You make a decision about the world you'll defend in the 2nr and I'll follow accordingly.

For many of you reading this, speaker point inflation is the probably norm. I think the standard for what makes a good speech is a. too low and b. disconnected from strategy. My average speaker point range is 28.3-28.7, average meaning you're not doing any work between flows, not making the debate smaller for the sake of comparative analysis, not reading especially responsive strategies, not punishing generic strategies with pointed responses. On the other hand, I reward teams that have ostensibly done the reading and research to give me concrete analysis.

Given the above (and oodles of macrohistorical reasons), we probably are already in the world that the PRL warned us about. I'm more persuaded by empirical analysis of models of debate than the abstract nowadays.

Longer meditations below:

I've found that the integrity in which some high school debaters are interacting with evidence is declining. Two things:

1. Critical affirmatives that misrepresent critical theory literature or misrepresent their affirmative in the 1ac. I'm very inclined to vote against a team that does this on either side of the debate, with the latter only being limited to the affirmative side. Especially in terms of the affirmative side, I believe that a floor level minimum prep for critical affs should be that the affirmative clearly has a statement of what they will defend in the 1ac and also that they stick to that stasis point throughout the debate. If a critical aff shifts drastically between speeches I will be *very* inclined toward to any procedural/case neg arguments.

2. Policy affs that have weak internal links. I understand that a nuclear war scenario is the most far fetched portion of any advantage, but I've been seeing a lot of international relations scenarios that don't really take into account the politics of really any other countries. If your international conflict, spillover, modeling, etc. scenario doesn't have a semblance of the inner workings of another party to the conflict, I'll be *very* inclined to solvency presses and presumption arguments by the negative in that scenario.

I don't want to be on the email chain. If I want to, I'll ask. You should debate as if I'm not reading a speech doc.

I almost exclusively view debate as an educational / democratic training activity. I think rules are important to that end, however. This is to say that I ground much of what I think is important in debate in terms of how skills critical thinking in debate rounds adds into a larger goal of pursuing knowledge and external decisionmaking.

i've been in debate since 2008. at this point i'm simultaneously more invested and less invested in the activity. i'm more invested in what students get out of debate, and how I can be more useful in my post-round criticism. I'm less invested in personalities/teams/rep/ideological battles in debate. it's entirely possible that I have never heard of you before, and that's fine.

you should run what will win you the round. you should run what makes you happy.

Impact scenarios are where I vote - Even if you win uniqueness/link questions, if I don't know who's going to initiate a war, how an instance of oppression would occur, etc. by the end of the round, I'll probably go looking elsewhere to decide the round. The same thing goes for the aff - if I can't say what the aff solves and why that's important, I am easily persuaded by marginal negative offense.

Prep time ends when you email the file to the other team. It's 2024, you've likely got years of experience using a computer for academic/personal work, my expectations of your email prowess are very high.

Competing methods debates don't mean no permutation, for me at least. probably means that we should rethink how permutations function. people/activists/organizers combine methods all the time.

I've found myself especially unwilling to vote on theory that's on face not true - for example: if you say floating PICs bad, and the alternative isn't articulated as a floating PIC in the debate, I won't vote on it. I don't care if it's conceded.

I think fairness is an independent impact, but also that non-topical affs can be fair. A concession doesn't mean an argument is made. your only job is to make arguments, i don't care if the other team has conceded anything, you still have to make the argument in the last speech.

Affs I don't like:

I've found myself increasingly frustrated with non-topical affs that run philosophically/critically negative stances on the aff side. The same is true for non-topical affs that just say that propose a framework for analysis without praxis. I'm super open to presumption/switch-side arguments against these kinds of affs.

Affs that simply restate a portion of the resolution as their plan text.

I'm frustrated by non-topical affs that do not have any sort of advocacy statement/plan text. If you're going to read a bunch of evidence and I have to wait until CX or the 2AC to know what I'm voting for, I'll have a lower threshold to vote on fw/t/the other team.

Finally, I have limited belief in the transformative power of speech/performance. Especially beyond the round. I tend to think that power/violence is materially structured and that the best advocacies can tell me how to change the status quo in those terms.

Negs I don't like:

Framework 2nr's that act as if the affirmative isn't dynamic and did not develop between the 2ac and the 1ar. Most affs that you're inclined to run framework against will prove "abuse" for you in the course of the debate.

Stale politics disadvantages. Change your shells between tournaments if necessary, please.

Theoretically inconsistent/conflicting K strats.

I don't believe in judge kicking. Your job is to make the strategic decisions as the debate continues, not mine.

if you have questions about me or my judge philosophy, ask them before the round!

he/him/his