Tabroom.com

NSDA Middle School Nationals

2019 — Dallas, TX/US

Policy Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Armaan Aggarwal Hire 8 rounds None

Maitri Biren Ajmera Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 9, 2020 at 10:06 AM CDT

Hello! My name is Maitri Ajmera and I use she/her pronouns.

Speech docs to maitriajmera@gmail.com

Wichita East '20

While I did a decent amount of nat circuit debating in high school, I'd be best described as a DCI level debater (I also generally preferred and was more successful in extemp and congress). I have a pretty good understanding of how debate works at a high level but I have not judged enough (at all) to say that I am capable of judging very technical debates. I will do my best to keep a tight flow and will evaluate arguments on the basis of tech>truth. While I'm familiar with spreading, given that this is my first time judging since graduating high school, I would recommend that you go slower unless you are very confident that you can be extremely clear while spreading. I'll clear you twice but after that, I'll dock your speaker points. I most often went for some combination of a DA, CP, and case but also did go for the fem K and the cap K a decent amount of times. Warning: I have very little experience with very technical Ks and I'd advise you not to read them. This especially applies to kritikal affirmatives. Of course, while I am open to hearing them and firmly believe that K affs are a very valuable part of this activity, I don't think I have the expertise to judge them in a way that will be favorable to you. I also don't love T or theory but will still definitely listen and vote on it if you win it. I will default to competing interps > reasonability but all of my predispositions are still very malleable. I also have absolutely no topic knowledge on criminal justice so your arguments might require a bit more explanation than normal. As long as you do your best, I will also do my best to understand your arguments.

Good things: clash (!!!), updated wikis, impact calc, condo, specificity and logical link chains, strategic cx questions, and evidence quality and comparison.

Bad things: clipping (it's cheating!!), arguments without warrants, arguments without impacts, shadow extension, stealing prep, unintelligible speed, and affs with no connection to the topic.

All in all, do what you do best and I'll do my best to accommodate to you. As a former debater, I know how much energy is put into this activity and I hope that I'll be able to facilitate fun and educational debates!

Cameron Albright Hire 8 rounds

Karen Allen Hopewell Middle School

Aidan Thomas Anderson Hire 8 rounds

Vishvak Bandi Tequesta Trace Middle School 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon December 6, 2021 at 11:54 PM CDT

Coppell '19. UT Dallas '23.

Pronouns - he/him or they/them. I don't care.

Add me to the email chain - debate@vishvak.io - make sure you use this email.

I like music so pls play something cool (if we're online recommend me a cool EDM song). +0.1 if you have good music.

If you generate at least 1/8th of a speech using OpenAI and win the debate I will give you at minimum a 29. I will request proof of this as well. https://openai.com/api/

Short Version

"Do what you do and do it well and you will be fine." – Bernie <3

e-debate - 70% speed, clear when I call clear, don't require cameras, let me know if you have tech issues.

If you're ever uncomfortable in a debate or feel that the space is unsafe, please let me know in some way (private chat, email, saying it in the round, etc) and I will do what needs to be done.

My favorite judges were the ones who listened to all arguments and evaluated them equally without intervention. I try to be that judge. I am here to evaluate the arguments you present to me and provide useful criticism. For me to do that, a team should read good quality evidence, make complete arguments, and answer arguments from the flow. You should tell me how to evaluate the debate in your speeches.

Do your thing and do it well. I will adapt to you.

What I wrote below are my thoughts on debate - I will vote for who wins the debate, even if arguments go against my beliefs.

Also - post-round me. It makes me a better judge and you get more out of the RFD. I've made a couple of terrible decisions before, so please call me out if you disagree with the decision.

Hot Takes/Meta Level Things. These are my only hard rules.

-no vaping. L 20 the second I see it.

-I don't vote on false arguments - If you're just objectively wrong about something (a T violation they didn't violate, saying racism good, etc) I won't vote on it.

-I don't vote on evidence cut from private, unverifiable sources (emailing authors, cutting lectures from camp, etc). I'm fine with ev from things like podcasts, but every piece of evidence needs to be published in some form, by qualified authors.

-Stop cutting twitter threads. This also goes for medium articles from random unqualified people.

-Not a super big fan of debate coach evidence but it is what it is. You should not read evidence from a current or former coach of yours. You also should not read cards that were specifically published to be read in debate rounds.

-Inserting re-highlights of cards is good. If you think you have an indict you can do so, and give me an explanation of what the re-highlight means. If the explanation does not make an argument it does not get flowed. If any part of the article is different, read the new version out loud.

-Tell me what to do - I don't like to intervene so giving me impact framing or telling me how to evaluate a debate will get you far. My ideal RFD would be "I voted aff/neg in this debate because *2 to 3 lines from the 2nr/2ar*"

-Read complete 1NC arguments. 6 well-researched and highlighted off-case will get you much further than 12 off-case missing internal links or terminal impacts. If you sandbag to the block the 1AR will get quite a bit of leeway.

-Ev quality matters - Read 1 or 2 good cards, not 10 bad 1 line UQ cards.

-Sass/shade is funny. Don't be rude.

-I will protect the 1AR and 2NR like they are 2 newborn puppies.

-Never say the word RVI in a policy round.

-There's a difference between new 2AR spin and new 2AR arguments.

Policy v Policy Debates

-Evidence comparison and quality are very very important in these debates. Doing that will get you much further than spamming cards with little to no warrants and accompanying explanation.

-30 speaks if you read 8 minutes of impact turns and defense without repeating yourself and win the round.

-There should be at least 6 cards that talk about the aff/plan in the 1AC.

-I am increasingly finding theory arguments (outside of condo or aspec) to be a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Please tell me why it is a reason to reject the team if you go for it.

Topicality

-Very technical and well carded T debates are my favorite kind of T debates. The best definition cards are contextual to the resolution and are exclusive, not inclusive into a group.

-Interpretations must have an intent to define the phrases being debated. Bad cards here will hurt you quite a bit.

-Impact this out the same way you'd impact out disads or FW against a K aff.

-Reasonability is about how reasonable the counter interp is.

Disads

-I hate bad politics DAs. For the love of god please make complete arguments.

-Specific impact calculus and evidence comparison will get much further than 4 1-line uniqueness cards.

-Don't call midterms "mids" or politics "tix," -1 speaks.

Counterplans

-Conditionality is good. I have voted on conditionality bad before. No evidence, combining, amending, or adding to CPs will make me more likely to vote aff on conditionality. Zidao gives the best condo 2ARs.

-If there is no evidence for a CP smart 2AC analytics can beat it. The 1AR will get leeway to answer 2NC sandbagging.

-Judge kick is good because of conditionality. I will do it if the 2NR asks me to. If the 2AR has any objection I might change my mind.

-Counterplan text amendments or changes of the actor in the 2NC are probably not legitimate - especially if it's because you messed up and used the wrong actor.

K debates

-Argument development and engagement on the line-by-line will get you very far.

-The best K debaters give very well-organized and easy-to-flow speeches, do good line by line, and tell me what arguments matter the most. To do this, limit the overview and do as much quality line by line as possible.

-Examples are great for these debates.

-If you want to win I need to know the method and what the aff/K does by the end of the debate. This doesn't mean I need a 3-minute explanation, but I need to know what I vote for and why what I vote for is a good thing.

-I need to understand both competing "ideas of debate," ie what both teams think debate should be like.

-In these debates, you must tell me how to vote. Judge instruction is very important and will make you much happier with the way I decide the round.

-Affs/Ks should be in some way related to the topic/the aff.

-I reward a well-thought-out and executed performance.

K affs

-Make sure you know what you are talking about. If you read a poem/play music, it should be relevant after the 1AC.

-If your strategy is impact turns to the 2NR, go for it, but there needs to be analysis contextual to the negative disads.

-I prefer you to have a relation to the topic and that you answer questions in CX.

-Also, fairness is probably an internal link (or is it? you tell me), and Antonio 95 is bad.

-I said this earlier but I will say it again. Tell me what the aff does. I need to know what I am voting for and why that is good. Presumption arguments are a much easier sell if you cannot do this properly.

Framework

-I think that Framework is about competing models of debate between what the aff justifies and what the negative thinks is best. This means that if you go for framework as a way to limit out content from debate you will not win (ex. "vote us up because we remove K affs from the debate space").

-The negative's model of debate should be able to access similar education and subject formation that the aff is able to access ie. you need to tell me why policy education is able to create good subject formation and education, or how clash is key to education about "x" scholarship.

-I've found myself voting on framework impacts that aren't fairness more recently.

-A lot of the time I vote negative in these debates because the aff doesn't answer the TVA properly, doesn't engage limits offense, or isn't doing enough analysis on the impact level.

-Make a TVA with a solvency advocate. TVA's need substantive answers outside of "doesn't solve the aff." You need to explain to me how the TVA resolves the impact turns to framework and what affs under your model would look like.

Kritiks

-These can be some of the best and worst arguments in a debate round. Good K debaters know the argument they are reading well and come prepared with robust defenses of the arguments they make. In these debates, I am able to look at my flow and understand the thesis of the argument after the round.

-The more specific the link and the more time is devoted to a comprehensive alternative explanation = the more likely I am to vote for you.

-Saying this for the third time. I need to know what I am voting for and why that is good. If you have a different vision for debate I need to know what it is and why it is better.

-K Framework is very important and should probably have a card if it's more complicated than "Endorse the best subject formations."

-Affs need to develop more substantive arguments about fairness/state engagement. Framework makes or breaks 70% of K debates - a 20 second generic 2AC isn't enough. Prioritize it and be responsive to arguments from both sides.

-If you're reading high theory/pomo arguments contextualization, evidence comparison, and explanations matter a lot more to me.

-1ARs spend too much time on fairness when it's either a wash or obviously being won by one side. Explain what happens if you get to weigh your aff and stop spending 3 minutes on 1 line arguments from the 2NC about fairness because it won't ever be in the 2NR. TLDR - answer arguments but don't spend 30 seconds on each fairness subpoint when 5 will do.

-Examples can win you the round so give them to me - they're underutilized by a lot of K teams and it shows me you all don't research your arguments or know how your structural claims actually impact people's lives.

-Your 2NR needs to have an explanation of how the alt resolves all of the links and impacts you go for. That means a 2NR with little explanation of the alt needs to be winning links and impact framing claims decisively to win the round.

Misc

Make me laugh. I'm on the discord and use Reddit and stuff so I know memes. If you make a meme reference or something I'll be happy. If you make a really good joke or meme reference from the discord maybe +.1 speaks.

I'll give you a smiley face on the ballot for making fun of any current or former Coppell debaters (specifically Rohin Balkundi, Het Desai, or Shreyas Rajagopal), or anyone from the discord. If it makes me laugh, +.1 speaks.

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

-Email me if you have questions about my philosophy - TLDR is that I'd prefer a more "progressive" round, but the LD-specific things I've written are short/vague and I'd be happy to elaborate.

-If I'm judging LD, read my policy paradigm. That should sum up most things.

-Bad arguments make me unhappy. Your speaks will reflect that. That said, if you can't beat bad theory arguments it's not my problem (seriously why does nobody go for reasonability). You can answer most of these arguments with 5 words.

-Ask yourself "Can I read this argument in a policy round?" The answer will tell you how seriously I will take the argument.

-I'm not here to police you or your arguments, but some LD shenanigans are too much.

-Trix are for kids. I will not vote for tricks I can't understand or explain back to you. ps - condo logic is a terrible argument.

-If you have me in the back the best way to do things is to debate like it's a policy round or explaining the random LD things like phil very well.

-no RVI.

Random Thoughts -

1) I feel like I have a higher expectation of argument development from the negative due to my policy background. It's something I'm trying to be more mindful of. I would appreciate it if both debaters "went for" fewer arguments and focused on developing the arguments they are winning.

2) Whoever decided that "must read conditional advocacies in the 1N" is a real argument should be banned from debate.

3) I get that it's online, but asking "what was the response to x?" during 1AR/2NR/2AR prep is really annoying and I don't expect answers from either side.

4) If you have disclosed "race war spec" or something like that at any point I'm docking speaks. It's an incredibly anti-black and reductionist way to answer an otherwise bad argument. Just answer the spec argument normally instead of going out of your way and putting it on the wiki.

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

Read Shabbir Bohri's Paradigm.

William M Bannister Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue June 18, 2019 at 6:54 PM CDT

I Default to Tabula Rosa:

I love to see theory debate around framing and arguments revolving around my duty as a judge and I think that burden debate is extremely important. However, if these things don't take place then Ill implement my own value criteria when I consider your impact calc. Unless you tell me otherwise I think that comparatively advantageous is a reasonable standard.

Tech VS Truth - How it affects my evaluation of the flow:

I don't appreciate the weaponization of spread and the over-evaluation of cards that are inherently trash. However, it is important that you clearly state if you are kicking out of arguments otherwise you are at the mercy of me blatantly accepting the tech of you dropping argument no matter the truth of what a team brings up against your dropped argument. Manage your flow, but focus on the flow being a sign that you are clashing on evidence, not splattering cheep recut cards hoping that a team makes a tech error that causes them to lose the round.

Arguments:

Solvency ++++

I'm a strong believer that solvency determines the weight I give to you (SOLVING) for the impacts you bring up during the round. Unless it's fairly convincing I generally don't believe solvency take outs.

Inherency -

UNLESS YALL DEBATING A BILL THAT'S BEEN PASSED, then I generally find inherency a waste of time. AFF if someone gets you on inherency that's pretty bad.

DA ++

DA = Good, DA that runs into a larger narrative about why the AFF is bad = Major brownie points. Important notes: your link chain should tell me a story that you can explain when pushed on. If you can't explain your link chain in cross-X then it's going to take a major tech mess up from the other team for you to get anything on the DA. Also really protect that link on the DA if your the NEG because otherwise, the aff is going to swat that DA away with ease.

CP +++

Counter-plans are good if it is modifying existing policy all the better, I think CPs are at the heart of policy debate. But if you run, RCP, Delay CP, then your wasting valuable speech time.

Our Komrade the K +++

I think kritical debate that around the heart of the topic is awesome so that being said linkage isn't very important to me on the K as long as you can establish a narrative between the case and the K. I think that everyone should experiment with the K during their debate experience. I prefer functionality in an alt, that doesn't nessisarly mean solving for the impact completely, but rather creating change which is comparatively advantageous with the status quo. We ain't gonna hollow out capitalist structures by being big brains.

This being said... I don't vote on the K in the round if it is used because.

-The opposing team belongs to a certain socio-economic, ethnic, or gendered group

-The excuse for you being a well-developed source on the K is because you belong to a certain socio-economic, ethnic, or gendered group. If you are then that's great and I am proud of you for finding advocacy, but it doesn't replace a well-rounded knowledge of lit.

Perms ++

Good test the competitiveness in multiple ways. Multiple perms are good. That being said don't run nine perms hoping another team drops one because that's not real debate and I won't vote on that.

Turns ++++

Double Binds ++++++

LOVE a good double bind, combines clever strategy and exemplifies both tech and truth simultaneously! However, if you just go up there and start throwing around the phrase every time the other team makes a contradiction then I won't take you seriously.

Topicality

If its needed do it, if it's not, don't waste our time (although double blinds between a link and T are accepted strategies)

Theory +/-

I think that theory is an important part of a debate.

Spec +/-

I refuse to treat spec like topicality its not a voter issue. I do think it plays into solvency and it can be used to establish links.

Other things about myself:

R.E.S.P.E.C.T your opponents and teammates. Please try your hardest to use their correct pronouns, I will try my hardest as well, we are all imperfect, we all make mistakes, but have integrity.

Pronouns - it no way affects what you call me what you want.

If you want to bash religious institutions go ahead, if you want to question the truth behind an entire system of belief go ahead. If you think religion is inherently immoral and its the opioid of the masses then lay it all out, I will vote for it. But I will not tolerate being xenophobic in your classification of a religious group. Anti-Semitism and Islamaphobia are not cool. Making offhand comments about the character of a religious group is not cool.

RACISM bad

SEXISM bad

If you want to debate eastern vs western values and make it clear that it's not about race or religion then that's chill. (I.E. Western liberalism V Eastern authoritarian models = Good | "Judeo-Christian dominance" V "Cino Supremacy" = VERY BAD)

Trinity Marie Brockman Hire

Last changed on Fri March 12, 2021 at 12:41 PM CDT

pfd peeps:

I have only judges pfd a handful of times, but I did qualify for nats in public forum in high school. I also competed in public forum for three years in high school. I should be good with anything you decide to do, but let me know if you have any questions at all.

Policy peeps:

You don't lose until I sign the ballot - if you know you are way too behind then it's time to shoot for the moon; condo, dispo turns, try and sell a new link turn, whatever. I appreciate not giving up and being risky on a mid round strat change if executed well and justified.

Voted aff on the policy topic: 13

Voted neg on the policy topic: 19

email: trinityb@ksu.edu

she/her/hers

Four years at @ Manhattan High School

Assistant Coach @ Lawrence High

Everything is up for debate.

I am a heavy flow critic. I find myself looking towards the arguments and how they function in the debate over the inherent “truth” of an argument. I will vote on an argument I know is not true (many economy arguments, for example) if this is not refuted. Basically, I am tech over truth in most instances...

However, I will not vote on arguments such as racism good, patriarchy good, transphobia good, ableism good, colonialism good, etc. Give content warnings for graphic content (I will vote you down) If there are any of the aforementioned violence practiced theoretically or materially in round I will vote against your team immediately. These types of injustices kill education and means that no ethical pedagogy can occur. Zero tolerance here. Debate space should be a space to act without fear of oppression - I will make sure that is reflected in my judgments and comments.

I am fine with any speed you choose, you will not go too fast for me. However, do not spread just to push the other team out. That is an accessibility issue and if they are pushed out of the round and make an abuse argument or criticism of your practices I will most likely vote against you. I see way too many debaters push other teams out just because they think they are better than the other team. Don't be a dick.

Topicality: I love it. A good T debate is my favorite debate to judge and was my favorite argument to run. T is always a voter because it taps into the performative aspects of debate and how this education can be effective. They are always about competing interpretations and the reasons as to why that interpretation is more beneficial than others. You must weigh the offense based on your standards/voters vs. the C/I and their subsequent standards/voters. You have to win your interpretation is the best for the debate. This applies to all theory arguments.

***Topicality is just an agreement between two teams on what is to be debated.*** If there is/are more pertinent issue(s) that the teams wish to discuss (e.g. anti-blackness, transphobia, colonialism, ableism) of a particular event that is proximal to the debaters then that is okay. Do not think you are stuck to the topic if there is a general consensus on what should be debated.

Counterplans: Read one, please. If you don’t, you need status quo solves. If you read a perm text, please give SOME explanation on how the perm functions. I don’t view perms as advocacies (no one does anymore) because the CP is just opportunity cost to the affirmative, so don’t act like you suddenly have an amazing new net-benefit because you permutated the CP. Presumption never flips aff. Presumption, simply put, is that the existing state of affairs, policies, programs should continue unless adequate reasons are given for change. I believe condo is good, I'm going to have a hard time listening to anything else.

Criticisms/Performances: I do run Ks as a debater. (I have argued neolib, cap, security, fem, gender, set col, and queer kritiks) It should be an advocacy. Additionally, I do not think white debaters should run anti-blackness. I do not think non-queer individuals should run queer theory. This runs the line of commodification and you cannot work within that position if you do not belong to it, meaning that you will never truly understand what you are running and operating form a position of privilege to do so. I am okay with whatever criticism or performance you so choose to run, just make sure you can explain it and how it solves the aff.

Case: haha you should do it, literally aff's are so bad and not well designed anymore. I could have lost on presumption so many times my senior year but people are too afraid to give that 2NR. If that is your best 2nr option, do it.

***BOTTOM LINE***

It is much more important to me that you find an educational gain from this activity and adequately express the things you care about greatly than hitting all the stock issues or being a policy maker. Debate is about the debaters, make the round what you want. ANY attempt to push the other team out of the debate will result in a dropped ballot.

fiat is fake and the debate round should be ethically and strategically centered in the contact between the bodies in the space (me and the debaters). that doesn't mean i don't buy your ptx da or shady i/l link chain, but that i want to see a politely conducted, complex debate with four people who know a lot more about what they are talking about than me. at the end of the day, we all leave the round and what we take away from it is knowledge, empathy and experience. if you prove to me that you are best for the production of those three things in this space, then it is likely you have won. (Sam took this from me)

Attack the argument, not the debater. As a woman in debate, I have experienced forms of sexism, if I see any of this, you will be voted down. microaggressions, racism, homophobia, or xenophobia will not be tolerated by me. If I encounter this, I will stop flowing and vote you down. CX is a time for understanding, not for coming after the other team. Don’t be a jerk. If you are, you will be voted down. Debate is a place for fun and learning, not for being mean to people for the sake of “winning.”

Any other questions just find me and ask.

Allen Cao Hire 8 rounds

Carlos Cedillo Hire 8 rounds

Sharon Cella King Arts

Sean Chen Kealing Middle School

Ethan D'Alessandro Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu May 6, 2021 at 5:16 AM CDT

Please add me to the email chain: epdal@umich.edu

Pronouns: He/Him/His

O/V

Sophomore at the University of Michigan

Debated all 4 years in HS (2 years 2A, 2 years 2N)

Low topic experience

Short

I was a more policy focused debater in HS, this means that I do not have an innate understanding of the kritik you are running (except for things like Cap, Security)

This does not mean that I will not vote for Ks, just that you will have to explain it

I probably lean a little neg in Framework/T-USFG vs K aff debates

Impact comparison is super important, as is judge instruction on what the most important parts of the debate are

Long

Kritiks — I have not really read a lot of the lit which means that the explanation and application of your theory will be very important, if I am unable to understand it, it makes it a lot more difficult to vote for it/realize why you are winning

K affs — I’ll vote for them and try to be as impartial as possible while judging these debates, that being said, I probably lean a little neg on T-USFG in these rounds

Topicality — I think that legal precision probably outweighs debatability, if the topic is bad it isn’t the aff’s fault. Please extend a violation and standards in every speech you are extending T, even if they dropped it.

Theory — The neg does a lot of shady things with CPs, don’t let them get away with it. I will default to whatever people say/win on whether to reject the argument not the team, winning reject the argument is probably a lot harder on condo debates than others.

The case debate is very important, especially if you are not going for a CP. It is a very underutilized area of debate and a good job debating case will earn you good speaks.

Make the ballot easy — impact comparison and judge instruction will get you far in close rounds, tell me where I have to look first and why it is the most important or I will have to default to the other team’s instruction/figure out myself what is important

Dropped arguments are true arguments to the extent that they have a warrant and an implication (i.e. i.e. "They dropped circumvention" < "They dropped circumvention, Trump can use 49 other programs to sell arms to that country, means the aff can't solve permanently”).

I’m 95% tech over truth, blatantly offensive things like sexism, racism, ableism, homophobia, etc. will not be tolerated.

Postround me all you want — just be respectful and understand that at the end of the day I will not change my decision. I will do my best to explain my decision to you, and answer your questions.

Run whatever crazy strat you want, ultimately debate is a space where we can all talk about cool topics or things that we are very passionate about/interested in and have fun.

If you have any more questions, just email me at epdal@umich.edu

P.S.

1—You only have to explain what the rehighlighting says and insert it --- if you want to read it, that's up to you but I don't think you have to (and if you do you don't have to explain it, its just a card at that point)

2—The number of conditional words that a multiplank CP with all planks conditional generates if N is the number of planks is (2^N)-1, if you're actually interested, ask me about it

Amber Dawson Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu December 7, 2023 at 4:28 AM CDT

debated 3 years at Lansing and graduated in 2020

I've been out of debate completely for 2ish years now - this tournament is the first I've judged in a long time so you might want to treat me as a flay judge

yes add me to the chain

email: amberdawsondebate@gmail.com

general

****please don't go card speed in rebuttals

-condo is usually the only reason to reject the team

-judge kick is fine unless otherwise contested

-dont waste cx, have some sort of plan

-more than 6 off starts to get excessive

-for speed, go just a bit slower for online tournaments then you would at a normal one

-please slow down on analytics especially in the 1ar and beyond

-I really enjoy t debates and I think sometimes it under utilized as a strategy

-I generally default to competing interps

-2ar/2nr should do a really good job comparing models and case lists are always good, as well as specific examples on the grounds debate on what you lose/gain

-if you're going for reasonability in the 2ar do a good job of explaining what the reasonable interp of your model looks like contextual to competing interps - most important time to do model debate

-process cp's are fine but I don't think 2a's go for theory enough against explicitly cheating cp's - utilize theory if you can

-functional and textual competition is pretty important

-please say counterplan instead of ceepee, it pains me deeply

not my specialty especially high theory but,

-specific links are always good

-links of omission probably aren't links - you'd have to do a lot of work to convince me otherwise

-do a lot of work on alt explanation, please don't leave it up to me to make a guess as to what it does

-if you're aff dont forget you have an aff - weigh your impacts

-explain the perm in some capacity in the 2ac - dont shotgun 14 perms in a row - explaining them gives me ink time and means the neg doesnt just have to group them

k aff

-not much to say here, read whatever you're comfortable with but be prepared to do a lot of explaining

-being in the direction of the topic is probably best

v k aff

-i think a lot of the time teams read a k in the 1nc as a throw away arg which is not a good strat - either put a lot more on case or utilize the k you read

-fairness being an impact is a toss up - this one's up to debaters

-have a terminal impact in the 2nr!!

-even if you dont have a lot of cards on the alt, some good analytics will go a long way

Andrew Dimitrakakis Hire 8 rounds None

Khanh-Vy Do Hire 8 rounds

Pamela Doiley McCormack Middle School 8 rounds None

Ethan Dozier Hire 8 rounds

Jay M Elder Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 5, 2019 at 3:00 AM CDT

yeah add me to the email chain: s31627@parkhill.k12.mo.us

Experience:

I'm a senior at Park Hill High School in KCMO, I did cx all three years I did debate. I was the 2A/1N.

I go to an NSDA circuit school, but I've had plenty of flow rounds and sometimes go to NatCir tournaments.

I went to the NSDA national tournament in Congress in 2018, choked, then got 5th in Extemporaneous Debate, and went in Policy in 2019.

I went to the MSHSAA state championships in Policy in 2018 and 2019, placing 3rd in '19.

I've judged a lot of different tournaments, but none of them are on tabroom. I've judged rounds ranging from extremely lay novice all the way to kritikal NatCir flow rounds.

The short version (if you're reading this before a round)

I'm a tabula rasa, game theorist, and slight policymaker judge. I vote primarily on impact calculus, but you can run pretty much anything. As long as you can give me a clear explanation as to why I should vote for your args, I will. You do you, if you have a strat that you like, do it, I'll adjust to your style so you can have the best experience as possible. I'd like to get a flash of all speeches, but if it starts taking too long, I won't need it. Just send it.

For flow rounds, I'm a game theorist, for flay rounds, I'm tabula rasa, and for lay rounds, I'm policymaker.

The long version

Speed: I enjoy fast debate, I see debate as a fun and competitive activity, and if you want to go fast, send it. I'm good with you going as fast as you want, but please dear God make sure you signpost well enough and go slow on tags and cites. The best way to be crystal clear for me on the flow is to go as fast as you want through the warrants and use the "and" strat (say AND before every new tag, emphasize it so I know that it's coming). If you're one of those kids who goes for speed and ends up only speaking in vowels, don't go for speed. It's pretty easy to read me as a judge via facial expressions, so you should be able to tell if I don't understand you. I won't yell "clear" or put my hand up or anything, it's not my job to hold you accountable for speaking. Breadth isn't as important as depth, I'd prefer a round with super specific and in-depth arguments with a ton of clash as opposed to a round with 14 off and barely skimming over each arg just to make sure you get everything in time. If you prefer breadth and want to run it, do it. You'll just have to make sure you tell me why I should vote on your laundry list of args that may have been conceded (like I get it, they conceded it, but you shouldn't stop there, tell why it's important that they conceded and why I should vote them down for it).

Policy affirmatives: I've always run and hit policy affirmatives in my career, so I get them. I like them linear, they should tell a story. Have links for everything, and solvency advocates are a must. If you read a card that's powertagged and you get called out on it, good luck. You need evidence where the warrant itself advocates solvency for your plan.

Kritikal affirmatives: I've never run one, but I like the idea of them. My only statement is that I don't like it when people run them unless they have a direct relation to it and genuinely feel the need for change or whatever you argue, if that makes sense. If you want to run one, do it, but if you run one that complains about suppression in the debate community or something, unless you can prove a ton of suppression and abuse and whatnot, it probably isn't a good idea. K affs are generally less offensive, and I don't like that simply because debate should be fun and entertaining for everyone involved, including the judge. I'd rather vote on the semantics of a plan as opposed to the extent to which society is bad.

Topicality/FW against K affs: Go for it. I like when k affs have at least SOMETHING to do with the resolution, so reasonability can be won by aff if they do, but if not, I'm very likely to vote on T/FW.

Disadvantages: Full send. I love DAs, but make sure they are somewhat realistic with the links. I'll totally vote on wild impacts like terrorism/extinction and whatever, but the DA has to make sense. Don't run something like a wages DA where the links argue brink now but the UQ is from 2004. DAs are cool, I like them, go for it.

Counterplans: I love CP's, even if they are cheating at some times those are the best! A CP can solve some or all of the affirmative. My one requirement for a CP is that it has to have a well explained net benefit to the aff. I like the idea of having solvency advocates for a CP, but it is possible to not have one and be able to analytically explain why your CP can solve the aff. It's a debate to be had!

Theory: Theory is mostly fine for me. If you run it, that's fine, but if you run something like new affs bad, that's dumb and wasting time, and I won't vote on it. As far as I can think of, go for anything else tho and you'll be fine.

Topicality v Policy affs: I love it. I love T more than any other offcase positions. I understand that there's such thing as a topical aff that violates a T interp, and there is such thing as a legitimately untopical aff. Run T on both, I don't care. The more in-depth the argument is, the better. I've run things like T-Should and T-To, I absolutely love stuff like that. Basic things like T-increase are fine as well, I just won't enjoy the round as much.

Kritiks: I've run Ks and hit Ks, I'm not totally anti-K, but I'd rather have an in-depth debate about a plan and not a generic link to a complaint you have. Things like a Nietzsche K (some call it Blow Out The Candle) are stupid, if you run a K, have an alt that's legit and isn't something like "reject the aff" because attempting to do something is better than letting the squo get worse, unless you make an argument saying otherwise. I'm familiar with Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Capitalism, Security, Anti-Blackness, Afropessimism, Anthropocentrism, Settler Colonialism, and Neoliberal mostly. If you wanna go for something else, do it. Just make sure you explain it well enough for a lay judge to understand.

Language: Don't be racist, homophobic, or anything like that. Personally, I feel like making sure you don't misgender somebody is important, and technically you're supposed to ask for pronouns prior to the round, but if you accidentally misgender somebody, I won't vote you down for it. Yes it's wrong but I get it, it happens. Unless they make an arg about it like a GenderK or something, I won't use it as a voter. Microaggressions are small, they should be avoided, but not something that dictates a round.

Other: Trigger warnings are necessary for a lot of instances. I won't vote you down if you don't have trigger warnings, but if you discuss things including rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, IPV, and other things of that nature, it'd be nice.

I'm an advocate for judge kick, so I'll do it too.

Throwing shade and being sassy is fun for me and you, I'm totally cool with it, but don't be disrespectful.

I would much rather judge a fast round than a slow round. I'm an NSDA circuit debater so I pretty much only compete in slow rounds and I hate it.

K vs K debate is something I've never experienced, but I'd love to. So if that's an option, GO FOR IT.

Nothing frustrates me more than rounds with no clash. If both teams keep saying "they dropped x" when they didn't and your only response to refutations is extending the evidence they're trying to disprove, I'll enjoy the round less, and you will be more frustrated with the result.

I like humor. If you give funny analogies or just overall are humorous, I'll enjoy the round more. References to Kanye West won't improve your speaks or chances of a win, but it'll make me happy.

If you have any other questions before the round, feel free to ask them.

Lauren Ellenz Hire

Zoe Fernandez Hire 8 rounds

Ari Gabriel Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 3, 2020 at 6:18 AM PDT

If in Policy or LD add me to the chain: AriJGabriel@gmail.com

I do APDA and BP at Stanford. I competed in USX, IX, LD (traditional and progressive/circuit), CX, Congress, and PF. Altogether I have been in debate for almost 10 yrs.

Here are a few things I like to see in rounds:

FW: I like FW debate. I want to know why your VC works as a mechanism for me to view the round through, and please don't use a V of morality in an LD round and justify it by saying "LD is a morals driven debate."

Ks: I enjoy a good K as much as the next person, but it needs to have a clear link to the AC/NC/Resolution. The only exception is Nietzsche Ks. I really don't want to hear your generic Nietzsche K. If you have one prepped and you think you can change my mind you are welcome to run it I will ultimately vote on the flow.

Plans/CPs: I love plans and counter-plans in LD, but you need to run them with a FW.

T: I will vote on theory.

Spreading: I need to understand your tags and authors. If the card (i.e. its internal link, credentials, miss representation, miss tag, ect...) is a main point of contention I will ask to see it after round.

Plans/CPs: Honestly, just a fan.

T: I will vote on theory.

Most Importantly: Just be yourself. Run the arguments you want to run and I will listen, flow, and enjoy them.

Spreading: DON'T this is PF not LD or CX.

Ks: Honestly, I dont think there is enough time in PF to establish a strong K argument, but that being said if you think you can do it, do it! I enjoy a good K as much as the next person, but it needs to have a clear link to the AC/NC/Resolution. The only exception is Nietzsche Ks. I really don't want to hear your generic Nietzsche K. If you have one prepped and you think you can change my mind you are welcome to run it I will ultimately vote on the flow.

Plans/CPs: DON'T this is PF not LD or CX.

T: I will vote on theory.

Most Importantly: Just be yourself. Run the arguments you want to run and I will listen, flow, and enjoy them.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before or after round.

Lauren Gilbert Indian Hills Junior High

Ammeriahya D Gonzalez Hire 8 rounds

RJ Gonzalez Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 16, 2023 at 2:35 PM CDT

Hello!

I try to be as close to a Tab judge as possible. I can acknowledge my own viewpoints and preference for debate, but I remain non-partisan and will pretty much vote on anything that has great warrants, line-by-line work, and clear attention to the external world (outside of the debate space). I will listen and vote on any argument or style of debate as long as it is well developed and given clear voters (which means why those arguments are important) in your speeches.

Style and Presentation – Maintaining a collegial atmosphere is very important to me. Always respect your opponent, and try your best to take up all your prep time, and all your speech time. Being unscholarly and unfair makes me less inclined to vote for your team. Try to keep hyperbolic and sarcastic comments to a minimum. Sometimes I like casual debate, but that is only for upper level debate. If you are competing in a UIL round, I can understand the professionalism that comes with the circuit. Don’t expect me to disregard an argument because a debater says it’s stupid or wrong, or if the ideology is commonly rejected. Explain why it’s wrong and engage the warrant and evidence, which is great for productive debate.

Speed is fine as long as it’s clear and consistent. The tags and analytical arguments NEED to be slower so they are easy to differentiate. I will say “CLEAR” if it gets too muddled. My flow will also be bad if you are going too fast and do not listen to my call for clarity. That means bad speaks and I probably just will not get your argument.

Impact Calculus and Weighing will be a key factor in my decision-making. Using real world examples in a policy frame is very crucial. Framework is severely important to me, because it tells me why I should think about a particular issue in a certain way. It is a great way to reorient my biases (which are inevitable for everyone) and win my ballot. Debaters should state what they think the most important thing in the round is, why they think it’s important and why they think I should vote for it. I would also like debaters to include analysis of what the role of the ballot should be.

While overviews are sometimes useful, they are often overwrought and I ask that they be short and sweet. Simply, " (1NC) the order is gonna be three off, then solvency", or "(2AR) the order will be case in the order of ... then impact calculus." I would prefer most of the debate to occur on the line-by-line next to the evidence that makes the arguments to keep the flow tight and encourage clash. Line-by-line is an easy way to garner my ballot, and it is a great way to raise your speaker points.

I don’t like judge kicks. Debaters should have a clear and firm defense of the arguments they wish to the present in the rebuttals. The negative block should be split strategically. PLEASE do not talk about all the arguments, perhaps drop some in the block so your substance can be stellar and convincing. I expect to see only one or two arguments in the 2NR, and anything else can be quite messy. Stick to the arguments you know you are confident in going for.

I don’t count flashing or e-mailing as prep but don’t steal prep please! If you’re talking, writing or typing, prep should be running. I do request to be on the e-mail chain if there is one. (lolthedisad@gmail.com).

Tech vs. Truth – I would say that I am more for Tech over Truth. I try to allow the flow and the debaters to shape and lead the round in order to intervene as little as possible. FLOW. Make sure to extend arguments to keep them on the flow. I don’t like whole advantages just showing back up in the 2AR after being absent since the 1AC. I will not err sloppy arguments like that in debate. I will vote on weaker arguments if they were not properly answered in the constructive speeches but debaters should do extra work to build them up and extrapolate on them in order to make them reasonable voting issues, which does not require evidence (most of the time, at least in rebuttals). But I will mention that I review evidence very closely, including the credibility of the author, their argument, and their background in the way it relates to the topic at hand (if I get my hands on it).

K– I am familiar with most common critical debate arguments and will vote on them. Do the K proper in the 2NC, and I actually prefer the 2N to take only K, that is, if the link is convincing. I greatly prefer specific links and love it when you take the time out to pick out in the evidence where it specifically talks about the opponents’ position. If you have a great link, I recommend going for the argument, assuming you know the K proper. Debate is ultimately about education therefore don’t try to be squirrely when explaining the philosophical underpinning of your K. Those arguments should not be vague either. You should strive to give a straightforward and intellectually honest explanation that will help your opponents understand what your arguments mean. Explain what the alt does and tell me what the world of the alt looks like in comparison to the world of the 1AC and the status quo. I don’t like alts that are tagged simply as “Reject” because it doesn’t tell me anything about your advocacy, and it does not promote anything progressive, or policy-based/real world. I prefer K's that have a sense of realism to them, rather than K's that are highly theoretical–I just think they provide better clash and discussion (which is good for debate).

Topicality & Theory – While I will vote on these arguments in a vacuum if they are properly argued and given independent voters, pointing out specific abuse in the round that relates to your violation is the best way to get me to vote on them. Don’t go crazy with a flurry of Ts or random theory arguments sprinkled through your speeches as time sucks. I love T though. If you run it, either fully commit to the 7 off strategy or actually go for T if you think there is a problem with the affirmative advocacy in accordance with your ability to debate.

CP – I prefer your counterplans to have an actual CP text that’s written down and policy based, so it can be reviewed by both teams just as a plan text would be. The more indicting the evidence, the better. PICs are fine as long as you can defend the theory and do well explaining why it gets a net-benefit against the aff’s specific plan.

Miles Gray The Harker MS 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 4:13 AM PDT

I will judge your debate by determining which arguments have been preserved to the final speeches and are adequately supported by evidence or persuasive explanation. Then I will compare your arguments, hopefully with instruction from you which frames the important issues and tells me how to make close calls.

Judge philosophies are a bit silly because it is the exceptionally rare case where an issue must be resolved with reference to the judge’s arbitrary preferences. Usually the debaters make their arguments, one side presents a more comprehensive approach to the important issues and frames the close calls, and then judge votes for that team. That being said, I include the following as my thoughts on issues which many teams seem to base their judge preference decisions on.

1. In an ideal world, the affirmative will read a plan that is topical. I do not feel the need to impose a hard rule here; the arguments against affirmative topicality are bad. A debate between equally competent teams should not produce the sentence: “I voted affirmative despite them being untopical.” I do not think debate would function if everyone disregarded the topic, and I think debate—a thing we all do—is good.

2. The arguments against negative conditionality are equally unpersuasive. Again, no hard rule. But I struggle to imagine an affirmative team that convincingly defends an arbitrary limit on the number of a certain type of argument that the negative may read after the 1NC has already occurred, and also that that limit requires the negative team lose the debate. If you think CPs are not “kickable,” then just say that.

3. Cross-examination answers should be binding on the team which made them. Possible exceptions include intricate clarifications of plan mechanism for the purposes of competition (which may not be suitable for on-the-spot Q&A) and promises about how the debate will unfold (e.g., whether a CP will be kicked or whether you will impact turn something if given the chance; I do not think debaters can reasonably rely on advance notice about their opponents’ strategy).

4. Initial constructives should be flowable. Rebuttals should be thoroughly understandable.

5. Speaker points are a composite of argument strategy (ultimately successful or not), clarity in speaking, cross-examination tactics, and organization.

6. I reserve the right to handle ethics challenges on an ad hoc basis to best facilitate the continuation of a fair debate. Sometimes this is impossible.

Andrew James Harding Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 2, 2021 at 1:32 PM EDT

Andrew James Harding

Add me on the email chain: andrewjharding1@gmail.com

TL/DR Debate: Second-year college student/debater with nine years of debate experience. Tech>Truth. I'm okay with speed, but I need pen time for tags. Plans and K Affs are cool. Ks, CPs, DAs, T, and legitimate theory are cool. Tricks and non-basic phil are not cool. Performance args can be cool, but you'll have to make sure I fully understand the arg. AFF must have offense on case in the 2AR. I'll vote neg on presumption. I default to competing interps. I'll drop the debater. Fairness is an IL to education. CX is binding. CP texts are binding. I'll vote on condo if abuse is clearly shown.

TL/DR Speech: Second-year college student/debater with nine years of debate experience. I will judge at an NSDA/TOC standard.

Speaker Points (25-30 Scale):

30-29.5 - Excellent, late elims

29.4-29 - Great, mid elims

28.9-28.5 - Good, early elims

28.4-28 - Okay, might break

27.9-27.5 - Decent, won't break

27.4-27 - Bad, won't break

26.9-26 - Very bad, won't break

<25.9 - Disgraceful, you've engaged in inappropriate behavior, won't break

Background: I graduated from The Woodlands HS in Houston, TX. I'm currently an undergraduate student at the George Washington University double majoring in Asian Studies and International Affairs, as well as double minor in Political Science and History. I'm also a member of GW's Parliamentary Debate Society, ranking 18th in Novice of the Year Standings for the American Parliamentary Debate Association. I debated all four years in HS, competing in CX for 2.5 years as a 2A/1N and LD for 1.5 years. For other events, I competed in DX for 4 years and occasionally other IE events. I've qualified to TFA State for 3 years in CX, LD, and DX. I've qualified in DX to the TOC and NSDA Nationals twice. In CX and LD, I'm familiar with and have ran both policy and critical arguments, mainly based off of Antonio Gramsci's theory of hegemony during senior year.

General: I view debate as the ultimate game of strategy. That being said, debate is also a game of persuasion. It is your job to persuade me that I should prefer your arguments over your opponent. I expect ethical discourse and effective argumentation. An argument consists of a claim, warrant, and impact, so PLEASE include all three when extending and weighing arguments. Regardless of whatever argument you're going to run, it ought to be ran properly. I don't care about how you sit or dress, but make sure you're respectful of your opponent and listen to any request they may have to make the round better for everyone. I would prefer to see a good technical and strategic strategy that has been well prepared. I don't want you to just read the case and prep your teammate gave you. Don't assume I know what you're saying. My main focus has been on policy-type arguments, but I'm always open to new experiences and learning. I like to give long RFDs and many comments as I want people to be the best debaters they can be. Don't feel bad if you need to ask me to shut up so you can leave the round.

*** CX ***

General AFF: I shouldn't have to guess what the 1AC is about. I don't want to hear many new case cards, for I believe the 2AC should incorporate as much of the 1AC offense as possible. T can be a voter and should always be covered well. The 2AC should be: case, T, then the 1NC order. There should be something on the flow against every off case position. I want to see ADVs kicked as the debate moves along. The 1AR is tough, but coverage of all remaining off case is expected or there should be some arguments made that can address multiple off at once. 2AR MUST include heavy case analysis. If the case debate is lost or not warranted well, I'll presume neg.

Policy AFFs: Love them. I expect to hear inherency either on top of the 1AC or within each ADV. There needs to be an IL to every IPX. Solvency must explain what your specific plan solves your ADVs. If the USFG is your actor, then you must defend that USFG action is key and/or good. That doesn't mean you must justify EVERYTHING the government does, but you must defend the position that the government is the best actor to solve problems. Big stick impacts should probably o/w deontologist impacts if you want access to impact calc.

Middle of the road AFFs: I'm okay with them, but I'm not too familiar with them. For the most part, everything said about "Policy AFFs" above apply here. Frame impact calc however you desire, but I'm to suspect SV is the way to go here.

Critical AFFs: Love them. The AFF must be in direction of the resolution with evidence that links the two together. I must hear an advocacy statement, for I need to know what your AC calls for what I would be voting for. While I enjoy fancy taglines, I must be able to identify the purpose of each card. Impact framing and/or ROJ ought to be included. Don't assume I know your literature. There's a good chance I won't, but if you articulate well enough, there shouldn't be an issue. On T debates, you must give me reason why I should weigh case against T or I don't think you'll get my ballot.

General NEGs: The negative shouldn't walk into round without a skeleton of a strategy ready to go. I enjoy a good 1-off K debate as well as a 6-off policy debate. While I understand the strategical value of reading as many offs as possible (I've done the same), it's nice to read 3-4 off that allow for in-depth analysis in the negative block. The 1NC MUST address case. Not doing so will make me believe you're attempting to skirt away from actual clash and just hope to win on overloading on off case. Case turns are wonderful. However, a win is a win and while I won't like you, I'll listen to you. I should hear case in the block. Kicking arguments that don't advocate for a world outside the AC are totally fine and I expect it. The 2NR should only go for one off (or two if it's a CP with a DA for the NB) AS WELL as at least one case argument. Again, you do you at your own risk.

T: Love it. If you have a shell that the AC links well into, I want to hear this debate. I will listen to squirrelly shells, but I highly doubt I'll vote on them. There must be an interp, violation, standards and voters. Including "Drop the debater" is optional as you obviously want me to even if you don't read it. The block should answer the line-by-line effectively and show why the AC is skewing the debate. Don't read T with 8 other off and argue "wE hAve nO gRounD" as I'll probably buy 2AC defense easily, so pick your standards carefully. I need a TVA and caselist in the 2NC, even if they ask for one in cross as I won't flow cross. I default depth>breadth if there is no debate over the matter.

DA: Love them. I absolutely love politics DAs (base, political capital, midterms, elections, down-ballot, congress, courts, international affairs) as I know this area the best, but DAs in general are nice. A DA should include at least 4 cards (U, L, IL, IPX), but 3 is doable. I'm not a fan of 2 carded DAs. More than 4 are cool. Inherency/Uniqueness should be as recent as possible. If your U ev is from 2016 and the 2AC spreads through a N/U card from 2019, you're not winning the DA. The link should be as specific as possible as I'll believe the plan would trigger it, but I understand the use of generic links. However, there's a good chance I'll buy "AFF not k2" arguments if the link is generic. IL must connect to the IPX.

CP: I'm okay with them. I didn't run them often, but I understand how they function and will happily listen to them. 3 parts: text, solvency, NB. There must be a clearly defined CP text THAT IS BINDING. Meaning, if your text refers to granting parole to Syrian refugees, but the AC is about climate refugees, you better hope the AC let's you getting away with it as it's up to the AFF to call you out on it. If the 2AC doesn't test it, then they missed their chance and I suppose it's up to you to do as you please. It'll reflect in your speaks though. If you attempt to change the text after being called out on it, I will not only dock speaks as you're creating an unfair burden on the 2AC, but I will only consider the CP as what the text says it's doing. After the text, I need to hear a solvency advocate through a from of evidence. This evidence should explain why the CP will solve the issues of the AFF. A net benefit MUST be attached to the CP. While I'll expect a DA, you do you if you have another idea, but know it's a risk. Losing the NB means I no longer consider the CP. If you're going for the CP in the 2NR, you must also go for your NB.

K: Love them. I'm most familiar with critical literature addressing capitalism, hegemony, and biopower. With that being said, I understand the basic concepts on most kritiks. I'm not well-versed in postmodernist thought, but I will listen to the best of my ability. You'll have to do a lot of work in the overview to make sure I know what's going on. Kritiks needs a link, impact and alternative. I REALLY want framing (ROJ/IPX), but it isn't required to win. The more specific the link the better. However, there must be SOME relation to the AC. Meaning, I'll listen to state-bad links, but that would mean the AC defends the state. The block must include heavy link analysis. There must be a clearly defined alt. I'm not a fan of vague alts or reject alts. I want to be introduced to a new way of thinking or acting. If you're going for the K, I need very, very strong alt work. HOWEVER, I will buy the K as a linear DA with the link and impact if I'm told to. I want to know my role in the debate in order to influence how I weigh impacts.

Theory: I'm usually not a fan. The only theories I've ran as a 2A are: disclosure, 50 states fiat, condo bad and "generic links." I don't really enjoy theory debates as I believe they distract from debating the content of the debate at hand. However, I do believe theory can be necessary when there is legitimate concern over actions that have occurred during a round. This may be my LD experiences creeping in, but I believe the negative should only advocate for one conditional world. However, I doubt I will buy condo if there are two condo args. Three is pushing it, and four makes me heavily favor voting on condo bad. I don't like tricks debate as it completely distracts from debating the issues at hand. If you run theory, I need an interp, violation, standards and voters. Run theory at your own risk and only if there are legitimate concerns.

Performance: I'm okay with it, but I may not be the best to judge for these arguments. As a white, cis, heterosexual male, I will not able to fully understand performance if it is based off of personal experience due to the privilege society has presented to me. While this doesn't mean I won't fairly weigh the arguments, I can't promise that I'll either understand or analyze the argument as someone else could, but I will do the best I can. I would want an explanation for the performance so I can have a general idea of what to expect and to look for. Make sure I know how you want me to evaluate the argument, mainly through framing.

*** LD ***

General AFF: Same as CX. I think AC under-views/spikes are a waste of time. Can they strategically preempt NC offense? Sure. However, I'd like to imagine a good debater to just read arguments that don't violate any spikes. If that happens, you've wasted valuable time that could've generated additional arguments. Rather than reading an under-view, I would much rather hear an additional contention/advantage. This doesn't mean you can't read under-views/spikes, but I won't be too pleased. If you think you can get me to change my mind on this, go for it, for I love learning new arguments and strategy.

Traditional AFFs: You should use the entire 6 minutes. There must be a FW that includes, at least, a Value (V) and Value Criterion/Standard (VC) with evidence. Feel free to include other evidence or additional framing mechanisms. I'd like to hear, at least, two contentions with three being preferable. There should be, at least, three cards per contention with four being preferable. I would prefer depth over breadth.

Policy AFFs: Same as CX.

Middle of the road AFFs: Same as CX.

Critical AFFs: Same as CX.

General NEG: Same as CX. NR should collapse the flow. If you're running multiple off in the NC, I expect you to go for 1 in the NR (or CP+DA/NB). In the NR, I will only accept new arguments IN RESPONSE to any 1AR offense (ex: Perm ATs). There also shouldn't be many new cards read in the NR, if any at all.

Traditional NEGs: The NC case should take around 4-5 minutes to get through with 2-3 minutes left to do the line-by-line on the AC. There must be a FW that includes, at least, a V and VC with evidence. Feel free to include other evidence or additional framing mechanisms. If your FW is the same as the AC's or you want to weigh the debate under AC FW, make that clear so I know that not including your own FW is a strategical move. You should have at least 1 contention, preferably 2, with at least 2 cards per contention. While that isn't required (you could shotgun 7 contentions if you really want to), I would prefer more depth over breadth. When on the AC, there should be significant engagement with FW. I expect you to cover the flow. That doesn't mean have an answer for every card (Would be nice though), but there should be arguments made on every AC contention.

PHIL: I like phil, I just haven't been exposed to it well enough to fully comprehend and judge rounds focused on phil arguments. That being said, an argument is an argument and I'll flow it. If you're going for phil arguments in the NR, you REALLY need to explain and warrant the arguments. Assume I know nothing you're talking about, no matter how "basic" it could be. Same regards to weighing, extensions, and warrants apply here too.

T: Same as CX. TVA of the AFF should be in NC. I'm more likely to buy 1AR basic defense due to the timing allocation for the 1AR. However, if you go for T in the NR, I'll have a higher threshold for 2AR analysis. No need to make the "Drop the Debater" argument; I know you want me to.

DA: Same as CX.

CP: Same as CX.

K: Same as CX.

Theory: Same as CX. Please don't waste my time with frivolous theory. Sure, I'll flow it and you can win with it, but I will set a high threshold for you to win the shell and your speaks will reflect my displeasure. Any "tricks" fall under this category. While I don't like disclosure theory, I think the debate could be fair.

Performance: Same as CX.

*** PF ***

General: I did not compete in PF during my time in HS, but I've judged local PF tournaments at the MS and HS level. Just like in policy, weighing, clash, warranted extensions, line-by-line, and strategical arguments are expected and will be rewarded. If there is a specific framework you want me to value, make the argument. I'll default to util if no FW arguments are made. I don't care about speaking style, speed, or general presentation; I vote off arguments that you win on the flow. That doesn't mean you ought to be rude or ignore the value of persuasion, rather I'm making clear that arguments o/w presentation. I'd prefer for you to NOT read policy-type arguments, but do as you please. Cross-Fire periods should be respectful and fairly balanced; If, for whatever reason, I must intervene during Cross Fire to maintain order and/or the integrity of the event, both/all debaters will be given 25 speaks. I will presume CON if there is no extended and warranted PRO offense coming out of the Final Focus. Any framing arguments shape the round and I value them over contention level analysis. However, you WILL (probably) NOT win my ballot if you just win FW. You must apply the FW to the contention level debate so there can be 1) weighing and 2) world comparison. If no framing is given, the debate comes down to contention level. Arguments must be extended and warranted out for them to have a chance of appearing on my ballot. I expect weighing - please don't make me intervene on which impacts I prefer. Arguments should be reasonable, meaning there ought to either be an established and/or implied link to the resolution that makes logical sense. Don't assume I have background information about your arguments; it's your job to inform and persuade me. New arguments made in the rebuttals and/or final focus won't be flowed.

First Constructive: Establish the case. Include any framing arguments.

Second Constructive: I expect offense to be extended, warranted, and weighed. There should be good coverage of the flow with line-by-line coverage. While new offense is technically allowed, I'd prefer you to use evidence from the first constructive speeches to generate offense and/or defense.

Summary: Start collapsing the flow and focus heavily on weighing and world comparison. While line-by-line is always important, you should start crystallizing the main arguments in the world. Meaning, you don't need to win every single argument on the flow, but with whatever arguments you'e going for, you should always cover the line-by-line.

Final Focus: Voters. Weigh the arguments you're going for with what your opponents are going for. World comparison is expected. Line-by-line still matters; don't forget to balance time between offense AND defense with the arguments you're going for.

Ben Harris Mountain Brook Junior High

William Honea Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 26, 2024 at 4:20 AM CDT

Director of Forensics @ Athens HS (2023 - Present)

DoD at Austin LBJ ECHS (2022 - 2023)

Texas Tech Debate 2019-2021 (Graduated)

Athens HS (TX) 2015-2019

whonea@athensisd.net

Please have specific questions about my paradigm if curious. Just asking, "what is your paradigm" is too broad of a question and we don't have time before a round to run down every little detail about how I feel about debate.

Speed - I think there is a place for spreading, I have judged and debated against some of the fastest debaters in the country. In a UIL setting, I would prefer you not to spread. I think this allows us to maintain the accessible nature of the circuit. For TFA, NSDA, or TOC debates, go for it. I think in any type of debate slow down for tag lines and key analytical arguments, especially voters in the rebuttals.

TFA STATE 2024 UPDATE: I feel like at this point in the season, judges should outline specific preferences that align with the topic, given they've judged a considerable amount thus far. I have developed a few of those preferences. First, because this is an economy centric topic, I need you to isolate a market indicator that should frame the direction of the economy. Whether is the CPI, Stock Market Projections, BizCon surveys, etc. Absent this specification, it makes it hard to judge econ uniqueness in debates. Second, the central T debate is Taxes v Deficit Spending. A lot more time needs to be allocated to the predictability standard when going for "you must tax". There are tons of taxes the aff could choose, only one way to deficit spend. Finally, is evidence recency. Though I believe dates on cards matter less than the warrants themselves, when debating the ever-changing economy, the most recent analysis is more likely to sway me. The same can be said for politics scenarios. We are deep into an election cycle, Super Tuesday is 2 days before tfa state. Please update your evidence.

TLDR: My overall judging philosophy can be boiled down to, I am going to take the path to the ballot that takes the least amount of judge intervention. I don't want to do any work for you, that means any warrants analysis/extensions. You do what you do best, I am pretty familiar with just about any argument you want to read. I will make my decision based on a metric established by the debaters in the round.

Policy -

MPX - I have no preference for types of impacts. Make sure your internal links make sense. Impact Calculus is must in debates. Also impact framing is necessary when debating systemic vs. existential impacts.

Affs - Read one..... Advantages need to materialize into impacts. Saying "This collapses the economy" cannot be the end all to you advantage. Explain why that matters. Whether its war, structural violence, etc.

K Affs - The K aff needs a point. Don't just read one to try and throw your opponent off their game. I like K affs and have read them a lot in HS/College. The aff should always have some FW/Roll of the Ballot for me to evaluate the round on. Also, if your kritiking the World, Debate Space, Topic, etc. explain the utility in doing so rather than taking the traditional route of reading a policy aff with a state actor.

Performance - The performance needs purpose. Don't just read you poem, play you song, or do a performance at the beginning and then forget about it for the rest of the round. Tell me why you doing what you did has significance in this debate and how it should shape my decision making calculus.

T- I default that the aff is topical. The neg has the burden to prove otherwise. I default to competing interps weighing offense in the standards level debate. I often find that competing interps and reasonability require essentially the same amount of judge intervention. Competing interps relies on a judges individual metric for "how much offense" is needed to win an interp, this is mirrored by "how much of a we meet" is needed to throw out T.

FW - Policy FW against K affs can be a useful strategy to have. However, i often find debaters constantly reading generic standards like Ground, Predictability without any in depth impacts to those standards. Have specific warrants about why them reading their K aff in that instance specifically is bad. You probably have little risk of winning a collapse of debate impact. K's have been read for decades and yet, here we are. Probably should go for a more proximal, in round education lost scenario.

DA - The more intrinsic the better. I will not evaluate links of omission unless it goes completely dropped. While I like intrinsic/specific disads i also recognize the utility in reading generics and will vote on them.

PTX - Needs to be very specific, we are in an election cycle right now. Generic election projections are unlikely to persuade me. Please make sure your evidence is up to date.

CP - I like counterplan debate. Make sure you pair it with a net benefit AND solvency deficits to the Aff plan. Additionally, spend time explaining how the CP resolves the deficits you say the aff solvency has. The CP needs to AVOID the link to the net benefit, not SOLVE it. If the CP solves the link, the permutation probably does as well.

K’s - Don’t assume I know your author. I have experience reading CAP (Marx & Zizek), Agamben, Foucault, Bataille, Baudrillard, Halberstaam, Butler. I have a preference for identity arguments when i debate but as long as your K provides a logical FW and competes with the aff it should be fine.

Theory - I have voted in and debated some of the wackiest theory positions. As long as you have good warrants as to why your interpretation is better than you should be good. Please do interp comparison between you interp and your opponent's. That being said don't get too out there with you theory positions. I feel like you and/or your coaches should know what is a winning theory position and what is hot garbage.

I have the majority of my experience judging traditional LD with values and criterions. I prefer traditional LD debate and do not typically enjoy policy arguments being brought over into this event.

My Experience is in judging TOC circuit level PF. Provide voters and impact calculus. For online debates PLEASE establish a system for question during Grand Crossfire. There have been too many debates already where everyone is trying to talk at the same time on Zoom and its frustrating.

Ben Honoroff MS 50 8 rounds

Lucas Jon Humes Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu June 20, 2019 at 8:35 AM PDT

Hi, my name is Lucas Humes, but you already know that so lets get to the MEAT:

K's- Do not run K's, that you're not familiar with, meaning make sure you know the philosophy that surrounds your Kritical position. I will vote for K's if you give me a reason to prefer the ALT/if you can prove that the underlying issue outweighs the impacts on the flow.

SPEED- I personally dislike speed and believe it gates people out of policy debate and would direct you to talk at a reasonable pace that could be understood by any person that has never competed in debate (more specifically policy). That does not mean you will lose the round if you spread, but if I can't understand you I won't flow/vote on it.

Conditionality- I'm on the fence with CONDO, personally I believe that conditional arguments are made only in an effort skew time. However, I will not vote you down for kicking something so long as you do it BEFORE THE 1AR, doing so in the 2NR is clearly abusive. I will accept theory arguments from both sides (condo good/bad), and will flow for the team that presents the best case on that issue within the round.

Topicality- I believe in "old policy" theory meaning that the aff should be topical and that the T is the first thing that should be voted on when making my final decision. With that being said only run T's if you can prove that actual ground is lost, don't just run T for the sake of running T. As far as affirmative should be concerned, if you prove no ground was lost then I will not vote on the T, but you MUST answer it.

Counter Plans- CP's need to be untopical, if you run a topical CP I will view it as a reason to uphold the resolution and thus vote aff on the cp. Perm is not an advocacy and shouldn't be treated as such, it is a test of mutual exclusivity nothing more.

Disadvantages- This in my opinion is how the negative wins the round, however as stated above is not the only way the negative could win the round. But if you prove post-aff world is worse than status quo then I vote neg.

Case- I will vote for neg if they prove aff doesn't solve effectively (solvency deficits) or if they can't solve at all (no solvency). I will also vote for neg on the case flow if they prove the issue is resolved by status quo.

Framework- You should be framing every argument, if you don't give me a reason to vote on something I won't.

Burdens- Aff: Prove that the world needs your plan and that it actually solves for the advantages you list. Neg: Prove that status quo is better, post plan world is worse, that the cp solves better, or that the affirmative is untopical.

With that said, I'm a very lax judge and will vote on whatever round you have. Have fun and try to learn something about the resolution!

Maria Ibrahim Hire 8 rounds None

Evan Jones Union Middle School

Last changed on Thu March 4, 2021 at 7:38 AM CDT

Tulsa-Union '17

Michigan State '21

*updated for West OK districts '21*

The Big Picture: I did policy for about 10 years through high school and college, I've been out of the game for about a year to focus on my journalism/history degree and operating MSU's independent student media organization. Topic jargon may need a little more explanation for me.

I have the most experience with policy arguments but don't let that deter you from reading your best strategy.

One big update: My preference/bias/ideological sway toward policy arguments & T-USFG/Framework has become considerably weaker in the year I've been out.

For T/FW: Show me the impacts and why your interpretation solves them.

The bottom line: Specificity, context and explanation are crucial. Don't just prove your argument true but show how it interacts with the flow at large.

*updated for '17 Glenbrooks*

Top level

My preferences exist, but I’ll attempt to be as objective as possible.

I'm best for a CP+DA strategy but would prefer you do what you do best.

Warranted evidence comparison is the most important thing regardless of strategy.

Debate is a game, don't make the game a harmful place for someone else.

T-USFG & Planless

My ideological sway is toward T-USFG but I will do my best to not let that get in the way.

Topical versions of the aff are persuasive and helpful.

Sometimes these debates mistake the forest for the individual trees. Having the best impact comparison is the key.

Topicality w/ plan

I love a good T debate.

My default is competing interps and how the evidence interacts. Reasonability is not a question of the aff being reasonable it's if the counter interp is reasonable.

To win T there needs to be a clear distinction between the kind of topic each interpretation creates.

In round abuse is more persuasive than potential abuse, but if impacted out that changes

Disadvantages

The more specific the better

A lot of DA scenarios are preposterous but we discuss them normally. Smart arguments that poke holes in the internal link chains can reduce DA risk quite a bit

Zero risk is hard, not impossible, super small risk of DA can be written off indistinguishable from zero

Turns case arguments are persuasive when well explained (preferably carded), they typically depend on the link being accessed

The link is generally more important than uniqueness can be persuaded the other way on this question

Bring back line by line

Counterplans

Same as DA, the more specific the better

Not going to judge kick for you

If it basically does the aff CP theory becomes a bit more persuasive (plan plus, consult, processes)

If there is textual and functional competitiveness then CP theory is not as persuasive, but am not ideologically positioned against it

Kritiks

I’m down – high theory stuff needs a bit more explanation because I don’t usually know what’s going on.

Please no conceptual 3 minute overview

Please no excessive buzzwords in place of explanation

9 times out of 10 it IS your Baudrillard.

If I don’t know what the alternative is doing the chances of it winning the round are very low.

Roll of the Ballot arguments tend to be self-serving or just a sentence that identifies the controversy of the round. I don’t think they get either side anywhere.

I could vote on an impacted out perf con argument.

Aditya Joshi Hire 8 rounds None

Ian Kimbrell Padre Pio Academy 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 4, 2022 at 4:48 PM EDT

You can e-mail me at ian.kimbrell.debate@gmail.com.

I coached for Saint Ignatius High School for 10 years in the 90s. I coached for Case Western Reserve University from 1995-2006. I started coaching again in 2016. The teams I coached were 75% policy and 25% Kritik debaters. I am fine with any type of argument, but I tend to enjoy fast, evidence intensive, traditional policy debates that collapse down well to a few clear reasons for me to prefer.

I do my best not to interject my opinions or perspectives into the decisions. I like being told how to sign the ballot and will try to pick either the 2NRs or 2ARs interpretation of the round. I like the analysis of warrants. The clash between competing warrants makes for the best debate.

Bravado is encouraged as long as it is done within the confines of fun, friendliness, and fairness.

DAs: Analysis of the evidence, comparison of evidence, and clear articulation of uniqueness, link, and impact are important to me.

TOPICALITY: I like topicality debates but rarely see them. I look to compare two competing interpretations. I probably have a lower threshold than most for having to justify it as a voting issue.

KRITIKs: They are fine. I treat them like any other argument. The more specific the link evidence and link story is to the affirmative, the more engaged I will be. Multiple links are exponentially more persuasive. Permutations need to be clearly explained. I am open to K is bad arguments. I am not deep into all of the literature.

COUNTER PLANS: Counter Plans are fine. Permutations need to be clearly explained. Solvency for counter plans matter.

FRAMEWORK: Clarity on Framework is helpful early on in the debate.

I have a bias towards new/odd arguments. Especially creative DAs and Counterplans. If you are looking to test something out, I may be a good judge to try it on. I'll make sure I give you all the feedback you need.

The most important thing to know about me is that while I would like to be included in the email chain, I will not read evidence during the round. I believe it risks too much judge bias even from the most experienced judges. I will read evidence at the end of the round if things are close or if the one of the debaters convinces me I need to look at one or two key pieces of evidence. Ultimately, I will vote on my flow. This means a minimum level of speaking articulation, clarity, and general ease of flowing does matter. If I can not understand a speaker I will verbally give a warning or two with no penalty.

Lennox Krell Indian Hills Junior High

Jaden Lanza Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 4, 2021 at 5:55 AM CDT

PSA: Please keep in mind when you use lingo that I've judged 0 debates on the criminal justice topic. I have however read plenty of literature on mass incarceration so I wouldn't worry about talking in depth. I know nothing about the PF and LD resolutions so please take that into account.

For experience, I did policy debate for 4 years at raypec HS, qualified to nationals and state (graduated 2019)

The most coherent and educational debates will be when you:

- Give organized speeches and tell me the order of the offcase/oncase your speech will be covering

- Flow and speak clearly, if you spread then please slow down on the most important parts

- In the last speeches think big picture and think strategically

I would appreciate if you'd send me your speech docs by email/etc. (at jadenalanza@gmail.com). I'm tab rasa, argue whatever you want but as a former missouri debater, I recommend to other missouri debaters to not run a K at NSDA districts unless you are very confident and have 100% confidence in your judges. Please be respectful and stay focused on the substantive debate

(Though if you are good at it please do run the Cap K, also please be smart and do not do this if I'm part of a lay judge panel)

Do not do anything scummy please, I will definitely vote against you if you're clipping (skipping over words in between sentences in your evidence) or if you intentionally lie/misrepresent your evidence egregiously.

I am a huge fan of CP + DA debates. Topicality debates can be fun as well if they're very well argued.

For neg, far and away the easiest way to win my ballot is a CP + DA combo where CP solves 99% of the aff and avoids the disad. For aff, please argue both that the perm avoids the link to the disad and ATTACK THE CP (ie., say the CP doesn't solve the aff advantages and why this is important) if you want to win

If you're going for just DA, talk a ton about impacts and weigh against the aff impacts.

Quick, smart analytical arguments are just about the best thing you can add in your speech. If you're quick on your feet flowing then make a ton of them--number them off, say them quickly, then move on to carded arguments. Attack uniqueness, threshold, link, link UQ, impact UQ, and definitely say the case outweighs every time.

Ignoring/cold dropping arguments is a concession that is virtually impossible to ignore, no matter how dumb the argument dropped is

I am very unsympathetic to arguments like disclosure theory. I think nondisclosure is possibly a good argument as part of topicality if their aff is particularly specious

condo is probably good, running new offcase in the 2nc is very very bad (both for you strategically and for your rank)

Caleb Lawson Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed December 1, 2021 at 9:43 AM CDT

debated 4 years at Moore High School (oklahoma). was in state out rounds a few times, doing progressive (fast, Ks cool) CX.

CX:

tech>truth, with some obvious exceptions -- if i can't explain your argument to the other team in the rfd, i'm probably not going to vote on it even if it goes dropped. likewise, i'd never vote on a downright offensive arg even if it's dropped

i like to think of myself as tab rasa. read whatever you want. if the last rebuttal gives me a decent reason to vote on it, i'll vote on it. Ks are fine. K affs are also fine. T/FW is just as fine.

i've got a technical understanding of K debate, but don't expect me to know a lot about your lit. idrk how performance debates work (no experience with them), but i'm willing to vote for them. K aff vs K neg is a similar situation - not what i understand best, but a winnable debate if it’s explained well

condo's generally fine. i'll vote for any theory that you win. if you want to win theory, it needs to be all 5 minutes of the 2AR (most likely, it needs to be all 5 minutes of the 1AR as well, in order to make it convincing that you really got cheated so hard the other team needs to lose). if you think at any point in the debate that you may go for the theory you read in the 2AC, slow down on it. i will not vote for standards that i didn't hear in the 2AC, even if the rebuttals are so eloquent and convincing that the magnitude of the other team's cheating makes me sob out of sympathy for you.

"they drop it" IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR EXPLAINING YOUR ARGUMENT.

weird but sometimes important - i almost never catch author names on cards, so if you frequently refer to your ev by its author, i might get kinda lost. i can figure out what ev you’re talking about in the rebuttals if you preface the author name w the warrants tho

i default to offense-defense. it is exceedingly difficult to win zero-risk to me (unless it’s a politics DA with an especially shady link chain)

PF:

i have some experience with pf on one of the most lay circuits in the country. i will judge based off the flow, and my rfd will probably sound like a policy rfd. see my cx paradigm for more specific notes. i'm a bit more lenient on things like tech vs. truth and how much work you'll have to do to extend a dropped argument due to shorter time limits.

generally speaking, i don't think that pf should include spreading - if both teams want to spread, that's fine though

the neg doesn't get an advocacy. not sure if that's a thing in pf anywhere, but it wasn't in oklahoma and it's not in front of me. if the res is one of those stupid "on balance" ones or policy A vs. policy B, i guess the neg gets whichever advocacy the aff doesn't get.

LD:

i have no experience with high school LD other than judging a few novice rounds. spread if you want, explain any arguments that only LDers make like i have no idea what you're talking about, and you'll be alright.

my first impression is that the neg gets at least 1 advocacy in LD. i'm open to having my mind changed in any round with a decent theory debate. have fun.

Cheyenne Lee Hire None

Gavin Lott Hire 8 rounds

Vinson Lu Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 5, 2023 at 6:32 PM CDT

email - vl15 at rice dot edu (please add to the email chain)

Have any questions? Ask me.

I did policy debate at St. Andrew's Episcopal School in Mississippi from 2016 to 2020. I also did a semester of NPDA at Rice University.

Here are some of my general thoughts about debate:

- I believe that debate is primarily an educational activity. I have no problem intervening when argumentation or discourse is harmful to the debate space.

- Outside of the above, though, I feel my role as an adjudicator is to allow debaters to debate how they're comfortable debating - my role is not to impose my predispositions about debate upon others. I will attempt to intervene as little as possible to make a decision.

- That being said, I am predisposed to grant greater credence to clearly articulated and warranted arguments that advance a coherent theory/understanding of how the world functions. I am indifferent as to what mechanism/framework you utilize to advance these arguments.

- To me, the most persuasive speeches have been the ones where people take the time to dwell on important framing issues in the round and provide compelling analysis as to why they're winning there in a straightforward manner.

Policy Affs

- I feel that there is stronger value to "defensive" arguments than most. It should be possible to win that an affirmative doesn't solve or that there is zero risk of a link to the disadvantage.

- I think that solvency deficits and internal-link takeouts are underutilized and help minimize policy affs well.

- Many policy affirmatives contain, at best, tenuously constructed internal links; teams ought to be unafraid to exploit these weaknesses.

Critical Affs/Framework

- You should be prepared to explain your methodology clearly. I am fine with non-policy affirmatives being read, but I am less experienced in evaluating these (that doesn't mean you shouldn't read them if that's what you do!).

- Even if the affirmative doesn't affirm the resolution, it is better if it relates to the topic in some manner.

- I'm not all that convinced that procedural fairness is intrinsically valuable, but it is probably an internal link to several important impacts (clash education, the collapse of debate, etc.).

Disadvantages

- Specific analysis is important in selling your scenario. Be detailed in your explanation of the link level and the rest will hopefully follow.

- I prefer that you contextualize the disadvantage to the affirmative; even if you have generic links, explain how they implicate the affirmative ("turns case" arguments help mitigate external offense from the affirmative!).

Counterplans

- Most counterplans are alright, although I think that process CPs and international fiat are questionable. Delay counterplans are likely abusive.

- Clever counterplans are fun but are probably not very theoretically legitimate. That being said, there's nothing wrong with a good theory debate.

- Conditionality is probably good (to an extent).

Theory/Topicality

- I default to competing interpretations.

- Good procedural debates are well-organized, well-warranted, and contain good impact weighing. I like these debates.

Critiques

- Teams that read Ks well are able to (1) explain their theory clearly, (2) explain how their theory directly problematizes the affirmative/the affirmative's theory of the world, and (3) explain how their alternative praxis directly resolves these problematizations.

- I may not have more than a surface-level understanding of your theory.

- Framework is probably important for both the aff and the neg in these rounds.

Brenden Tee Lucas Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 12, 2023 at 11:43 AM CDT

Brenden Lucas

He/Him

Senior @ MoState

Yes email chain: brendentlucas@gmail.com

This is by no means comprehensive, it's just a few highlights to look at when the pairings get blasted.

I did 4 years of CX at Raymore-Peculiar High School, and now do NDT-CEDA at Missouri State

2X NDT Qualifier

My preference is fast, technical policy throwdowns. But, don't let that sway you from doing what you prefer. Do you and I'll adjudicate it.

If you need to use the restroom or step out of the room you don't have to ask.

Disclaimer for HS Topic: I'm not as active in high school coaching as I was last season, I don't really research or think about the topic all that much so watch your use of jargon.

CPs & DAs

I'm a big fan of CP disad debate, most of my HS 2NRs were CP disad.

The way I evaluate a disad doesn't deviate from the norm. Have all four parts and do impact weighing.

Turns case args are very nice

I'm down with most counter plans, especially agent and process. However, "cheating" counterplans like delay will not jive with me so keep that in mind.

I default to judge kick

Competiting interps is better than reasonability

Plan text in a vacuum is cool for me

Theory

Deep in my heart, I think condo is good. But, I'm open for a good condo debate. Tbh I prefer affs that limit the neg to 1 or none as opposed to like 1 and dispo or infinite dispo.

Most theory args are reasons to reject the argument, not the team.

K's

I think the topic is generally good and that debates about the topic are also good.

I'm not opposed to K debates, but my limited lit knowledge and liking for framework could make it an uphill battle for you.

I have voted for K affs before, FW is not an auto dub, debate well and you shall be rewarded.

Fairness on framework is a good impact imo.

TVAs are legit

"You link you lose" is nonsense. Teams can win by bitting the link and winning independent offense on the alt, so keep that in mind.

Other

If you read death good, I'm auto-voting against you and giving you the lowest speaks possible.

LD & PFD

I don't have a lot of detailed thoughts for these types of debates. I think they are valuable for students but my judging is policy-focused; so just do what you do best and I will judge accordingly.

Madeline Martinson Hire 8 rounds

Ian Mattson Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 9, 2023 at 9:10 AM EDT

Debated for La Salle for 4 years, currently at Elon University

3 years of being a 2A/1N in policy, one year of being a one off K debater in LD, also was double 2's for half the immigration topic

Put me on the email chain: ian.mattson7@gmail.com

Tl;dr - I will vote on anything, so you do whatever you do best

Good explanation is important

Fast is good when clear

Analytics are good (most of the time)

Theory is good kinda

Politics DA is meh

High theory is meh

2NR ranks are T/K/DA+CP in that order

K Affs can be good

FW is good

Education is a better impact than fairness

Debate is always educational and almost always good.

Everyone wants to say they're tab but they're not, so I'm just gonna give y'all the way I think about arguments. I don't think that necessitates a change in strategy, but more in extension of arguments. You do you.

Theory

Theory is fine as long as it's not fringe. Tell an abuse story and why that made it impossible for you to win/participate in the round. Coherent stories and examples of ground loss, etc. are good.

LD People: Disclosure is good, you should do it. But if you're reading disclosure and the violation is "I messaged them on facebook X mins before the round and they didn't respond" I will give you a 25 regardless of whether you go for it or win. This is a terrible model for debate and whoever thought it was a good idea had no sense of personal space. Email or just, maybe, show up to the rooms 30 minutes before so you can disclose in person. Wild, I know.

DA's

Mostly the usual here, good links are better, impact calc is a must, please explain the turns instead of just putting it at the top of the block overview. Case specific DA's that you clearly did good prep for sound much better than a generic topic DA with a different link.

I think the politics DA is a terrible argument, if we're being honest with each other. That being said, in (almost) every policy round my 1NR was five minutes of politics. I will understand and vote on it, albeit begrudingly. If you have 3 internal links to get to an impact I don't hesitate to vote aff with some analysis on why risk of a link doesn't trigger said impact. 1 internal link is ideal, ya know, like a normal dis-ad.

Pls attack internal links, especially if there's more than 1. I promise they're bad. Unless they aren't, but I have yet to see a politics DA that has a good one.

CP's

More of the usual, make sure you explain why the CP solves case and why it doesn't link to the NB, and why the perm can't resolve the NB. Cheating CP's (Consult/Delay) are usually bad but it's the other teams job to call you out, if they don't then I'm not doing it for them. Just explain the mechanism and how it's different from the aff.

T and FW are different. T when done right is my favorite (and in my opinion, the most fun and strategic) 2NR. Extend interp/violation/(whatever you want to call impacts to T) and we'll be good. T is mostly tech so please try and keep it clean.

Some other thoughts:

Explain reasonability right please.

If there's no counter-interp it's literally impossible to win.

Generic shells are fine, just don't blow through blocks that you read against every aff on the topic. Slow down a little and contextualize to the aff.

There will be no RVI's under any circumstances.

Also gonna keep it fully transparent with y'all, FW is probably a true argument. That being said, I spent the entirety of my senior year not affirming the resolution and had no relation to the topic. Make of that what you will.

FW is about lbl and explaining why your model of debate is good. Relation to the topic makes it significantly easier to win as a K aff. Impact turns to either sides education arguments are good. DA's to interpretations are good. If you don't have a competing model of debate I'm incapable of voting for you, even if you win every piece of offense to their interpretation. Link turns are good when explained right, impact turns to education are great when explained right. TVA's are terminal defense to counter-interps and any solvency deficits are just what neg ground is, so please explain why it is literally impossible to bring the thesis of your aff into a topical discussion. Or have a solid relation to the topic and have a reason your method wouldn't be able to function with fiat/the USfg/etc.

K's

When I did policy, I read exclusively Cap and FW against K affs, Neolib and Security against most policy affs. When in LD I exclusively went one off queerpess, you do with that whatever you want to.

K's are good when: they have good links; an alternative with reasonable solvency; a framework that supports their thesis; impact turns to the aff; are well explained (big important). One or more of those things is always ideal.

K's are bad when: they have bad/generic links; are explained badly; have arbitrary alts that get no explanation; don't interact with the aff at all at any level(biggest important).

Please make distinctions between pre/post fiat impacts and the way I should evaluate them, otherwise I do it myself and one of y'all won't like the conclusion I come to, so make it for me please. Please contextualize to the affirmative, otherwise the link story becomes weak. Please know what you're talking about, otherwise I probably won't be voting for you. If the other team knows more than you about said criticism, there's a high chance I won't be voting for you. Just know your stuff please.

Reps K's are fine, alts that are just reject the aff ~work~ but y'all can do better.

High theory is meh, I don't think myself or any of y'all understand it but ya know, not gonna generalize. If you read Baudrillard and it's the same 3-4 cards I've seen my entire debate career I will be sad. Don't copy Mich KM. Or South Eugene. Or whomstever you're copying. Be original, it makes everything better.

PS: I've read a bunch of stuff at this point. Don't skirt explanation because I may have read your author of choice, if it isn't in the round I'm not going to evaluate it.

Aff teams: if the aff is soft left the permutation is usually a good bet, contest links because they're probably bad, have defense of the rhetoric of the aff, give me a reason to prefer being a policymaker, etc. Most K's can be dismantled pretty easily if you just use your brain a little instead of reading more cards. Call out blippy DA's to things like the perm or FW.

Critical Affs

Hey I've read one of these! For a whole year! And it had no relation to the topic!

Regardless, I am totally fine with these. You need good answers to FW, reasons why their education is bad and yours is not, reasons why the TVA literally can't exist under their interp, etc. Know your lit. Explain what the aff does and why I should sign my ballot aff. Affs that want the ballot for the reading of the 1AC aren't persuasive. Have a method I can vote for, or why the epist is good, or whatever. Give me something. Please.

Performance: I never was ~too~ involved with these so take that into account. Explain why the performance matters/what it gets you/why and how I should evaluate it. As a sage once said: "Reading an eDgY speech doc is not a performance." I wholly agree with that, garnering offense off of the reading of the 1AC/K is fine but don't say it's a performance unless it is. Embodying the method in round would be considered a performance if done right.

KvK - I did none of these until my senior year. I've grasped it but still probably don't understand a lot of the nuances that go into it, especially if I'm not familiar with the lit, so please explain why things matter. If it's a methods debate I think it's very easy to win mutual exclusitivity on the perm, but that might just be me.

Intersectionality can be a good argument if you have the warrants for it, randomly claiming it probably isn't gonna fly and is super susceptible to links.

LD Specific

I strongly dislike trick/Phil affs but have zero problems actually voting for them if explained right. One line a priori arguments are probably bad but if there aren't any theoretical objections to them/they're dropped and the 1AR picks up on that it's probably a win. However, I am sympathetic to things like "Hey Ian, these arguments are silly and unfair to the negative" because they're probably true. Reading your own framing and then a theoretical objection to multiple a prioris/independent reasons to vote aff is more than likely your best bet against tricks.

Please extend the actual text of the aff into the 2AR. Please. I get you wanna talk about framework for 3 minutes but even if you win framework if you don't have an aff I can't vote for you.

Plans are fine in LD.

Final

Why is disclosing speaks a thing? Don't ask, I'll just make them lower than I was originally going to.

Cross can be good when utilized right. Don't be an ass, you can be sarcastic or whatever I honestly don't care. Bring the concessions up in a speech or it doesn't mean anything. If you make me chuckle it's probably good.

You can use whatever pronouns you want for me. If I slip up and say "guys" it's a Philly thing that is gender neutral. Misgendering people is just like, rude? It's not that hard to just say they/y'all. If anyone has an issue with that then they can bring it up, otherwise you just seem ignorant/mean/oblivious to me, which are all bad looks.

Sorry if I missed anything, feel free to email me with questions, it's at the top

Esther Mergerson Hire 8 rounds None

Wendy Muir Hire 8 rounds

Justine Musk Ad Astra School 8 rounds None

Dilon Nguyen McCormack Middle School 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 21, 2023 at 7:38 AM EDT

Updated: 10/19/2023 Rounds judge for this year: 7

I coach for the John W. McCormack middle school and coach some of the open division kids in the Boston Debate League.

email: dilon.debate@gmail.com , please add me on the chain. Also email if you have any questions/concerns.

My name is Dilon (he/him/his), I debated for 6 years in the Boston Debate League. Been to a couple nat tournaments.

-I was the 1A/2N if that matters to you.

if you only have 10 seconds to know how i am as a judge: Tech>Truth \\ pref me low for Policy. I'll vote on anything you read, I've done cp's and da's to performances. It really comes down to what you tell me to vote on and why(GOOD & CONCISE IMPACT CALC WILL LITERALLY GIVE YOU THE BALLOT). I will most definitely not do work on the flow for you so please keep that in mind. I'm also not super well-versed in high theory K's but can hang if contextualized well.

Keep these things in mind because I take these rules/thoughts very seriously:

1. Be cordial, I want a good debate where both teams are able to learn and have fun. Be funny! I love when a round is fun and I can converse with y'all normally!

2. I do not want to see a veteran team running high theory stuff against a team that is new to debate because you think they can't answer it; it can and may discourage new debaters to ever debate again. Also, disrespect is taken very seriously; it'll reflect on your speaks. I debated in a UDL so i know the huge gap in debate, so please be respectful to every team.

3. Weighing cards is better than giving me multiple pieces of evidence without any impact framing/calc. It'll be rewarded if you can tell me why pieces of evidence are important.

If you say Jessie Pontes loves Framework debate, I might just give you a 30.

The Nitty-Gritty:

there's a thin line between funny and rude so remember that. Be you, do you, be respectful. :)

AFF: run whatever you like. I've ran K AFFS, Policy, and even aspec policy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The aff has a burden of proving something, so prove to me why I should vote for you. It's simple really, I just go on a daily explanation of why my solvency mechanism makes sense instead of giving way to many advantages and never explaining them.

K AFF: I love K debates. But, that doesn't mean you can just run anything and assume I understand. I need something to vote for and why I should vote for it. Explanations are needed just like any argument you make in life. That being said, treat it like you would treat any aff. Run it, tell me why it's important and what I as a judge can do by giving y'all the ballot. TVA's are amazing, metaphorical interps awesome, and solid contextualization of philosophies make me super happy. Please! DO NOT CHANGE YOUR STYLE FOR ME! DEBATE AS YOU PLEASE!

K: Don't read lit that is about racism, sexism, ableism good; I will not let the round go on. Also, high theory like nietzsche, Lacan, Agamben, psychoanalysis etc. i'm not to familiar with but if you just explain it like a good story, tell me why the AFF links to the kritik, how it triggers the impacts, and as long as there's good contextualization then I'm all for it. Also, please please please give me a reason to vote on the alt/advocacy, I want to hear what I am doing as the judge by giving you the ballot, not some BS "don't vote aff cool thanks!" kind of alt.

FW/T: give me a voter, why do I say this? No one ever extends voters in the 2A/NR which then cost them the round. TBH, why does your interp matter? How does it allow the opponent then to be apart of it? Why is it something that must be addressed within the round? these questions matter and must be answered.

DA: give me a good link story and impact calc. don't make me do work on the impact calc. I need to hear a real clear reason on why they trigger imp. if it's not explained then i probably won't evaluate it.

CP: sure, go for it. Give me a reason on why the CP is a feasible solution to either solve the aff and the "disad(s)".

Speaks: speed, idc but i need to hear a tag and author. I'm super lenient w/ speaks because everyone has their own style.

Misc: people who have influenced me through my debate career are , Daryl Burch, Moselle Burke, Roger Nix and Richard Davis. take it however you want to.

Quan M. Nguyen Hire 8 rounds

Layne Nichols Hire 8 rounds

Adison Norbury Hire None

Anaya parikh Hire 8 rounds None

esra qaki Hire 8 rounds None

malavika rajaram Hire 8 rounds None

Justin Michael Real Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 9, 2020 at 11:08 AM CDT

Debated 4 years Wichita East in Wichita, KS graduated 2019

Debating at UT Austin

justin8real@gmail.com

General:

Clipping is cheating- if it's egregious you'll lose with the lowest possible speaks.

I'm down for whatever you want to do (within reason- don’t say/do offensive things), but be ready to defend your actions, justify them, and be able to explain your arguments.

Repeating a tagline isn't an extension.

Calculated and strategic risks WILL pay off with speaks (e.g. kicking the aff properly, impact turns, clever PIC/PIKs). Poorly calculated strategic choices will not.

*Local circuit people*

I'm 99.9% not going to vote on something being a stock issue. This is not to say I won't vote for inherency but that there needs to be a reason keeping affs inherent creates a good model of debate and provides for the best education or fairness in the round, not purely that it's a stock issue.

Also, please don't call me judge. It's just weird.

Case:

I've met very few judges whose feelings are not "case debate is undervalued and underutilized" yet very rarely is this advice heeded. Too often, aff internal link evidence is absolutely horrible yet they're able to get away with essentially anything in rounds. Don't let this happen if you're neg.

K aff's:

Too often I judge rounds where teams have really well written 1AC's with offense built in meant to answer FW or specific K's and then the 2AC stands up and uses absolutely none of what the 1AC set up. Please don't be this team. It doesn't usually factor into the decision but it's frustrating, shows you probably don't know your aff as well as you should, and definitely hurts speaks.

Topicality:

Top level:

CI>Reasonability nearly always (more below). Make sure you explain your internal links- too often it seems like a 2NR will skip from "they hurt limits" to "education is important". In a vacuum, an unlimited topic doesn't affect education- explain how you get there.

Secondary:

1. Reasonability is about whether there is a reasonable debate to be had under the affirmative's model, not about whether the affirmative is reasonably topical (whatever that means). This means the standards debate is still in question when evaluating the round, just with discretion.

2. My threshold for explanation on T debates are pretty high, and you need to win not only the link chain to education or fairness but that education means something more than just "that destroys education". In order for education or fairness to be impacts you need to explain the implications of not preserving them- this is why so many people don't think fairness is an impact because "that destroys fairness- makes it impossible to be aff" isn't a reason to vote negative because there's no implication to hard aff debates.

3. Most T debates revolve around a central framing question (precision, predictability, etc.)- if you're not identifying what you want me to filter the debate through, I will filter it through what I think it should be through, which is probably not what you want. Framing is just as, if not MORE important on T than every other flow.

FW/T vs K affs:

Affs that just act like they're negative when they're aff will probably find it hard to generate offense on FW that isn't solved by switch side. You need to explain switch side though and give actual warrants about why it solves any aff offense.

I feel like reasonability is decent for topic based K affs and find the 'we are a discussion of the topic therefor we are topical' type argument pretty persuasive. This is not to say having a topic link means you win my ballot but rather that when the entire aff is topic based it makes it much easier. This should be a question of advocacy as well- reading the alt from a backfile shell or having a generic advocacy won't really access this, but when the mechanism of the aff is in the direction of the topic you will have a much easier time. That being said, a well thought out TVA could probably solve a majority of the offense you have on FW, so you should probably be making arguments about why form outweighs content and determines the direction of your offense.

If you are not in the direction of the topic, I'm not sure what you're doing if you're trying to do anything other than impact turn on FW. While I admit I am generally a little more neg leaning on questions like predictability good/bad, this is a much more persuasive place to be than "we're predictable enough".

P/ your interp plus our aff makes no sense- it's a debate of models and that model would be a world where every single aff could be about literally anything and say "your interp plus our aff" and win

K's

K debates I judge too often come down to a NL or shoddy link turn and perm which often ends up with me voting neg. Use the aff- it's your main source of offense. There's probably a very low risk of me buying that you have no ability to weigh the aff but it's up to you to frame the debate and help me decide how much to weigh it. No matter what, you should be doing the same level of work to explain your theories whether you think I know it or not. PoMo is fine but don't just copy Michigan KM because you wanna be edgy.

Every K has top level theory that every team needs to answer and should have at least a cursory understanding of. If you don't, it will just generally be hard for you to win the debate.

*kicking the alt*

I would advise against it, but if you must, you better either:

- Be very far ahead on FW to where there is little doubt in my mind that you are winning whatever ethics claims you're going for

- Generate uniqueness for an actual disad- something actually has to meaningfully change with the links/impacts. Linear disads will be an uphill battle

- Have a PIK that was conceded (in the event the 2AC or 1AR makes a PIKs bad arg then it's probably sufficient to answer)

DA's

I really enjoy disad debates and think both teams have a lot of leeway to do what they want here.

Aff: I personally love impact turns on disads in the 2AC and impact turning addons in the 1AR is amazing. Straight turning can be super strategic and will be rewarded if it's the right decision- don't be scared to do it. I find myself pretty doubtful of the possibility that there's 0-risk of a DA except for really bad ptx disads but I guess if you're just going for aff OW it can work.

Neg: I think you need a scenario in the 1NC for your DA- it shouldn't stop at an internal link and affirmatives should punish teams who do this. For instance, the Base DA- Street 16 doesn't provide an impact, it just says trump lashes out somewhere, anywhere, who knows? The problem is, the 2AC isn't going to read impact defense to lashout and war with NoKo, Russia, China, Iran, etc. individually, and the lashout itself is the internal link. You need to have a scenario.

*DA v Case*:

You need to very clearly articulate why the DA outweighs and turns the impacts, and have very clear analysis on the case debate. Your framing of the round needs to be great and you also need to have specificity on every level of the DA. It's not impossible, just a lot easier with a CP.

CP:

If you want me to judge kick the CP, you need to tell me. And if you don't want me to judge kick the CP for them, you need to tell me why doing so is bad. Neg teams should be answering reasons why it's bad when they tell me they want me to do it the first time.

I love cheating CP's ngl. The more you can get away with, the better. That being said, the nature of this love also makes me realize they are in fact cheating CP's which means I am inclined to listen to a well constructed theory argument.

So, theory:

1. Keywords here are well constructed theory args. Reading a generic PICs bad shell won't work against most teams who are reading cheating CP's and answering theory often.

2. Most theory args are reasons to reject the arg not the team

3. Condo is probably good but I can definitely be persuaded otherwise. Again, it's a debate of models.

4. In my opinion, if a CP is deemed theoretically illegitimate it is separate from judge kick. Judge kick is done if the CP doesn't meet their burden of proof of a change to the squo when presumption flips (i.e. if it links to net benefit, doesn't solve anything). Judge kick is NOT when it is theoretically illegitimate. If the neg wins that I reject the CP on condo, it's saying that CP never should have been run in the first place, which still means evaluate da v case. If theory is part of the judge kick equation, there is not point for the distinction between reject the arg/reject the team.

Mason Remaley Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 22, 2024 at 5:52 AM CDT

Tab, do whatever you do best. I do not have any categorical prohibitions on any types of arguments. While debating I mostly read the K (Cap, Psychoanalysis, Queerness, Schmitt, Heidegger, Biopolitics, etc.) with T and heg as secondary strategies.

Impact comparison is incredibly important for my ballot. Debate is a game of world comparison, for instance if the debate comes down to an aff vs a disad, I will ask myself if the world of the aff or the world of the status quo is net beneficial. This is what it means to weigh impacts. My default impact framing mechanism is Util. If you present an alternative impact framing mechanism tell me how it impacts my evaluation.

Interps must be textually competitive, there is no spirit of the T. For instance, if your interp is "the aff must spec their agent of action." I will vote on a we meet if the aff specs it at some point in the round. So, a better interp would be "the aff must spec their agent of action in the pmc."

T and theory require explicit interps,

If you are going for a non-extinction death impact under a util framing (which is my default if you dont present me with an alternative) please quantify your impacts.

I have very ambivalent feelings about MG theory. The absences of backside rebuttals makes it structurally abusive but on the other hand without it there is not way to check back for neg abuse. My attitude can be summarized thusly: "lets not!"

Speed is not an issue

I see to minimize judge intervention. Many debate that I judge often miss the forest for the trees, the entire debate becomes a show line by line tit for tat responses without either team pulling across a warrant that is predictive of the opponents arguments nor taking a step back and establishing the stakes of these line by line attacks as it relates to the substance of the debate. Please do predictive comparisons.

Theory defaults to common issues: Condo good, don't need to spec, speed good, cx is binding, presumption goes neg.

Fiat is required for any negative argument that does not defend the status quo.

I did policy debate in High School and was the 2018 4A CX state champion. I did parli at UT Tyler and was a two time NPTE finalist and a one time NPDA finalist. I currently coach parli at William Jewell College.
masonaremaley@gmail.com

Lukas Rhoades Rancho San Joaquin Middle 8 rounds

milton Rosenbaum Hire 8 rounds None

Ty Rossow Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu July 2, 2020 at 1:59 PM CDT

Add tyrossow@gmail.com to the email chain.

Background: I debated on the national circuit in CX (three years) and LD (one year) for Union HS (OK). I am now a sophomore at Baylor University pursuing majors in economics, philosophy, and political science. I was previously an LD instructor at VBI and taught debate this summer as well.

***General Thoughts***

--- Debate is a game. That does not mean the game should be exclusionary or lack educational value.

--- Tech determines truth. I’m not comfortable imposing my beliefs about the world onto the debate, unless the debate is offensive to a group of people.

----- I enjoy highly technical debates.

------- Speed is fine but be clear.

------- Evidence quality matters, but not if you don’t explain the warrants in said evidence. I’ll call for cards if there is a dispute about what a piece of evidence says, but I won’t vote on warrants in your evidence that are neglected in the debate.

------ If you clip cards or say something offensive about a group of people, I will give you zero speaks and an automatic loss.

----- Tl;dr for the rest of the paradigm: Like all judges, I have preferences, but I am generally comfortable with voting for anything. Win the arguments on the flow and you will almost certainly win my ballot.

***Policy Paradigm***

Policy AFFs: I like them.

*** Against the K: Don’t shy away from defending what you do. I’m more than comfortable with voting for a heg good + util 2AR if that’s the direction your aff takes you.

K AFFs: I have experience reading them and will vote for them. Performance is also fine if you communicate the importance of it. Framework specific preferences are addressed below.

Disads: Yes. Read lots of cards.

CPs: Yes. My views on “judge kicking” aren’t particularly strong either way; give me a warrant and I will evaluate it.

K: Yes. I have a fairly extensive background in K debates. This is mostly on the identity side, but I am okay with continental philosophy as well. In addition:

*** More specific link argumentation is always better. That doesn’t mean I won’t vote for a generic link, but I’ll be much friendlier to your K if you can tie it to the 1AC.

*** On questions of framework, I lean towards the middle ground; the aff can weigh the 1AC, but the neg can garner links external to the plan.

*** The block and 2NR need to clearly articulate the alt for me to vote on it.

*** I will vote for a floating PIK, but if the aff calls it out, I will strongly lean aff on the theory debate.

T: Yes. Don’t be afraid to go for it if you’re winning the flow.

*** I default towards an offense-defense paradigm over reasonability, but can be persuaded otherwise.

Theory: It’s fine. I’m not a huge fan but I’ll vote for it.

*** I was a 2N so I lean neg on most theory debates, including condo, PICs, process CPs, consult CPs, and international fiat.

*** On condo: one counterplan is almost certainly acceptable, two counterplans is probably acceptable, three counterplans is debatably acceptable, and four counterplans is really pushing it.

*** I’ll vote on a perf con arg if it is impacted out and turns the K.

Framework:

*** I lean neg. That does not mean you should be afraid to read a K aff in front of me; I will fully evaluate it like any other argument. Instead, it just means that you need to be going for the right arguments (under my paradigm) to win the debate.

*** On the neg, I am most persuaded by clash and procedural fairness arguments.

*** It helps me greatly if you have some way to suck up most of the aff offense. A TVA, truth testing, impact turns to the aff’s method, or some combination of these will greatly benefit your 2NR.

*** On the aff, I am most persuaded by arguments about how framework creates a poor educational model and/or necessitates exclusion.

*** You need to be defending your aff as a debatable argument. I'm not a good judge for impact turns to clash and fairness. Defensive arguments about how to preserve limits, ground, predictability, etc., coupled with your offense, are a much better strategy in front of me.

*** I would greatly appreciate seeing impact comparison from both sides. I feel that the neg is often ahead on questions of fairness, and the aff is often ahead on questions of education. Determining which impact outweighs is critical.

***LD Paradigm***

General Thoughts:

---- Spreading is fine, but be clear.

---- I am fine with progressive and traditional LD, and I have experience in both.

K AFFs/CP/DA/Framework/Ks: These are all good and addressed in my policy paradigm. Other thoughts I have specific to LD are:

*** I am more lenient towards CP theory in LD rounds due to the time structure. One condo CP or K is probably fine, but anything beyond that is probably abusive.

*** Comparative analysis that typically happens in the policy 2NC needs to be in the LD NC.

Plans: These are acceptable and I enjoy these debates.

*** I am willing to vote on Nebel T, and I am interested in hearing more of these debates.

Phil: Despite my primarily policy background, I enjoy these arguments quite a bit. I find philosophy fascinating, and these cases are the heart of LD, so please don’t hesitate to read them if this is your A strat.

*** Giving examples that prove your philosophy is vital.

Theory: My receptiveness to your shell will largely hinge on a personal “gut check.” If legitimate abuse has clearly occurred in the round, I will grant you more leeway on the theory debate. However, I will be frustrated if it seems as if you are fishing for a theory violation to run from substantive debate. This also means that I lean strongly towards reasonability on theory, not T; I think most experienced debaters intuitively know whether their strat (or shell) is reasonable.

*** This does not mean I won’t vote for frivolous theory. If you win the arg, I will vote for it. However, I cannot promise that you will be happy with your speaks.

*** I am fine with metatheory in instances where there is legitimate abuse.

*** RVIs are possibly fine. I will vote on it if you win the flow.

*** It helps me when you give a title for your warrants. For example, instead of saying “a) x b) y ” say “a) Time skew (or whatever warrant) – x b) (separate warrant) etc.”

Wesley Roush Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 15, 2021 at 7:40 PM CDT

I debated four years for Topeka High School in Topeka, KS - he/him/his

Don't be rude, have fun. I have zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

I'd prefer a flash or to be on the email chain if applicable (wroush24@gmail.com)

I ran everything from middle of the road affs to a performance K aff.

I value tech over truth, a conceded argument is a conceded argument.

If you are spreading give me some time in the beginning to let my ear warm up cause I haven't listened to fast flow debates in two years. If I can't understand you then I won't be flowing. And for the love of god please sign post

I can adapt to most things you are running unless is a super specific K, then you might lose me on the flow because if I don't understand it I won't vote for it. I will probably look confused if I am confused.

Affs - You should be topical or at least topic oriented. But I am not opposed to rejecting the topic. Just run whatever you have been running all year and you should be fine.

Disads - I enjoy unique and smart politics disads but I also think generics can garner good education in the round for lower levels of debate. Generic links are fine but won't get you very far. If you don't have the basic structure of a DA then you have less of a chance winning on it.

CPs - Run them, I think they are a crucial part of the negs arsenal. PICs arent my favorite but that doesnt mean I won't vote for them. Other than that you should be fine if you read a CP in front of me unless its some generic delay CP.

T - T is important and teams should be reading T every round even to just test the aff. I don't have a default to either competing interps or reasonability - it is your job to convince me which one is better for the debate. RVI's are something I will NOT vote for. The aff should be good enough to answer T without trying the RVI. T is one of my favorite arguments and not enough teams utilize it. A team doesn't have to be untopical for me to vote on T.

Ks - Sure read them, just because you can read blocks at me doesnt mean I'll vote for it. If you are just yelling buzzwords and not explaining the argument then there is a small chance I'll vote for it.

Any questions just ask me when in the room and I'll be happy to answer it.

Maddie Rowley Hire 8 rounds

Gabriel Sandoval Hire 8 rounds None

ethan seabourn Hire 8 rounds

Sarwa Shah Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue June 30, 2020 at 12:29 PM CDT

sarwa shah

sarwa.shah@gmail.com

wichita east high school 2016-2020

wellesley college class of 2024

she/her/hers

overview

- email subject line should include tournament, round number, and teams

- i was a policy 2N every year of high school except my junior year

- debate is a communication activity. i am a new judge. if i make decision you disagree with, you need to explain it better next time.

- speed is fine but clarity is way more important

- if you have any questions please feel free to email me!

here are my wikis from my senior year

https://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/Wichita%20East/Halabi-Shah%20Aff

https://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/Wichita%20East/Halabi-Shah%20Neg

disads

- amazing, tell your story

- please have a specific link to the aff!!

counterplans

- also amazing, i love a questionably theortically legitimate cp. this does not apply to process cps.

- the above should not scare the aff. these cps are definitely beatable, dont freak out. you're smart and you know what to say.

- i wont judge kick unless you tell me to

kritiks

- very valuable part of the activity

- very little experience going for them but answered them plenty

- neg please explain your links to the aff!!! the more specific, the better!

- dont assume i know what youre talking about if you're using a lot of specific jargon

- im a bad k v k judge

t vs planless affs

- the neg is gonna have to do more than read your blocks, you have to engage the aff's arguments

- have 1-2 good TVAs, they don't NEED ev but it really makes your argument stronger

- competing interps > reasonability

- ev quality is really important

case

- i love a good case debate, DA and case is a fav 2NR

- dont read garbage offcase that you'll never extend in a million years and invest more time on case

- affs need to sufficiently answer these args in the 2ac so the 1ar has something to extend

theory

- condo is almost always good

- generally lean neg but i can be convinced otherwise

- i love a 1ar that extends theory to put pressure on the 2nr

- if you're reading a questionably theoretically legitimate cp (ie conditions, process, other aff stealing cps), you need to explain why the topic necessitates the need for this cp for the neg

pet peeves

- this isnt even a pet peeve just comon decency. dont be rude or say anything offensive. i will tank your speaks and if it gets out of hand i will stop the round and we will have a discussion.

- if its something you wouldnt extend in the 2nr, it shouldnt be in the 1nc

- if you're at a toc tournament you need to be on the wiki and keep it updated. disclosure is good.

- bad cx. please have a point to your questions.

- bad affs. makes me puke. your affs need to have clear internal links that you can explain.

- no clipping! i will vote you down even if the other team doesnt call you out. it is cheating. i will still flow the rest of the round to give you feedback.

things i love!

- fun debaters! crack a joke every now and then

- a 1ar that reads cards

- a team with confidence, good chemistry, and kindness!

Richard Shen Ad Astra School 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat June 15, 2019 at 4:54 PM CDT

General Tips

- I will vote on almost anything if you debate it well enough. Read what you feel comfortable with.

- A dropped argument is a true argument, but you still need to explain why that argument is important.

- Clarity comes first. If I can't understand what you're saying, I won't write it down. If my pen stops moving during your speech it's a bad sign.

- Everything results in extinction anyways, so make sure you're doing good impact comparison probability-wise.

- Please be polite and professional. I will dock speaks for rudeness and disorganization.

- Good evidence is good, but spin is more fun :) Just don't flat-out lie because I will catch you.

- Humor gets you points for style but won't affect my decision.

Case

Underrated imo. Debate the case like you would any other flow. That means making good arguments and responding to your opponents. A well-debate case can swing the round either way. The aff will usually have better solvency evidence but the neg can beat it with smart analytics. Take out the weakest internal links!

I don't care much for philosophical framing debates. Just tell me why structural violence should outweigh a small chance of a disad or why extinction comes first.

T/Theory

Good as a tool for taking down tricky, borderline-topical affs. Bad as an A-strat. That said, reasonability will not always save you.

K Affs- Debate ðŸ‘ is ðŸ‘ a ðŸ‘ game. I think deliberately avoiding the topic is unfair. That's not a free win for the negative, though. Both sides need to fully explain the value of their position.

My personal favorite part of debate.

Every disad is different so I can't say much other than UQ, L, I. You're gonna want to win all three. In the end, the 2nr will have to tell a story, so specificity and coherence tend to beat sweeping aff args.

My second favorite part of debate. A clever counterplan that solves the case will win my ballot. The affirmative will need to win that the risk of a solvency deficit outweighs the risk of the net benefit to beat any counterplan.

Solvency advocate theory's a loser, but not having evidence makes solvency deficits more enticing.

50 state fiat theory's not great. I will allow it but whether the negative gets uniformity is up for debate.

I will judge kick if you tell me to.

Good: smart and creative PICs

Bad: Multi-actor, future fiat, consult

PS- speak boost to whomever first compliments my Supreme sticker; gotta do your pre-round prep, kids.

I understand most kritics, but the negative should still slow down in the overview to explain the thesis. Random buzz words and K-tricks will not cut it.

Specific links will beat the perm. Co-option disads won't.

I will usually lean aff on framework. "Vote for whichever team best heuristically examines capitalistic epistemology" is not fair.

David Si Gale Ranch Middle School 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 5, 2021 at 5:51 AM CDT

Dougherty Valley '19

Email: davidsidebate@gmail.com

Overview

-Debate how you normally would debate in front of me: fast, slow, critical, etc.

-My judging paradigm is similar to Scott Wheeler's

-I primarily read policy-style arguments, but have gone for K's as well. If you are reading a K I've most likely hit it before, so expect a cursory understanding.

Disadvantages

-Almost all of my 2NR's have had this. Read them as you usually would.

-Politics DA's are probably educational. I lean neg on questions of whether fiat includes PTX.

Counterplans

-Default judge kick.

-Read sufficiency framing.

-Condo is good unless there is a convincing reason why the specific advocacies force aff out of making certain arguments.

-Lean aff on cheaty counterplans theory.

Topicality

-Default reasonability. However, I'm neutral about competing interps vs reasonability.

-Weigh standards (legal precision vs limits) and also voters (fairness vs education)

-Assume I have no topic knowledge so provide case lists and warrant what constitutes "core of the topic."

Kritik

-Don't take buzzwords for granted

-Specific link work + alt solvency explanation >>> generic framing + ROTB

-I don't take a particular stance on whether the aff gets to weigh case, but when the arguments boil down to "moots the 1AC" versus "epistemology first + fiat double bind" I find myself (reluctantly) leaning neg.

-If your strategy revolves around confusing your opponent you will confuse me as well.

K Affs + Framework

-I prefer if these are in the direction of the resolution but this isn't a hard rule.

-Your counterinterp to framework should be a robust, defensible model for debate.

-You get perms as long as you convincingly explain what they look like.

-Here are some of my preferences

-Education >>> Procedural Fairness, but I understand the strategic incentives in front of certain affs.

-Policymaking bad >>> Limits are a prison.

Theory

-Drop the argument. Drop the team is reserved for condo only.

Madison Simms Hire 8 rounds None

Tanya Singh Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed June 17, 2020 at 2:06 PM CDT

With Policy Debate, I am kinda sorta lenient on speech style and I find myself fixating on the validity of arguments and the analysis of arguments being made- meaning clarify and extend your warrants, no cap.

This does not mean I will vote up speakers who are sloppy and have speeches that make no sense, because I will not, like make it make sense smh my head. Speed is not an issue for me, you will not be speaking too fast for me at any time, as long as you signpost and slow down on your tags and analytics and stuff ykyk, so I can flow. As long as you can speak quickly and with clarity, I will be fine with speed.

I have done two years of policy debate, with competitive success in both the KDC and Varsity divisions.

In the event that someone doesn't speak clearly, I will put down my flow and tune out for the rest of the speech (and also vote them down lmao).

For Disadvantages and Kritiks, they should have an aff-specific link for more commonly found affirmative (but I will be lenient on this rule in the case that an aff is small/niche).

DAs: I mostly dislike the usage of generic links because they tend to be weak and are not really applicable to all affirmative cases under the resolution, from my experience. I prefer politics disads to anything else, I think they're the strongest type of disadvantage, but that doesn't mean I'm going to flip tf out if you run some other form of disadvantage. The disadvantage is easily my favorite argument that can be made on the neg. I debated a lot in the KDC division (classical style debate) in which disadvantages are predominantly used as neg offense. Make sure the disadvantage is unique and has a strong link chain leading to the impact. I strongly dislike disadvantages with a nonsensical link chain or have an impact of nuke war/global pandemic from 2010, because it's stupid, and the timeframe for that has OBVIOUSLY elapsed. I prefer more real-world impacts of structural violence, racism, discrimination-based violence.

Ks: I've read Cap, Neolib, Fem, SetCol + variants, and Orientalism K in round and debated against Queer Theory (from what I can remember), but I have read some other K lit with a decent level of understanding- mostly BioPTX and Antiblackness. I also dislike weak generic link arguments with kritiks- I believe there's a lot of merits to the Kritik. Make sure that your alt guarantees solvency of the res. and plan's shortcomings as outlined in your Kritik and tell me why we should prefer the world of the alt to the world of the aff. Tell me WHY the world of the aff is bad and how the aff leads to your impact/impacts. You should able to refute arguments made on the Kritik, it's kinda wiggity wack if you can't and you're running it tbh. I prefer methodology and epistemology to ontology in Kritikal debates if I am not told to think otherwise. For the Kritik I'm open to more impacts than I would be with a disadvantage, especially with the nature of a kritik, but I prefer impacts of societal/ecological collapse, worsening of status quo, etc.

Topicality: I like topicality, but not as much as disadvantages and kritiks. If it gets to the point that the 2NC is 8 minutes of Topicality, you better do a good job analyzing the T debate. I will vote for T if it is/ I am told it is the main voter/argument present in round, otherwise I will vote for other arguments being made. If the aff provides a counterinterpretation, tell me why I should prefer your interpretation to theirs. I am not too huge on debating credibility (in general) of sources as opposed to the actual warrants of the definition. Otherwise with crebility on T, my hierarchy for credible sources is pretty simple:

1. Supreme Court Rulings/International Court Rulings/International Bodies

2. Governmental Organizations/Academics + Experts on the Topic

3. Mainstream Media

4. Dictionaries

for voters on topicality, I prefer education based voters. I don't really want to hear anything else as a voter because at the end of the day, education gained/lost should matter more than anything else in the round.

Counterplans: I'm not a huge fan of them, because solvency usually doesn't match with the counterplan text in its entirety, but I am not completely closed off to the idea of them. They are just my least favorite argument used for neg offense.

PICS and PiKs: It is the affirmative's burden to prove PICS are abusive/don't rok if they are run, or stay pressed idc. Neg can do a PiK in one sentence (i.e. "do the aff in the world of the alt" or sum (pls slow down for it tho)) and I would still count it as an argument that must be responded to.

K Affs: I'm mostly unfamiliar with K Affs, I've read some K Affs on Open Evidence, but I don't entirely grasp or prefer the structure of K Affs.

Theory: I like debating on theory, especially when used to prove abuse/no abuse in the round. But I dislike hearing the same, stale blocks that anyone can get from Open Evidence. Like ong where's the FLAVOR

Framing: I love hearing debates on framing and seeing affs that provide framing because they give me a lens to look through the round with instead of forcing me to rely on my own lens of interpretation. Framing is quite important to me because in most rounds it can determine a win/loss by telling me what to prioritize in the round. When both aff and neg provide frameworks, I must be given a reason to prefer one framework over the other.

Other:

* I hate arguments saying racism good, sexism good, poverty good, etc. I will vote you down for running them. If you reading framing saying that racism is good- I pretend I don't see it.

* I get triggered by descriptive narratives of rape, domestic violence/sexual violence/abuse, suicide, and mental illness. These can be briefly mentioned in round, but if you fail to provide a content warning and read such narratives, I will leave the round for that speech and will be pressed frfr *100 emoji*.

*Be fair to your opponent and show good sportsmanship. Don't be rude/condescending to them and respect them, their pronouns, and triggers. Don't run arguments that invalidate an opponent's identity intentionally bc that makes you literal trash.

*Flash quickly- when using flashdrives, I don't want a copy, I will flow what I can understand from you.

Thanalini Sivanesan Science Park Middle School 8 rounds

Cole Skinner Hire 8 rounds None

Halton Stancil Hire 8 rounds

micheal stroud Hire 8 rounds

Alex Hope Sullivan Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 8, 2020 at 1:58 PM CDT

About Me:

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Policy in HS 4 years; Melissa High School. Broke @ TFA State and broke @ bid tourneys(UT Austin;UH Houston)

Former coaches: Brenden Dimmig and Kyle Brenner <3

Paradigm Thesis: TAB

Refer to me as "Alex" instead of "judge", sweeet

I want to be on the email chain: alexisindebate@gmail.com

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

TL;DR

Tab.

Speed is fine. Don't be crazy tho

Performance/methods cool.

I don't have "high thresholds" for anything (T;disad links;alts;theory)

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

General:

My paradigm should not restrict the debaters from choosing one thing over the other. Use this as a guide, not as the rules. Everything is up for debate! Do what you're comfortable with.

Thesis: I will listen to whatever you read in front of me (unless otherwise derogatory) and will try my best to evaluate each position fairly -- I do consider myself tab. I feel a lot of times judges say this but just want to look cool/not get striked or whatever and end up screwing teams over. I want to stray as far away from that and will live up to my paradigm! Do whatever you're comfortable with and just be cognitive of me following along with your arguments. Have fun! :)

- Tell me how/where/why to vote

- Truth over tech WITH warrants to uphold your truth claim(s)

- The winning framework, impacts or theoretical, has priority. Default policymaker if no framework is given

- Impact scenarios are pretty, especially in the 2nr, but internal links are more important

- Split the neg block correctly and please collapse the debate down to 1, maybe 2, positions

- ^^^that includes disad standards on topicality in the 2nr

- I'd rather you not read new in the 2nc

- Give trigger warnings/ disclosure is educational and will help you

Stylistic Things:

Speed: I'm fine with it! omg please slow down on overviews/underviews (especially for the method)

Speaker Points: For specific tournaments, I will adjust my speaker point range for sure — ask me if you have any specs. for speaks

Card clipping: Noopppppeeee. Not cool. Don't cheat

Etiquette: I will absolutely not tolerate any racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, xenophobic, derogatory, etc. commentary in the round. Just be kind pls. Let her talk

Appearance: I could care less about how you dress or look. Misogynistic and gendered norms are really ugly. Also, I don't care if you sit down during cross-ex. Just make sure I can hear/see you. Whatever makes you comfortable

Last couple of things: I flow on paper and sometimes on my computer. Every contention/advantage will be its own sheet and every off will be its own sheet. I will flow everything you say unless I have no idea what you're saying. I don't necessarily count flashing as prep unless it becomes excessive, duhhh

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

Policy/CX Debate:

Topicality:

- The standards are disadvantages. Please provide a case list as to what you loose/why that's important

- I love contextualization and/or grammar arguments. Term of art pls. Saying, "look at the plan through a vacuum" doesn't really do anything for me - do that full analysis

- Competing interps or reasonability? Tell me which one to prefer. If there is no telling here, I will most likely default to competing interps

- Reasonability is the test of the AFF's counter-interpretation, not the AFF

Framework:

- I treat framework in similar regards to topicality. Explain how/why this sets a precedent

- A topical version of the aff is probably your best way to win here

Theory:

- I think I could vote on any type of theory given its correctly debated/ ask me otherwise

Disadvantages:

- I don't need a case-specific link on the disad in order to vote on it, that is if the aff doesn't do a good job analyzing this. A good disad has a line in the link evidence that exclusively mentions the aff- obviously

- An awesome 2ac has smart analytical arguments more than cards answering each level of the disad

- Tell me why the disad outweighs/turns case

- If you are losing uniqueness, it's going to be really hard for you to win the disad debate unless it's a linear disad. You have to win the link in order to win the disad

- Straight turning needs both a non-unique and link turn. If you do this, make sure the impact framework on the disad doesn't contradict the aff framework you're going to go for in the 2ar

Counterplans:

- External and internal net benefits are super-duper important. Don't contradict your case arguments with the counterplan

- Both aff and neg explain to me how the counterplan can/cannot solve 100% of the aff- with impacts to those arguments

- Perm debate is super important, obviously. Make disads to the perm(s) with impacts and make net benefits for the perm(s) too

Kritiks & Performance:

- Line by line is great. The overview can get messy when you try to cross apply/answer arguments here. Just be strategic here

- Make sure, of course, you are solving the linear disad and winning the root cause debate

- As you've heard a thousand times I'm sure, don't assume that I know your author. Give me that accessible explanation y'know?

- If you want to make framework the contesting issue here then so be it

- I think the method debate starts at the level of the alternative and goes up from there. Reject alts are fine but more substantive alts will probably get you farther

Case debate:

- If you're going for the disad, you should probably have some defense here

- Please utilize the comparative analysis on their evidence/ taking down their internal links here would be strategic

- Impact turning the aff- teams are like "Omg, who is she? We don't know her". Please utilize this more and make sure to impact it out and don't contradict yourself of course

- Reading your generic circumvention/block arguments here get really boring- having case-specific arguments are dope and will help your speaks for sure

Aff Performance/K Affirmatives:

- I'm good with this. Not super experienced with it tho. Just make sure to tell me what my ballot does (explain the method)

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

LD Debate

I did policy in HS so just keep that in mind. I view this as an important weighing of offense/defense in conjunction with framework of course. I think the information from the policy section will serve the same purpose for you here

Framework:

- Tell me to vote and/or view the round in a specific framework, that's fine. Explain to me why your lens is better/more important/ solves better or whatever you defend

- Internal link turning your opponents framework is super cool. Here make sure you are explaining why your criterion/standard better resolves your opponets value in some better way

Value/Criterion:

- I don't have any predispositions about what values are better/tangental or of that sorts to the resolution

- Just do a good job building link chains to whatever framing you want to go for

Observations:

- Yah they're fine

Contention:

- I view and treat these as advantages to the case like in policy debate. Just make sure it links back into your framework clearly

Plans & Performance

- All dope. Give me solvency on plans of course

CP's/Disad's/Kritik's:

- Great. These most likely need to be tangent with the aff- like their plan or their method

- Refer to the policy section

Case debate/Contentions:

- I'll view these as advantages in policy debate but of course tangent to LD

- Attacking your opponent's evidence is sweet - internal link chains for their value too

(PF + I.E events + additional):
Ask for further questions! peace out

Malhar A. Tamhane Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 5, 2023 at 6:43 PM CDT

Hello

I have not judged a debate round in around 2 years and have not competed for a few years. my ears are probably not accustomed to very quick speaking and I would appreciate slightly slower speeches. rapid is fine but full speed probably not the best idea

email: mtamhane@asu.com

I did policy for four years at Wichita East, nat circuit senior year (2015-2019)

I am currently on the Arizona State Speech team (2019-present)

I was relatively mediocre in high school, but I know how much work debate is and I hope I can a put fraction of the work into judging as y'all put into competing

Policy Paradigm:

Overall Philosophy

explain your arguments please

You do you-- I want to hear the arguments you know the best and are most comfortable with

I think impacts are important--what those are and how they should be evaluated compared to your opponent's impacts should be clear.

I 100% have preconceived notions about debate but if you tell me to evaluate the round differently, I will. I just need a persuasive reason why your framework for the round is the best. Please tell me how I should evaluate the round, it makes my job easier and your arguments more persuasive.

Fairness is an internal link to education, but is not an impact (this one is pretty ingrained--if you believe fairness is an impact please just impact out to education. I have a very low threshold for a fairness impact, that is just not that persuasive)

Racism, sexism, anti queer garbage etc. is very bad. You'll lose.

case

I love case debate. I will vote on presumption if the negative demolishes the affirmative case on defense alone. I know thats probably weird, but honestly if you put in the work thats required crumble an aff case I will reward you in speaks and the round. Offense is great though.

Das

Unique impact scenarios are fun. Ptx das esp fun if you have a solid story. I love a good disad case debate. Offense is best strategy for 2ACs imo, but im willing to vote aff on defense if your arguments are strong/uncontested.

Some cps are definitely cheating, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for them. Read theory if its cheating, please.

Just make sure to explain your argument with the least amount of jargon as possible. I'm not super familiar with many literature bases, but I think the best K debaters can explain their Ks without jargon. I've read some setterlism lit, some baudrillard, and I have some small familiarity with Lacan but I am by noooo means an expert. Like at all.

K affs

Im down. I wil vote for T/FW or the aff, just make sure your impact turn/response to T is clear and rooted in your affirmative.

KVK

Just makes sure to flesh out and explain your links.

I will vote on it, but please don't just scream jargon within jargon. Explain clearly why they don't meet, why their interp is bad for education etc.

Other Theory

Go for it, just don't go top speed when reading a wall of text or at the very least send me that wall of text. Please respond to opponents when engaging theory and don't just read your blocks.

Condo is good, but it could be bad if you are convincing

Miscellaneous

save the aliens plz

please be nice to each other.

LD is weird

Because of this I have decided my default is consequentialism/util unless you tell me otherwise

please have uniqueness in your disads

Aaron Timmons Greenhill Middle School

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 8:40 PM CDT

Aaron Timmons

Director of Debate – Greenhill School

Former Coach USA Debate Team

Curriculum Director Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshops

Updated – April 2024

Please put me on the email chain – timmonsa@greenhill.org

Contact me with questions.

General Musings

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is a critic of argument (if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label as a judge). I will evaluate your performance in as objective a method as possible. Unlike many adjudicators claim to be, I am not a blank slate. I will intervene if I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round. I WILL do my best to objectively evaluate your arguments, but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode (even hear) arguments is not true (nor true for anyone.)

I have coached multiple National and/or State Champions in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and World Schools Debate (in addition to interpretation/speech events). I still actively coach and I am involved in the strategy and argument creation of my students who compete for my school. Given the demands on my time, I do not cut as many cards as I once did for Policy and Lincoln Douglas. That said, I am more than aware of the arguments and positions being run in both of these formats week in and week out.

General thoughts on how I decide debates:

1 – Debate is a communication activity – I will flow what you say in speeches as opposed to flowing off of the speech documents (for the events that share documents). If I need to read cards to resolve an issue, I will do so but until ethos and pathos (re)gain status as equal partners with logos in the persuasion triangle, we will continue to have debates decided only on what is “in the speech doc.” Speech > speech doc.

2 – Be mindful of your “maximum rate of efficiency” – aka, you may be trying to go faster than you are capable of speaking in a comprehensible way. The rate of speed Is not a problem in many contemporary debates, the lack of clarity is an increasing concern. Unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together do not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think they might. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable. This does NOT mean you have to be slow; it does mean you need to be clear.

3 – Evidence is important - In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues and warrants (particularly empirical ones), are important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, but I am also likely to prefer your argument if the comparisons are done well.

4 – Online Debating – We have had two years to figure this out. My camera will be on. I expect that your camera is on as well unless there is a technical issue that cannot/has not been resolved in our time online. If there is an equity/home issue that necessitates that your camera is off, I understand that and will defer to your desire to it be off if that is the case. A simple, “I would prefer for my camera to be off” will suffice to inform me of your request.

5 – Disclosure is good (on balance) – I feel that debaters/teams should disclose on the wiki. I have been an advocate of disclosure for decades. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate. While I do think things like full source and/or round reports are good educational practices, I am not interested in hearing debates about those issues. ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.

6 – Zero risk is a possibility – There is a possibility of zero risks of an advantage or a disadvantage.

7 – My role as a judge - I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence after the debate that was not done by the students.

8 – Debate the case – It is a forgotten art. Your points will increase, and it expands the options for you to win the debate in the final negative rebuttal.

9 – Good “judge instructions” will make my job easier – While I am happy to make my judgments and comparisons between competing claims, I feel that students making those comparisons, laying out the order of operations, articulating “even/if” considerations, telling me how to weigh and then CHOOSING in the final rebuttals, will serve debaters well (and reduce frustrations on both our parts0.

10 – Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.

11 - Flowing is a prerequisite to good debating (and judging) - You should flow. I will be flowing your speech not from the doc, but your actual speech..

Policy Debate

I enjoy policy debate and given my time in the activity I have judged, coached, and seen some amazing students over the years.

A few thoughts on how I view judging policy debate:

Topicality vs Conventional Affs:

Traditional concepts of competing interpretations can be mundane and sometimes result in silly debates. Limiting out one affirmative will not save/protect limits or negative ground. Likewise, reasonability in a vacuum without there being a metric on what that means and how it informs my interpretation vis a vis the resolution lacks nuance as well. Topicality debaters who can frame what the topic should look like based on the topic, and preferably evidence to support why interpretation makes sense will be rewarded. The next step is saying why a more limiting (juxtaposed to the most limiting) topic makes sense helps to frame the way I would think about that version of the topic. A case list of what would be topical under your interpretation would help as would a list of core negative arguments that are excluded if we accept the affirmative interpretation or model of debate.

Topicality/FW vs critical affirmatives:

First – The affirmative needs to do something (and be willing to defend what that is). The negative needs to win that performance is net bad/worse than an alternative (be it the status quo, a counterplan, or a K alternative).

Second – The negative should have access to ground, but they do not get to predetermine what that is. Just because your generic da or counterplan does not apply to the affirmative does not mean the affirmative cannot be tested.

Conditionality

Conditionality is good but only in a limited sense. I do not think the negative gets unlimited options (even against a new affirmative). While the negative can have multiple counter plans, the affirmative will get leeway to creatively (re)explain permutations if the negative kicks (or attempts to add) planks to the counterplan(s), the 1ar will get some flexibility to respond to this negative move.

Counterplans and Disads:

Counterplans are your friend. Counterplans need a net benefit (reasons the affirmative is a bad/less than desirable idea. Knowing the difference between an advantage to the counterplan and a real net benefit seems to be a low bar. Process counterplans are harder to defend as competitive and I am sympathetic to affirmative permutations. I have a higher standard for many on permutations as I believe that in the 2AC “perm do the counterplan” and/or “perm do the alternative” do nothing to explain what that world looks like. If the affirmative takes another few moments to explain these arguments, that increases the pressure on the 2nr to be more precise in responding to these arguments.

Disadvantages that are specific to the advocacy of the affirmative will get you high points.

Lincoln Douglas

I have had students succeed at the highest levels of Lincoln Douglas Debate including multiple champions of NSDA, NDCA, the Tournament of Champions, as well as the Texas Forensic Association State Championships.

Theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex;” it cannot be unlimited. The negative does not need to run more than four off-case arguments

Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.

I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other team’s arguments. At its foundation, the debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.

I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.

I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.

Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seem silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card does not mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clashes are a necessary component of the debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of the clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. Any argument that says the other side cannot answer your position is fast-tracking to an L (with burnt cheese and marinara on top).

It takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Cross apply much of the policy section as well as the general musings on debate.

World Schools

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes. Countless times.

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

How would you describe World Schools Debate to someone else?

World Schools is modeled after parliament having argumentation presented in a way that is conversational, yet argumentatively rigorous. Debates are balanced between motions that are prepared, while some are impromptu. Points of Information (POIs) are a unique component of the format as speakers can be interrupted by their opponent by them asking a question or making a statement.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate? (required)

I keep a rigorous flow throughout the debate.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

These should be prioritized and compared by the students in the round. I do not have an ideological preference between principled or practical arguments.

The World Schools Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

Strategy (simply put) is how they utilize the content that has been introduced in the debate.

World Schools Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker were going too fast?

Style.

World Schools Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

Students are required to use analysis, examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side then make comparative claims about the superiority of their position.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Model quibbles are not fully developed arguments if they are only questions that are not fully developed or have an articulated impact.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I utilize the approach of comparative worlds to evaluate competing methods for resolving mutual problems/harms. The proposition must defend its model as being comparatively advantageous over a given alternative posed by the opposition. While many feel in World Schools a countermodel must be mutually exclusive. While that certainly is one method of assessing if a countermodel truly ‘forces a choice,” a feel a better stand is that of net benefits. The question should be if it is desirable to do both the propositions model and the opposition countermodel at the same time. If it is possible to do both without any undesirable outcomes, the negative has failed to prove the desirability of their countermodel. The opposition should explain why doing both would be a bad idea. The proposition should advance an argument as to why doing both is better than adopting the countermodel alone.

Andrew Michael Tran Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed June 26, 2019 at 8:15 PM EDT

Policy Paradigm:

Framework: I'm pretty tabula rasa, so please tell me how to vote or I'm just going to vote for the team that wins on stock issues. I love good framing debates with impact calculus in the rebuttals.

Speed: Speed is okay with me only if it's okay with the other team. Ask each other before the round starts if you want to spread. If you are unintelligible I'll raise my hand for you to slow down.

Topicality: I vote on topicality if you can prove a real violation and that it actually inhibits NEG ground. I won't vote on T's that are just obviously time fillers though, if you want to win on a T you should be spending at least two minutes on it in the 2NR with good arguments.

Conditionality: You can kick arguments in the block but it's a time skew if you kick in the 2NR, the rebuttals should be about the main voting issues, not the 1AR answering everything so the 2N can just kick.

Kritiks: I'm okay with kritiks, if you want to run them just run them well.

Counterplans: Counterplans HAVE to be non-topical, it's basic policy theory. AFF: Perms are NOT advocacies, they are tests of mutual exclusivity. Perms don't "solve" things because all they are is testing if a CP is mutually exclusive or not. That being said, if you can prove the CP isn't mutually exclusive then I don't vote on the CP.

Disadvantages: I'm a firm believer that the best NEG cases is the classic DA/CP/Case. I love if you have a good story with realistic internal links that shows a real disadvantage to the plan.

Please just be nice to your opponents and have a good time! Debate is supposed to be a fun activity where you can also learn, if you're being exclusive in the debate space I will hold that against you.

LD Paradigm:

LD is a value debate. You should have a value and defend that value as the most important thing in the entire debate. I don't think LD should be a solo watered-down version of policy, so just debate values well.

PF Paradigm:

Public Forum is probably the closest thing to actual people debating issues outside of Speech and Debate. I like it that way, just let your public forum rounds be real, unadulterated debating. Please though, just try to be nice during Crossfire.

Aryan Waghmode Hire 8 rounds None

Natalie Wang Hire 8 rounds

Akshay Warrier Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun July 19, 2020 at 9:12 PM CDT

Hey, my name is Akshay Warrier (he/him/his).

I debated in high school for 5 years at Albuquerque Academy (I didn't get held back I swear) and am currently a member of the Rutgers-Newark debate team. I was a nationally competitive policy debater throughout high school and although I didn't ever bid because of lay judges (they didn't see my talent), I was very involved in the activity and enjoyed it a lot. I'm glad to be able to learn, and offer any advice as I can judging y'all!

Aight

Speed - I'm chillin. I myself was a very fast debater, and can flow pretty fast speeches, but that got me into a lot of problems and I know I probably sacrificed some quality clash and arguments for it, so keep that in mind. Given that, just try to be clear as possible, especially if I am not on the email chain for some reason, and make sure to slow down on important analytics and tags or I wont be able to evaluate them.

T/FW - I think that pretty much any Aff has to beat T/FW in order to win the round but I need good articulated voters because otherwise there is no impacting out those arguments and it just seems like a timeskew. Although I can be a fan of some creative interpretations I think that reasonability is prolly true so don't pull out a calculator for what percentages means substantial or something. For framework generally I agree that the debate space should be predictable and fair but I am not going to value fairness claims thrown against Ks without serious impacting and argumentation. Additionally please do not straight read stock T/FW files against any Affs (especially some USFG against Kaffs unless argued creatively and well) because I want substantial clash on the actual merits of the case even on the T flow. Just articulate and impact well and you will be completely fine!

CPs - I simp for creative CPs and even those considered "cheating" I will give the benefit of the doubt especially if carried out strategically and linked into the rest of the debate really well. This being said, the more wild your counterplan is the more time i expect to be spent explaining and extending the arguments. Status of the counterplan should be asked generally and cx or specified by the running team because its not just a formality and is important is kicking the argument. Have fun with these and take some chances because some tricky ones can definitely win the round!

DAs - I love DAs and although I have never been good enough at it to go for one in the end, I think that they reflect a good understanding of the basics and are a fundamentally good argument. Links are the single most important thing to focus on, so even if you lose some uniqueness (obviously there are limits) if you tell the link story well, I am definitely going to evaluate the DA highly. Turns are crucial but must be explained well and linked to the case.I have personally never liked politics, prolly a lower threshold to most judges, and sad to say I am not as up to date as I should be as a debater, but I hold no bias towards those arguments and will evaluate to the best of my ability. I think PTX can be very intricately argued and serves as a very educational and strong part of the round but explain the squo to me because I am not that smart.

K/Performance/Kaffs - I loved Ks and although I was very narrow in my body of literature I appreciate any Kritikal arguments that explain the philosophy to me and do a good job of layering and link work in the round. Having structured speeches, especially in the 2NC and 2NR is paramount, and I need specific signposted clash with fundamentally strong warrants and link stories to win this argument. Do the work in the speech, don't just say you did it, and please budget your time well. Perms are dope and there can be very creative and tricks arguments with them but they necessitate impacts and explanations - I don't just wanna hear a series of perms to make the opponent take time against them. Debates about the merits of the philosophy or performance are valuable and important so do have those!

Kaffs - In the same vein as above, Kaffs have always amazed and interested me and although I only ran one at the beginning of my career I spend a lot of time evaluating these. Make sure that your performance and lit is consistent and your arguments are clear and don't simply tend to abstracts. I need a lot of work on the world of the affirmative, painting a story to tell me what you really do and what the post-aff world looks like (especially how it relates to your interp of the topic).

Theory - i am not the best at these arguments but I will evaluate any considerable theory violations and well constructed shells to the best of my ability. I know the majority of theory rests in the blocks but that ends up in debates from the files of "X bad/X good" so please do your own work and have a lot of clash. I have somewhat of a low threshold for small theory arguments and daggers that try to go through the round unnoticed, or even those that just seem like complaints. Disclosure is fine but only if there was a serious disadvantage or timeskew so please don't be abusive with it (although I myself may have been on multiple occasions). Theory is an important argument if done right in the face of real violations just impact it well and don't take away from the substance of the round.

Other stuff - Painting a picture in a debate round and telling a story of the round and especially abstract arguments is very important to me and core to policy debate. Doing this is all about spinning arguments strategically and proving a deep understanding of the layering within the opposing cases and is a great way to put forth your arguments. I will not evaluate any racist/ableist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic etc. args and although I concede to the fact that debate is a learning space this only goes so far. Please be respectful of pronouns and I expect an apology and discussion in round of any violations in order to move forward with the round. Anything more severe will make me vote you down. Don't make claims without warrants and impact out your arguments. Stick to the basics, remember the SHITS, and be creative and funny. Have fun and teach me something!

Email: akw58@scarletmail.rutgers.edu

Please include me on the email chain and don't hesitate to contact me about any advice or questions that you have.

Richard Waterhouse Hire 8 rounds None

Jasmine Watson Hire 8 rounds None

Marna Weston Oak Hall Middle

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 1:24 AM EDT

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

TLDR

Condo is probably bad. I don't like tricks and rude stuff. I don't like people beating their opponents down in a disrespectful manner. True champions find a way to win with style, finesse, and some measure of grace. Basically, "say what you mean, and mean what you say" in front of me. Kick outs and shifts are not received well. If you shift your position and the other team catches you, calls you on it, labels it a voter, impacts it, and you do not give that response serious consideration, you will have missed the opportunity to respond to something likely important in the decision. I prefer that debaters determine the issues in the round. My job is to evaluate how well, how clearly, how expertly, and how meaningfully the debaters present, refute, and summarize versus each other.

I like and am comfortable with crystal clear debaters and crystal-clear rebuttals. I am open to a lot of different types of discussions, and I'm excited to listen to what you bring to the debate space.

NO MATTER WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT, In a nutshell:

Tell Me What Your Argument Is

Tell Me Why I Should Prefer It

Tell Me Why If I Do Prefer Your Argument Why You Should Then Win The Debate---Some form of Impact Calculus/Weighting Magnitude, Probability and Time Frame-ish args are goods.

If you think you are really winning something, "sit on it" and explain why you win.

Updated 1/05/2024

Overview: I firmly believe that policy debate is first and foremost a communication activity. Consequently, oral presentation plays a large factor in my adjudication process. I focus on the “story” of the debate, but line-byline refutation can be a component of that. Know your order before you announce it. Don't change the order after you announce it. Clearly articulated arguments at any speed can be evaluated. Inarticulate utterings that cannot be understood cannot be evaluated. Especially in online debates. Slow down and be really clear on why you are winning. Be quick, but don't hurry. I will not tolerate rudeness. Cross X is binding. I don’t like “camp games” that steal time. I see you. Keep it to a minimum. If there is a mistake or misunderstanding just apologize. Saying you are sorry is often overlooked. You might clean it up well and still be in the debate. At the very least, you will save yourself low speaks if you make an honest effort to play it smart and on the level.

My paradigm biggies are as follows:

1. I agree that conditionality is "probably" bad. So, its "probably" not a bad idea to speak to this and support reasons why I might or might not vote on this---if it becomes an issue. Don’t just wait to see what I’ll do. In a vacuum of no direction on a debate argument, I am left to ignore the argument or evaluate by my own standards. I prefer to not do this. Its your debate. Clean it up. As far as just throwing out a bunch of stuff and then dropping it as a strategy---it does not usually go very well. I do not automatically judge kick. If you run 10 off, then win 10 off that do not contradict each other. Most importantly, be sure that you are clear as crystal even attempting it. When you time skew and then kick out, I am predisposed to vote for the other team if they argue time shew is a reason to reject the side that initiates such practices in the debate space. Absent compelling reasons why I should not do this--that's my predisposition. Again, its your debate so remember to tell me as the judge why I should prefer you style or point of view. Say what you mean and mean what you say is always best---as long as you are not being rude to your opponents. Practice civility always in debate rounds.

2. Topical Counterplans are probably not OK. If at the end of the round I have been effectively persuaded that there are two Affirmative teams, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Give me reasons to not do so, if this is part of your normal strategy. Explain why in a manner that includes what the AFF is doing and WHY even a topical CPLAN is preferred.

3. I prefer not to judge topicality debates. If you're ahead on it, explain to me why it’s important to care about this, or I might not understand why to vote on it. Again, compare your position to your opponents and why your side should win.

4. I enjoy case debates. Solidly clear, irrefutably presented and reasonably current inherency evidence could really win a debate. Really. Postdating sources is good. Supported evidence indicts are good. If you introduce an ethics challenge into a debate round, be prepared to win it. The penalty for challenging someone in such a manner seems to be leading toward the initiator losing the round if they lose their challenge.

5. Kritikal arguments on both AFF and NEG are fine, but pay close attention to the way you communicate your positions (clear and concise!).

6. The topic should be debated, but how you approach the resolution, and how you approach debate generally (content, style, etc.), is left up to the debaters.

7. If you're Negative, show me how your approach is specific to this Affirmative. Be thoughtful in explaining what a vote for your side means and why I should endorse it. Ask me to vote for your side. Don't completely on-face grant the 1AC in favor of pre-set tangentially related points and expect me to get why that means the Negative wins the debate. Be particularly clear on fairness and why ground is or isn't lost and warrants a decision. These are usually not presented clearly and powerfully. And without why they should matter, I tend to be persuaded by other issues

8. I appreciate when the AFF and NEG teams sit on the correct sides of the room with respect to the judge. Otherwise, I might want to vote for someone but accidentally vote for the wrong team. If you're not on the proper side of the room, at least say in your speech which side of the debate you represent and why you think your side should win the debate. That is taken for granted a lot. :)

Best,

Marna Weston

Tia Angelique Whitman Banquete Junior HS

Kris Wright Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 8:10 AM CDT

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

I have been coaching for 20+ years. Currently, I am the head debate coach at Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in Dallas ISD, where my students primarily compete in World School, though they have also competed in LD and Policy. Before that, I was the head debate coach at the JBS Law Magnet in Dallas ISD, where I coached both LD and Policy on the Texas and national circuits. Over the years, I've also coached national circuit LD for University School (Florida) and, in Texas, at Westlake, Southlake, Marcus, and Anderson High Schools, as well as individual LDers attending high schools across the country. I have coached TFA champions in LD and Policy, as well as to elimination rounds at the TOC and NSDA Nationals.

Most of my coaching and judging experience is in LD, Policy, and World School; however, I've also coached and judged Public Forum, though to a much lesser extent.

I have a BA in Philosophy and Government from UT Austin, where I also earned a MA in Gender Studies.

I am a co-founder and Board Member of the Texas Debate Collective (TDC) and have taught at every TDC summer camp to debate. I also previously taught LD debate at NSD, VBI, NDF, and UTNIF camps. I have taught Policy and World School debate at camps hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

- Paradigm overview -

Below I'll attempt to speak to some event-specific paradigms, but I'll start with an overview of how I tend to judge any debate event:

In my view, a judge should aspire to resolve issues/clash in the round based on what the debaters themselves have argued, as opposed to holding either side to the burden of debating the judge. In practice, this means that I am quite fine voting against my own beliefs and/or for arguments that I have good reasons (that were not raised in the round) for rejecting in real life. This also means that I tend to be pretty open to hearing a variety of arguments, strategies, and styles. MJPs frequently result in my judging so-called "clash of civilization" debates. Finally, this means that I think the debaters have the explanatory burden; just because you read something that I might be very familiar with, do not assume that I will fill in the gaps in your warrant and/or explanation of that philosophical theory because I will actively try my best to not give you credit for more than what you actually say.
I default to the view that the resolution (or, in WS, the "motion") is the stasis point for the debate. Meaning, the official topic divides ground, establishes burdens, and will basically serve as the thing being debated/clashed over by the opposing debaters/teams. (LD and Policy debaters: please note that I said, "default." I am fine with debaters shifting what that stasis point is. See the LD and Policy specific notes below).
I think all debaters have the burden of clear communication. For me, this doesn't dictate a particular speed or style of presentation---I'm open to many. However, it does mean that I expect to be able to flow the speeches and to use that flow to decide the round. I reject (or, at least, resist) using speech docs to fill in the gaps created by debaters' ineffective oral communication.
I aspire---as a judge, as a coach, as a person---to being humble, kind, respectful, open to the possibility that I am wrong, interested in learning, and more committed to becoming right, rather than being right. I expect debaters---and all people---to aspire to cultivate and exhibit those virtues as well. If you fail to do so---particularly in terms of how you relate to me, your opponent, and other people in the room---l will choose to address it in the ways that seem most appropriate and consistent with those virtues, including (but not limited to) reducing speaker points, talking to you at length after the round, and discussing it with your coach.

- LD -

Most of my experience judging and coaching has been in LD, across a wide-range of competitive styles and circuits. Below is a list of my defaults; however, please note that debater can (and often do) push me off of my defaults. Doing so requires that you make comparatively better arguments than your opponent---not that you have to defeat whatever arguments I personally have for those defaults. All that to say, feel free to argue that I should think about these issues in different---or even radically different---ways.

The Aff has the burden of proving the resolution true and the Neg has the burden of proving the resolution false. What that actually means, though, is determined by the winning interpretation of the resolution's meaning and other framework arguments (including the standard/criterion/role of the ballot) that establish the epistemic standards for what will qualify as having proved the resolution true or false. Again, if you want to run a non-topical (or creatively topical Aff), you are welcome and encouraged to argue that this would be the better stasis point for the debate and, if your opponent challenges this, then do a comparatively better job of arguing that your alternative stasis point will make for a better debate. I have voted for (and coached) a lot of non-topical Affs over the years.
On my own, I do not default/presume neg...unless the neg has made a default/presumption neg argument and the conditions for it applying have been met. In the absence of the neg making and winning such an argument, if I am in a round where neither debater has actually met their burdens, then I will vote for the debater that is closest to meeting that burden. In other words, I'll vote for the side that requires the least intervention in creating a coherent RFD.
On theory and topicality, I default to the paradigm of competing interpretations. I also default to the view that there is no RVI on either of these debates---unless a debater has made the argument that there is an RVI. I think there are very good reasons for an RVI, so feel free/encouraged to argue for one
If the Aff does not read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does not get ground to defend topical advocacies, including topical PICs or PIKs. However, if the Aff does read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does get topical PIC/PIK ground, so long as it is competitive with the Aff's plan.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

(Only in policy debate) I will default to the view that I am using a broad consequentialist decision calculus to filter and weigh impacts. I do this because that is already such a strong assumption/norm in the policy debate community; however, I think this practice is intellectually and strategically deficient. All that to say, I am always open to debaters arguing for narrower consequentialist or non-consequentialist decision calcs/roles of the ballot. If that occurs, I expect the AFF team to actually be able to defend the validity of consequentialism if they want that to remain the decision calc. Indeed, my background in LD and coaching K teams in policy makes me very open and eager to see teams contest the assumption of consequentialism.
I default to the view that the resolution is the stasis point for the debate. This means I default to the AFF having the burden of defending a topical advocacy; I default to the view that this requires defending the United States federal government should implement a public policy (i.e., the plan) and that the public policy is an example of the action described in the resolution. However, these are only defaults; I am completely open to AFF's making arguments to change either of these parameters. (Perhaps it's worth noting here that I have coached policy debaters across a fairly wide range of styles, including big-stick policy AFFs, topical AFF that are critical, and AFFs that are explicitly non-topical. Most of the AFFs I have helped my students create and run have leaned critical, ranging from so-called "soft-left" plans to K Affs that defend creatively-topical advocacies to K AFFs that are explicitly non-topical.) All that to say, if the AFF wants to affirm a strange/creative interpretation of the resolution or if the AFF wants to completely replace the resolution with some other stasis point for the round, the debaters will not be asked to meet some threshold I have; they need only do a comparatively better job than the negative in justifying that stasis point.
Relatedly, I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the explanatory burden you have to develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous arguments when you debate over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.
I am not going to flow/back-flow your speech based on a speech doc because I think the normalization of judges not actually listening to speeches and just flowing off of speech docs has resulted in worse debates and engagements with issues, and judges who simply miss thoughtful and intelligent analytics. If your articulation, volume, and/or signposting are not clear---especially after I verbally indicate that you need to be clearer, louder, etc---that's on you.
Arguments need warrants. Warrants could be, but do not have to be, cards. The belief that an analytic is categorically weaker/insufficient as a warrant is an intellectually dishonest and, quite simply, ridiculous view of knowledge that some corners of policy debate have proliferated to the detriment of our intellects. Whether a claim needs to be warranted by empirical evidence, let alone carded evidence, is mostly a feature of the specific claim being advanced. Of course, in some cases, the claim is about the empirical world and only empirical evidence will suffice, but this is not true of every claim debaters might make.
Theory and topicality: I default to theory and topicality both being issues of competing interpretations; though, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there are no RVIS; I am open to that being contested in the round too, particularly if the 2NR goes for theory or topicality. As a generalization, I have found the theory and topicality debates in policy rounds to be abysmal --- both shells and line-by-line arguments that suffer from impoverished warranting and implicating. In my estimation, there is far too much implicit (and sometimes explicit) appeal to some supposedly settled norm, when the debaters themselves do not appear capable of critically analyzing, let alone sufficiently, defending that norm. I will always prefer to see fleshed out warrants. In the end, I'll resolve any theory and topicality debates via the clash produced by the arguments made by the debaters. I resist the idea that my role is to enforce a norm of policy simply because it has inertia.

- World School -

When judging world school, I try to adapt to the event by doing my best to follow the international norms for world school debate. With that in mind, I'll speak to a few issues that I've noticed WS students may need to be reminded of, as well as some issues that involve the biggest shift from how I evaluate other debate events:

Don't go fast. Even though I'll be able to flow it, you should aspire to keep your speed close to conversational because that's part of the conventions that make WS unique. If your rate of delivery is quicker than that, I'll likely not score you as high on "style."
Unless the topic is explicitly about one nation, you should provide examples and analysis of the motion that applies beyond the US as the context.
You should aim to take 1-2 POIs each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.
Countermodels cannot be topical; Opp's burden is to reject the motion, even if Prop has provided a model. Opp teams need to make sure that their countermodels are not simply a different way of doing the motion, which is Prop's ground in the debate.
Make sure you are carrying down the bench any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend/carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded. In the least, Prop 2 won't have earned as many "strategy" points as they could have.

- Public Forum -

I view the resolution as the stasis point for the debate. I'm fine with Pro defending the resolution as a general principle or further specifying an advocacy that is an instance of the resolution. (My default is that the Pro has the burden of defending a topical advocacy; however, I'm also equally open to the Pro defending arguments that justify they are not bound by the resolution.) If the Pro side further specifies an advocacy (for example, by defending a specific plan), then the stasis point for the debate shifts to being that advocacy statement. In the context of the arguments made in the debate, I vote Pro if I'm convinced that the arguments being won in the debate justify the truth of the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement). I vote Con if I'm convinced that the arguments being won justify that the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement) are false. The specific burdens (including the truth conditions of the resolution or advocacy statement) that must be met to vote Pro or Con are determined by the debaters: I am open to those burdens being established through an analysis of the truth conditions of the stasis point (i.e., what is logically required to prove that statement true or false) OR by appeal to debate theoretical arguments (i.e., arguments concerning what burdens structures would produce a fair and/or educational debate).

I tend to think that Public Forum debate times are not conducive to full-blown theory debates and, consequently, PF debaters would be wise to avoid initiating them because, for structural reasons, they are likely to be rather superficial and difficult to resolve entirely on the flow; however, I do not paradigmatically exclude theory arguments in PF. I'm just skeptical that it can be done well, which is why I suspect that in nearly any PF round the more decisive refutational strategy will involve "substantive" responses to supposedly "unfair" arguments from the opponent.

I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the limitations and constraints that PF time-limits create for develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous debates over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.

Noah Yust Hire

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 1:17 AM CDT

Recent update: Theoretically, everything below is still true, but note that I've not touched debate in a few years so

I probably don't remember buzzwords and definitely don't know any new-fangled args, I reserve the right to vote you down bc you don't tell me what your words mean.
My ear is rusty, don't run me out of the room.

Other than that, have fun, win more offense than the other team.

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

Debated at Wichita East 2015-2019

Email: noahyust at gmail dot com

Affs

K/Planless: This is fine. Have a clear advocacy. Your answers to tusfg should be contextualized to your advocacy not just generic state engagement bad. I've read some PoMo nonsense on aff/neg and setcol on the neg... but you should presume I don't understand your K.

Soft left: I have never heard a "framing contention" compelling enough to make DAs go away. To do that you need to point out specific epistemological flaws in the DA; if you can do that, you probably don't need the "framing contention." I see these contentions as filler to make the 1AC as small as possible; which is is annoying, at least please make the 2AC fun. Also- I've yet to see a card tagged "x comes first" that seriously and literally means that x is worse than extinction. For me, Just sit on the fact that ur impact is the most probable.

Big Stick: sure yes.

Case

Impact turns: yes, more more more

Tusfg/Framework

I think debate is a game, but it can be more than a game. A good TVA makes a neg ballot very easy. Fairness is important to access education, but probably hard to win as an external impact. I dislike debaters making broad claims about their opponent's model of debate when they clearly have no idea what it's like to always read a plan/never read a plan (That's my way of saying be respectful).

I need you to paint very good pictures of your and your opponent's interpretations of the topic. Caselists are good but insufficient to accomplish this alone. Good TVAs are always good. I rarely went for T, probably not the t judge you want. I'm not sympathetic to warrantless buzzword spam.

Theory

Condo is probably good. Reject the argument>reject the team. Except in the case of condo. Excessive theory can be strategic but is always annoying.

Presume I don't know your lit. Link work is key, I think it determines the strength of your answers to perms and fw args. I dislike FrankenKs. Please, for the love of god, don't make me get out a new sheet for the overview.

Yes, please do.

I think it is possible for a bad DA to be reduced to 0% probability via analytics and recutting ev. I.e. breaking a new Albanian ptx DA does not guarantee you a viable 2NR.

I can be easily persuaded that delay, consult, offsets, and CPs that just rename the aff (see parole from the immigration topic) are theoretically illegitimate.

Affs should impact out each solvency deficit.

I default to judge kick unless instructed otherwise.

Speaks

28.5 is the middle

Things that help: Good jokes, good cadence, clarity, smart strategic decisions, evidence-based CX, having fun

Things that hurt: reading 7 one-line CPs, spreading through theory blocks, being unkind

Misc.

Disclosure is good!

I think like a 2A

don't round/steal prep time

Be nice. I reserve the right to vote you down for [bad things]

Login to Tabroom

NSDA Middle School Nationals

2019 — Dallas, TX/US

Policy Debate Paradigm List

Judges