Steven Doctorman

Rowland Hall '20

JHU '24

Put me on the chain: stevendoctorman1@gmail.com

Do what you do best. I will try to avoid letting my predispositions influence my decision.

My paradigm should be pretty similar to: Mike Shackelford, David Bernstein, John Shackelford, Emily Gordon, Ian Beier, Chris Parades, Sydney Young, Adrian Gushin, and Ben Amiel.

Top Level

Debate is a game.

Tech>Truth, but it's easier to debate with true arguments and well-warranted cards.

Literature determines fairness.

The more specific, the better.

Debate should be more off the flow than computers.

Turn on your cameras! I will give lower speaks to grey squares.

Policy Affs:

I reward innovative plans - the smartest affs are predicated on mechanism, not impact.

For soft left, specific impact Ks or framing arguments (ie based in unique literature like a policy setcol aff) are great.

T

Limits should be based in a concrete caselist of legitimate potential cases.

Creative aff mechanisms should be rewarded, not excluded arbitrarily.

Predictable limits matter more than limits solely for the sake of limits.

No Plan/K Affs

AFF:

Affirmatives should try to be related to the resolution in some way. Teams should articulate and defend specific reasons why they can't/shouldn't defend the resolution. "The USFG's bad" or "the system sucks" is not a compelling warrant. You should win your model of debate is superior.

I prefer debates about the structures of debate, not the individual identities within debate.

I love K Affs that lean on reasonable counterinterps couched in nuanced DA analysis opposed to affs that impact turn everything. Redefining the words in the resolution to contextualize your counterinterp certainly helps to mitigate limits or predictability offense on framework.

Please don't read generic 2AR blocks.

No plantext, no perm vs Ks.

NEG:

Fairness is not automatically an impact. I'm always willing to vote for fairness, but you have to actually win it beyond asserting "debate is good."

Clash impacts are great; specific examples for why the skills we inculcate matter for the outside world are even better.

Movements DA is slept on.

A well debated Cap or Setcol K is sometimes better than framework, especially if the 2AC blows it off. Don't be afraid to dust off your backfiles and read that one weird yet specific K you have.

I tend to lean neg on PICs v K affs.

CPs

CP legitimacy is determined on a case-by-case basis. Specific theory interps are substantially better than a generic block.

Start tech-y perms earlier rather than later. Flash perm texts.

Literature determines predictability.

Competition debate should be more than just certainty or immediacy.

Judge kick by default unless told otherwise.

DAs

No strong opinion for uniqueness or link first.

0 risk is possible.

Ks

TL;DR: If you have sufficiently researched the literature behind the critique seriously and have a good contextualized argument for why that lens pertains to the aff, then I am a good judge for you. If you want to be lazy and avoid specific case research so you can brute force ballots with links to fiat/the state or general K chicanery, I'm not the best.

I will not intervene and explain the K to myself if not done in the round.

I shouldn't need a new flow for the overview.

1 card Ks are silly. Invest the time to read a full 1NC shell or don't read it.

Quoting or recutting 1AC evidence when doing link analysis is top-tier.

Your alt should have a specific mechanism and clear explanation throughout the debate.

I'll have a high threshold for K tricks being "dropped" in the 1AR.

Progress possible / perms are defense. Progress good / case outweighs are offense. Offense wins debates, not defense.

Procedurals/Theory

Condo is good but I will vote otherwise. Most other theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

Spec/vagueness is awful. Hide ASPEC on a T-shell and don't flash it at the risk of your speaks.

Slow down for long, multi-point theory debates.

Misc

Bonus speaker points for strong CX presence or well contextualized humor. Jokes about former RoHo debaters will be rewarded.

+0.3 speaks for having a fully open-sourced wiki and telling me you uploaded the round's docs pre-rfd. Disclosure is good.

Speed should be limited by clarity. This should be a given. If I clear you twice and still don't understand you, you're capped at a 28.

I will be extremely hesitant to vote on arguments like death good, Spark, Wipeout, etc. Read them at your own risk.

No inserting re-highlightings. You gotta read it.

I won't vote on arguments based on events outside of the debate.

Speech docs are not an excuse not to flow - asking what cards were read in CX will lose you speaks.

My name is Ty, I use he/him pronouns.

I would like to be on the email chain. My email is tylunde4@gmail.com

I am currently a sophomore in college. I did policy debate for all 4 years of high school. I have judged mostly novice policy debate this year, so if there are any specific acronyms so I know what you're talking about. I am generally ok with speed, however, it has been a while, so please make sure that if you are speaking fast you are CLEAR.

As a debater, I mainly debated policy arguments rather than Kritiks, however, I will listen to your Ks if you choose to run them, I will need you to explain well why the K matters most in the round/why I should be voting for you based on the K. It will be more difficult to win on a K for me.

In order to convince me to vote for you please make sure you explain how I should evaluate the round, and why your team wins based on this framing. I don't want to have to extrapolate what matters most from vague comments that are not well explained. If you have questions about my opinions on specific types of arguments please ask before the round, but I will generally evaluate any argument as long as they are well-argued.

For LD: Keep in mind I did policy, but in general I will keep up with most differences quickly. Ask me any argument specific questions in room before the round starts.

Please do not be racist, sexist, anti-LGBTQ, anti-semitic, or otherwise bigoted and discriminatory in round.

Ben McGraw (he/they)

background:

I debated at Juan Diego Catholic (UT) from 2015-2017 before transferring to Rowland Hall St. Marks (UT) from 2017-2019. I attended the University of Michigan for undergraduate from 2019-2022. For those that use success as a benchmark, I attended the TOC once and qualified to NSDA nats twice in high school, and broke at ADA Nationals, CEDA Nationals, and the NDT in college. I have also had the opportunity to coach high school debate for both Rowland Hall (2019-2021) and Young Genius CP (2021-). 

My email is benmcgrawdebate [at] gmail [dot] com. Say hi, ask me questions about debate, and put me on the email chain.

how i think about debate:

If you are reading this, you are likely doing prefs and want to make sure I either agree with how you think about debate or that I am not an unpredictable rando who will drop you for something trivial--thus, here is the scouting I have done on myself so you can determine how unpredictable I may be:

Even though I no longer debate, I care a lot about the activity because it (and the people within it) cared a lot about me. I also care that the debaters treat both their opponents and their judges with kindness and respect. If you think that your previous first rounds or TOC bids justify treating your younger or less experienced opponents dismissively or with contempt, I am not the judge for you. Treat your opponents and the judges with respect and I will respect both you and the arguments that come out of your mouth.

I have a higher threshold for winning an internal link than most. This applies to policy arguments just as much as K arguments. If your 1AC is the style of "death by 1,000 impacts" or if the story of your K relies on poor inductive reasoning, I am not the judge for you. I really don't care what you read, but if your argument can't survive a good cross ex it's better off left in the prep doc.

Here's a tip on how to win my ballot most of the time, regardless of what you're reading: frame the ballot. Even if its subconscious, my mind is easily tricked by the team that puts the pieces together for me. I won't lie and say I'm a robot that resolves everything on the flow--I know myself well enough to know I'm manipulatable (as is everyone, but I won't get into that). Whoever does the better job of telling me why winning their argument matters (and not just why they are winning an argument) is more likely to win my ballot. In a mid- to high-level college debate where it's likely to be a close debate regardless of skill disparity, this will be the reason I vote the way I do.

Last meta-level comment: My biggest risk of intervention is when framework doesn't link up with the theory or story of a Kritik--for example, if you want me to view the 1AC as an object of research/scholarship, and the K is a hodge-podge of contradictory authors while the aff is consistently constructed (even with a problematic assumption), there is a risk I will vote aff (if given a defense of their scholarship) even if they lose framework. 

If you are still curious, here are people who have largely influenced how I view debate: Moses Baca, Maddie Langr, Khalid Sharif, Mike Shackelford, Maggie Berthiaume, Will Repko, Kurt Fifelski, Dustin Meyers-Levy, Thomas Vance, Josh Harrington, Adrienne Brovero, Shunta Jordan, Vida Chiri, and (obviously) Clare McGraw.***

back to the meta-level details:

tech over truth but truth determines tech. arguments require warrants to be legitimate, and those warrants need to be logical. if those warrants go dropped, they have a lower threshold of explanation needed to win them. yet, those warrants still need to be extended/explained. no argument is bad if it is warranted, including most theory args.

i treat all arguments as legitimate until proven otherwise (includes procedurals, process cps, kritiks, politics das, etc). obviously, there are limits to this (see last section).

i enjoy topicality debates but have little knowledge of how the topic works--hold my hand through these but don't be discouraged

i enjoy soft left affs but only when they are debated well

i have yet to judge a theory debate, but would likely vote on tech (instead of the "was condo a cop-out strategy" concept, which i think is absurd)

a lot of the specifics below are geared towards high schoolers and younger debaters--if you know your stuff then you can skim most of it.

online debate/paperless:

for the love of all that is holy please label chains with at LEAST the round, tournament, aff team vs. neg team in some easily readable format.

send analytics in all constructive speeches if your debate. it helps mitigate tech issues, and is NECESSARY for certain arguments, like fw interps or perms. i do not plan on stealing your blocks. 2Ns, take the high road even if the 2AC chooses not to send analytics. if you refuse to send analytics, prepare to record your own speeches in event of tech issues, since I lean against "giving your speech over" to prevent in-round redos.

please try and keep your camera on for your and your opponent's speeches, use a headset/external mic, and have a stable place to debate.  these things passively affect my ability to judge, as it removes the (very important) humanizing element of debate that is already mitigated by zoom.

if my camera is off, please confirm verbally that I am still here before starting. 'is anyone not ready' is not a good metric for online debating, as interrupting is quite literally impossible with a poor connection. I used 'can i get a verbal/visual confirmation' and I find that mostly works.

k affs:

---good for things like music, dancing, performance, as long as they are contestable (outside of "pic out of music/performance/etc.)---this means i am not great for the ballot as solely a form of self-affirmation (a.k.a 'survival strategies')

---if your plan is to go for one-off t usfg, impact why the topic (not just the usfg) is good engagement AND make inroads to the case page, even if it is just analytical presses based on 1AC discrepancies or dml cards.

---i prefer a smaller debate earlier, with only one (maybe two) impacts in the block

---i prefer t against a planless affirmative to look like t against an aff with a plan, using similar organizational structures (aka small/no overviews)

---i am unlikely to vote for an aff team weighing offense without a counter-model of debate, unless they are going for the we meet

the k:

---i tend to allow the aff to access their fiated/in round offense; likewise, i tend to allow the k to question the assumptions of the 1ac. 

---i have a higher threshold for link warrants than many: saying "the aff securitizes china" over and over without explaining either the theory or where the aff links (like the rehighlighting of aff ev/pulling lines from aff ev) will make me much more likely to default aff.

---i prefer examples on both sides that support your theory, but when examples act as the sole explanation of the alt/aff, i will likely be confused

---i am growing tired of improperly structured, terrible “affs v. ks” in high school debates. if reading a different aff will decrease your ability to adequately explain your affirmative, you should stick to your "aff v. policy" because explanation matters more than avoiding a link

---i prefer that identity arguments not contain broad claims about how all people w/in that social location must feel/think about the world if you do not identify with that social location.

---i prefer that everyone treat arguments as legitimate until proven otherwise. debaters tend to think certain arguments are 'bad' on face, which can lead them to underestimate the strength of the argument. I will not be persuaded by 'but Baudrillard is a joke so vote aff' even though I'm not a fan of his work in/out of debate (though the balsas card is a good way to make me laugh, and raise speaks even if it is only for the meme).

note to younger debaters on cx in k debates: if you don't understand their theory or their link, ask for clarification! coaches often teach debaters that cx should make arguments or attempt to trap the other team (which are both fine strategies), but often ignore the structural importance of clarification. questions like "do you defend x" or "what is the link articulation based on the 1ac" help aff teams get a better sense of what the block will do (which helps 2ac prep immensely) more than "one of your cards says white and one says non-black, which is it" (which just gives them a reason to explain residual offense that the 2ac now has to answer).

topicality:

Competing Interpretations vs. Reasonability: I'm neutral, but it you think reasonability is solely "good is good enough" (that includes in the 2AC) then I probably vote neg. if you don't know what reasonability is beyond 'good is good enough,' then email/ask me and i will gladly explain it to you, free of charge.

theory:

top level: theory can be a primary strategy and doesn't necessarily require the aff/neg to prove in round abuse. a good, developed theory debate is quite enjoyable to me. all counterplans are legitimate until proven otherwise, but the threshold for their legitimacy is dependent on the counterplan. i feel that 2ARs should have more counterplan theory in them, especially for counterplans that are obviously pushing the limits of neg fiat.

dropped theory: definitely a voter, but the amount of trickery determines how sad I will be. if you put aspec on it's own flow, had it in the doc, etc. then it's definitely not your problem that they dropped it; however, if it's egregious, then i will be very sad, and perhaps glare/look dead inside. however, it's still a voter, so don't let my deadness deter you. if you are worried about this, i am generally for the question "reasons to reject the team?" as a 1NC/2AC cx question, because even if you do flow it's easy to miss blips.

judge kick: i'll do it unless the aff tells me not to; if the aff brings it up, ill default neg if it was in the block and has a warranted claim. "we said condo/cross apply condo" is not a warrant, it is just a claim.

condo is about type, not number. 1, 2, 3, 4, 17, 26 condo are all the same within the context of whether conditionality is good or bad. if they say dispo, punish them.

disadvantages:

zero risk is possible, but rare---just explain why in the context of the round if you think you get there

I am more likely to vote on internal link takeouts than most (applies both to case and DAs)---most internal links lack reverse causal warrants (obviously) and aff teams should point that out more. I genuinely think that the logical leap that many teams take from internal link to impact is egregious and is the best way to attack a DA/Case you don't have the goods against. This is especially true in warming advantages, as solving 1 instance of BioD loss =/= solving ALL BioD loss, and solving all BioD loss =/= solving all warming, etc.

my research outside of debate is on courts, particularly reproductive rights and judicial ideology. this means that I will likely have a lower bar than some for proving how terrible court DAs are (*cough cough*), and likewise know more about how your courts aff is butchering precedent. however, this doesn't make things like the court ptx da unwinnable---in fact, if you know your stuff and can justify why you think roberts/barrett/kavanaugh vote in particular directions based on past outcomes, i am a very good judge for you.

counterplans:

i'll evaluate any cp with an internal net benefit as a uniqueness cp with the net benefit as a disad if they win a terminal solvency deficit and you don’t win judge kick.

people need to go for theory more against counterplans, but because people do not i have been a good judge for process/agent counterplans

case framing:

six minute long framing pages that don’t make it past the 1ac make me sad. you/your coach chose those pieces of evidence specifically to help you weigh your aff in a strategic way. don't make it unstrategic by reading long extensions and not answering their warrants, or not extending them at all. because the topic almost mandates these affs in most areas, spend some time learning how to do it properly (also, think about it...2/3 previous topics also mandated soft left affs, do you really think this is a skill you don't need to learn?)

utilitarianism=/=consequentialism; likewise, [x] ethics first=/=deontology

non-negotiable rules:

no inserting rehighlightings (charts are fine), but if you have rehighlightings of their evidence i respect you more as a person and debater.

clipping is bad, and ends the round immediately if i notice it. i will give the non-offending team the chance to continue the round for educational purposes, and will give the offender a 25 but will try not to tank everyone elses speaks.

swearing is fine---yes it is an educational activity but i genuinely couldn't care less. slurs =/= swearing.

ev quality outweighs ev quantity---1 good card outweighs 10 bad ones, "outcarding" them is not the way to win my ballot.

don't say problematic things---you can't impact turn everything. examples (not extensive) of this include racism/sexism/homophobia good.

if you need accommodations, let me know (details not required). however, any accommodation applies to you as well. for example: don't ask them not to spread and then go 400 wpm. otherwise, i’m open to whatever makes the round more enjoyable, accessible and fun for all. coaches should not interfere in the process of accommodations in debates in any way for a competitive incentive.

presumption is whoever changes the least

please disclose properly.

good open source in high school gets you +.2 speaks, ill look (or, feel free to tell me after the 2ar).

if you want me to know something that happened before i got there, have proof of it (recordings w/ permission in necessary areas)

give me time between off, or i might miss the top 3 args you make. i usually flow on paper.

visibly writing down answers to cx and using them in speeches is a power move, speaks will be rewarded.

prep ends when you finish making the speech doc, but that doesn't mean you can steal 45 minutes of prep by saying your wifi isn't working or that your "email is slow" while still typing/using ~. i have stolen prep before, i know how it works

i enjoy talking to people, especially about debate. seriously, if you want, feel free to ask about my thoughts on anything about debate, either before or after the round. additionally, feel free to ask me about debating at michigan, debating in college, or anything that a normal human would talk about before screaming at each other for 2 hours.

speaker points: i give high points even compared to current point inflation. competitive varsity debates should expect mid-high 28s to mid 29s with me in the back. older ppl, sorry not sorry. earn speaks by making tasteful jokes about anyone on the michigan team, Letterkenny references, or really any joke dependent on bad humor (particularly ones that reference PDM&CD). if you know me, make fun of me, if you don't, don't. i enjoy self-awareness, especially if you have the knowledge to point out my personal biases (which shouldn't be hard, if you made it here you probably know way too much about me).

decision process:

i will ask myself questions that are integral to the debate, answer those questions, and decide based on the resolution of those questions. read this post from the 3nr for more info: http://the3nr.com/2009/11/03/judging-methodologies-how-do-judges-reach-their-decisions

i will type out my rfd and i will most likely take a while, regardless of how close the round is. this is to ensure i weigh arguments correctly.

Justin Peng (he/him)

Rowland Hall ‘20 -- Columbia '24

Add me to the email chain please: justinpeng15@gmail.com

I haven't judged any rounds on the NATO topic yet so please explain any topic-specific terminology or acronyms you use

What I say here isn't set in stone and can be subject to change depending on what happens in round.

TLDR:

Do whatever you do best. I’ll do my best to evaluate any arguments unless they’re racist/homophobic/sexist etc.

Tech > Truth

Clarity > Speed (although both at the same time is always a plus)

CX is binding

K affs/Framework:

I definitely think that K affs hold some strategical and pedagogical value in debate, but I think that debating the topic is probably a better model. That being said, if you do end up reading one it should be related to the topic somehow. Be prepared to defend your model of debate.

Framework should be well articulated and nuanced - I'm not a fan of teams who speed through blocks and dump 20 shallow DAs on framework or just impact turn everything

K v K:

I probably have the least experience with these types of debates.

I'm not a big fan of these debates in general, as a lot of the time, they get really messy. I think that there are definitely some strategic Ks to run against K affs like cap, but reading Baudrillard against Bataille gets you nowhere with me.

Theory/procedurals:

Condo is good and it’s also the only reason to reject the team. (Dropped theory is too and for me to vote on condo there has to be an egregiously unfair abuse of it)

You can go for a 2-second ASPEC blip you hid on T and didn’t flash in the 1NC, but I won't be a big fan I’ll be more lenient with new answers.

T:

Affs that are untopical should lose.

Affs that meet the neg’s interp should not lose. I think that just going for a we meet is cool.

Competing interps/reasonability - I’m 60/40 on the side of competing interps but that doesn’t mean don’t go for reasonability. Just convince me why it’s better.

CP:

No solvency advocate < generic solvency advocate < specific solvency advocate < solvency advocate from 1ac ev/author

Counterplans should be able to cheat at least a little, but the context of the round and literature determine how much they get.

I’ll judge kick a CP for you if you tell me to. The neg should start the debate in the 2nc/1nr and the aff should start it in the 1ar.

DA:

Zero risk possible but you have to prove it

I love case turns analysis when it’s nuanced and specific but don’t know what you mean when you tell me “the DA turns case because it causes nuclear war”

Impact calc/comparison is essential.

K:

Good Ks have links that are specifically contextualized to the aff.

Don’t rely on buzzwords. I probably don’t know what they mean and usually, you don’t either.

If you kick the alt you must definitively win framework and that the K turns case

Framework – I think that the aff probably should be able to weigh their impacts against the K and the neg should probably be able to read their K - this is what most framework debates resolve to - but you can convince me otherwise

I think impact turns are fantastic

FIAT double bind isn’t an argument

Sydney Young

Rowland Hall ‘19

Harvard ‘23

syd8796@gmail.com

Top Level: Tech > Truth (to an extent, of course. I would not vote for a “dropped” 2016 elections DA). Evidence quality is important, but good spin, logic, and explanation can overcome mediocre evidence. I am best in policy-oriented debates since I primarily went for these arguments in high school, but I believe that kritiks are pedagogically valuable and will vote for them. I will reject any argument that is blatantly offensive.

Topicality: Love good T debates. Illustrate your world of the topic. Evidence comparison and impact calculus matters. Precision is under-utilized as an impact — a definition must be researchable in order for it to set a limit on the topic. Most limits claims are rendered moot if they rely on an unpredictable definition. Reasonability is most persuasive when paired with a precision argument.

DA: Fun with a CP, more fun if you go for DA and case alone. Turns case and impact comparison are essential. “DA turns case because it also causes structural violence” is not a turns case argument.

Case: Good case debate wins rounds. Good analytics that dispute the aff’s internal links can be extremely valuable. Will vote on presumption if the aff is truly egregious and defies all logic.

K’s: Contextualize links and prove that something about the aff (plan, advantages, rhetoric, etc.) is bad and mutually exclusive with the alt. Explain your terminology and literature well (avoid a heavy reliance on buzzwords) because I am not as well-versed in K literature.

CPs: Process CPs are fine, especially on topics where there is virtually no neg ground. That being said, Functional + Textual > Functional > Textual Competition. Smart CPs cut from solvency advocates or well-researched advantage CPs are preferable. Will only kick CPs if you win that doing so is theoretically legitimate.

Theory: Contextualize theory to the topic/the argument. I am sympathetic to teams that initially miss a super-fast, barely audible, cheap-shot theory argument as long as they answer it later (I’m looking at you, ASPEC). A new aff does not justify a negative free-for-all unless you win that new affs are bad.

Condo: I tend to err neg on condo. It grants the negative a greater degree of flexibility to test the plan from multiple angles and check against a topic with extensive aff side-bias. There is no distinction between 2, 3, or 6 condo. I am most persuaded by aff arguments about why conditionality disincentivizes the negative from producing a well-developed response to any particular policy proposal.

T – USFG/K Affs: I primarily went for T-USFG against K affs in high school. Fairness is probably an impact, but I could be persuaded otherwise. SSD and TVA arguments should be contextualized to the aff and function as defense to their model of debate. Always answer case.

Aff teams — Control the uniqueness debate. Establish why this one round/ballot does not matter for the neg’s impact but does for your own. Impact turn framework and have DAs with internal links specific to the aff. Both teams should have solid impact comparison.

Speaker Points: Clarity, efficiency, quality of explanation, and organization will be rewarded, as will bold strategies, good decisions, and smart “even if” statements that frame the debate.