I am primarily a policymaker judge, with a stock issues influence. If you have no idea what this means, you need to ask your coach. Whether you know what it means or not, everyone needs to learn how to adapt to judges.

While I am an experienced policy debater, after my debate career, I experienced a traumatic brain injury. This makes some things harder, but in all reality, I think you should debate this way anyway. EXPLAIN your knowledge of every piece of evidence or analytic that you bring to the table. ARTICULATE/EMPHASIZE the taglines and analytics, because if I can't flow it, you don't get credit for it. What's more, part of my brain trauma was to the right hemisphere which impacts my understanding of most Kritiks, so it's safer not to run Ks in front of me, sorry! I thoroughly understand UTIL.

I'm mean with speaker points. I feel that 30 speaks should be triumphant, not expected. HUGE bonus points if you can make me laugh, if you make fun of someone, if you reference Psych, quote Brian Regan, and if you keep speech times short. You absolutely should not feel like you need to ever fill up all of the speech time, say what you need to say; if it takes all 8/5 minutes, great, if not, perfect, sit down. Ask questions. If you don't know if something is allowed, try it anyway.

P.S. Speechdrop.net is my favorite way of sharing evidence.

** Updated for the 2023-2024 Academic Year**

She/Her/Hers

Evidence: Apparently I need to put this on here now, but evidence standards will always be an a priori issue to evaluation for me. If there is a procedural argument that is brought up on the standards for evidence (example: distortion, not being able to access source for evidence, clipped evidence, or non-existent evidence). I will default to NSDA evidence standards unless there are other standards governing evidence evaluation. I will also only evaluate evidence that has been brought up on an ethics violation. Once an evidence ethics argument has been made, I will stop the round and vote immediately on that issue before anything else in the round proceeds. I see evidence as a core ethics argument that impacts the ability to go through anything else in the round and impacts my ability to trust any evidence that has been read by a team with evidence issue.

General Background: I’ve been in the world of policy debate for about 15 years, ranging from participation to coaching. Way back in the day, I debated at both Topeka High and Washburn Rural HS. I also debated in the regional circuit for University of Kansas for a few years and coached in Kansas, Alabama, and Mississippi. I have a deep love for the activity. I am currently working on a Ph.D. in Political Science and I study immigration surveillance as part of my research.

Topicality/Procedural Issues: I vote on these. While I default to competing interpretations, it's important that you are answering all levels of the argument-- including the impact level of the debate. If you are negative and hope to win the round on T, you need to make sure you have a complete argument out of the gate to vote on. I should see a definition, interp, link, and impact level to your argument and I should see the aff responding to these. Cross-apply this to any procedural argument as well (such as ASPEC, condo bad, etc.)

Disads- There needs to be a terminal impact (or at least solid analysis as to why that impact outweighs aff impacts in the round), a risk/okay probability of the disad happening (otherwise, why does your UQ matter?), and a plausible link to the aff. Generic DAs are fine, but there needs to be a plausible link, even if just at an analytical level.

Counterplans-- I tend to be alright with CPs and lean negative. I think most are generally smart. However, that being said, the CP needs to be both rhetorically and functionally competitive. I think Affs can/should be held accountable for clarifications made on positions and that those links apply across both CP and DA grounds.

Kritiks-- I'm fine with these, however, keep in mind that I am studying political theory in a Ph.D. program, so if your whole knowledge of your K is from a long series of back files on the K or from reading a few paragraphs of Nietzsche, this might end badly for you. I tend to prefer Ks with wider reach (capitalism, feminism, racism, etc) and less so Ks of particular authors, mostly because they are generally done poorly. If you run a K, it is EXTREMELY important that you provide a clear narrative of a) the role of my ballot, b) the world of the alternative, and c) how I should prioritize impact calculus in the round.

General Notes:

- If you are going for more than 2 major things in your 2NR/2AR, there is a low chance you are going to win the round. Similarly, if you don't provide an impact calculus, you likely will not like the decision I make at the end of the round.

- Negative strategy-- there needs to be some sort of offense in the round. A defensive strategic approach has rarely won my ballot.

- Please don't be unpleasant during the round. I can almost guarantee that if you are, it's not aligned with the quality of your argumentation and it's just going to be a long round. For me this looks more like arrogance or intentional cruelness-- I'm fine with bluntness, anger, frustration, etc. If you are unsure what I mean by this, please ask.

- I pay attention to the rhetoric used in the round. Slurs and derogatory language will almost assuredly earn you lower speaker points.

- Both teams should start impact calc early, use this to frame your speeches and line by line, and use impact calc to prioritize voting issues and role of the ballot.

- I reward debaters who make an effort to deeply engage with the topic area and issues.

- Squirrel affs are rarely good affs. They generally have poor structure, poor solvency or advantage foundations, and generate poor debate. I would rather see a super mainstream topic that prompts a lot of clash in the round than an aff that is poorly written for an ambush factor.

- In more policy-centered debates, I may err more on the tech aspect of the debate. In other cases, I may give some leniency on tech if the arguments are "true" (understanding that truth can be a subjective value).

- I'm starting to realize through my working social justice that I'm more easily affected by detailed narratives of sexism, racism, ableism (esp. invisible disabilities), and sexual assault. Trigger warnings aren't very helpful for me as a judge (I don't have a choice to opt out of them and I don't think that I would want to) but know that I may ask for a minute to just breathe or get some water between speeches, so I can have a clear head for the next speaker if there is a particularly vivid or powerful speech. This is by no means a common thing that I do, but I did want to add this to affirm the value of self-care in this activity.

- Add me to the email chain: devon.cantwell@gmail.com

- I flow on my computer, so please make sure you take a beat at the top of flows before jumping in and please slow down to about 70% for analytical arguments, especially if they are fewer than 5 words. I have physical pain in my joints, especially at the end of long days of judging. This doesn't make my ability to assess your arguments any less, nor does it impact my competency. I will do my best to say "slow" if my joints can't keep up.

- If you think you might want my flow of the round, I'm happy to send it. Please try to give me a heads-up before the round starts, as I organize my flows a bit differently when they are being distributed. Also, send me an e-mail after the round to remind me to send it to you.

TL;DR: You do you. Have fun. Be a decent human in the round. Learn some things.

***If you have me judging on the 2/4/18 there is a large possibility that I will be watching the superbowl instead of flowing your round (Go Patriots!)***

Updated for Golden Desert Public Forum: I am a hardcore policy judge and have next to zero PF experience so pref at your own risk.

I am a coach over at East High School in UT and have been for the past couple years

***+0.5 speaks for any High School Musical References.***

Argument Preference:

I think framework is fairly pointless and will probably end up avoiding evaluating it at all costs, but you do you.

Your contention titles should be clear enough for me to understand your entire argument based on them alone.

I feel like Public Forum all to often ignores offense but this is a huge no-no with me, tell me why each contention individually wins you the round

Plan is ok but make sure to lay out solvency well, remember you don't get fiat here like you do in policy.

I love topicality, so try and work it in when y'all are neg

General:

I only intervene in special situations (i.e. sexism, racism, republicanism, ect.) I will listen to every type of argument except politics because in this climate I think it is fairly pointless.

Will drop a team for suggesting the globe is round and always looking for like minded science allies. Really not a fan of ignorance in general and you can expect low speaks if your speeches come close to a presidential levels falsehoods.

Make sure to be aggressive during cross-ex, I hate hearing "Would you like the first question?", this is a competition take anything you can to get a leg up on your opponent.

Speaks:

Most of the time I give around a 26 but that can change, I have never given a 30 so try and be my first :)

Good Trump impressions +1.0

Bad Trump impressions -2.0

Feel free to add me to the email chain: mike_simpson@rocketmail.com

Former high school policy and 4-year NDT debater (West HS, Highland HS, and Loyola Marymount in the 90’s), now a debate dad. Call me anything you like (Mike / judge / male pronouns).

Debate is a game of persuasion. Any argument is winnable if you do it well enough.

I vote on LBL and won't make arguments for you

Core Biases (which I’m open to changing if you challenge them effectively):

Debate is an academic game with only a few rules that I won’t let you argue about (time limits, order of speeches, a resolution that I’m expecting is relevant, no biting, etc.).

I vote based on the arguments presented in the round. Won’t ever intervene beyond enforcing time limits unless something rises to the level of kicking you out of the tournament.

If you drop an argument, you lose it.

If you act like an ass, I’ll probably ding your speaker points.

Clash is key, thus (non)topicality trumps impacts, and generic critiques of society that aren’t germane to the topic will be viewed skeptically. I don’t expect debate to be ‘fair’ and won’t go beyond the arguments presented to compensate for a broken society.

I’m liberal in my personal life, but will vote for any argument you can win, my political opinion aside.

Speed- is fine, so long as I can flow your tags and sources, and your cards should be comprehensible. I’ll ask once or twice by saying “clearer” if one of us is struggling. If you don’t take the hint, you risk me missing things. 01/24/20 is/was my first tournament on this topic, so define your acronyms for me the first time you use them, and don’t assume I’ve heard your arguments before.

Topicality – always willing to vote on it. Please don’t go for ‘the’.

Counterplans – fine. But so are multiple permutations.

Theory – potential abuse is hard to win. Actual abuse is somewhat easier. Being faster, smarter, better prepared, or having a specific identity doesn’t constitute abuse imo but winnable if you argue it right on the LBL.

Performance – Everyone is performing something the entire time we’re in the room. It can help or hurt your speaker points, but I vote on the line-by-line of my flow.

K- Specific links to clash-able critiques with well defined impacts will be weighed against the impacts to everything else, and can definitely win a round. I’ll assume we’re deciding each round based on the hypothetical world where the aff can fiat federal legislation, with hypothetical pros and cons, unless you can establish otherwise. Throwing out buzzwords or asking me to vote on identity isn’t going to get you anywhere,. Prove why it matters and what happens if it's not weighed.

Tag team cross-ex is fine, but give your partner the chance to answer because it's your prep and you should both know the arguments well enough to coherently answer questions.

I usually stop prep when the flash comes out or the email has been sent.

If you have any questions about what's on my paradigm or something that's not in it, feel free to ask!

Email: coachmogab@gmail.com

Policy -

Basic rules and considerations:

Obviously the first priority is clash. I want responsive arguments. I'm fine with speed and will say clear if you are not understandable. This being said, I haven't been coaching this year so I may be a little slower listening than normal. Flashing isn't prep within reason. I am not a fan of judge intervention on the rfd, if there is a flaw in their argument or something they missed I won't vote on it unless it's pointed out. Any specific questions you have I'll answer before the round.

Kritiks and Theory:

I was all about the kritik/critical side of debate when I was competing, I think it makes for a more interesting round IF it is run well. That being said, I still have a pretty normal threshold on kritiks, I'm not going to lean towards your side just because you have one. I'm pretty familiar with a wide area of literature as far as ks go, so if you have a K you can't run against most judges, go for it!!!

I'm good with theory, but it needs to have a reason for being brought up and it needs to be articulated well. I don't like it when theory is run as an obvious time skew, it makes the argument more illegitimate than it already is. Please please please do the fw debate well on the aff and the neg if framework is present in the round at all. Apriori voters will obviously be considered first.

Counterplans and Disads:

As far as DAs go, make sure there is a good link and internal link explanation. I prefer slightly smaller impacts than nuc war because, let's be honest, not super probable most of the time unless you have a really really good miscalc scenario or something similar. I'll still evaluate DAs that have nuc impacts fairly however. Make sure you're weighing the net benefit against the case early and often.

On Case

Make sure to keep extending/cross-applying/overviewing case throughout the round. This is another one that seems really easy. It's hard for me to vote aff if case isn't ever discussed. Other than that, your aff is your choice. I'm somewhat partial to critical affs if they have good solvency. But again, I won't vote on it just because you run it.

Traditional Debate

I love traditional debate IF IT’S UNIQUE and/or specific. If it’s not the clash should be really really really good as you'll be debating the core of the topic. Don't you dare read the same tags back at each other for the whole round. Clash is the precursor to analysis, which you should be doing after the first couple speeches.