Hello,

I've been in debate as a whole for about 8 years. Last debated in '20 (just before rona lol) . I've coached various formats of debate (Policy, LD, Parli, Public Forum) along with being a participant in those formats also. Here's my view: Debate is a space to challenge ideologies and come to the best way of making a change. That may look like a plan text that has an econ and heg or, it's an advocacy that talks about discourse in the debate space. I'm here for you as an educator so tell me where and how to vote. Impact Magnitude in the later speeches will help you and me a lot.

Add me on the Email doc:3offncase@gmail.com

Here's my view on certain arguments:

T and Framework and theory in general: I'll listen and adjudicate the round based on the information that you frame my ballot.

Counterplans: Gotta prove the Mutual Exclusivity of said CP. Not really a preference or style choice on this.

D/A's: Uniqueness has got to be relatively recent or the debate is gonna be a tough one to win. If paired with a C/P you must prove how you avoid said D/A or perm is gonna be super cheezy here. Again don't let that stop you from running it in front of me.

K's: I'm good with whatever you desire to run but if its some super high level (D&G or around that lit base) stuff you gotta explain what that means. Also, please be sure to know your author's lit bases here. Perm debates against K's have to prove the accessibility of the Perm along with the net benefits of the perm. Also, Impact Framing the K is gonna make your job along with mine a lot easier.

K Aff's: You do you. Tell me where to frame the ballot and how to view any performances within the round. You do you. Solvency is gonna be the point of clash along with framing.

Update for '21: My internet at my house is absolute garbage so PLEASE: start at 80% speed, I'm always ready for your speech and I'll give a reaction in zoom if I'm not.

Experience. I have competed for four years at California State University of Sacramento in the following events: National Forensics Association Lincoln Douglas, Extemporaneous, Public Forum, and Impromptu. Additionally, I have participated in the Communications 111 class rookie tournament for four years as a coach and a judge. As a rookie coach, I have worked on debate evidence in the following areas: as a writing coach, case writer, rookie tournament judge, research student, and on-case and off-case writing for constructive and rebuttal speeches. Lastly, I have competed in the affirmative/negative debates at the local city council's online reading practices.

Debate Judging Philosophy. My role as a judge is to evaluate the debate round based on policy maker paradigm, critical paradigm, and/or rule-based theory. I believe that both the affirmative and negative must meet their burdens with well-developed arguments. This means that the debaters should present their arguments in a clear, logical, and coherent way, using appropriate language and evidence. Next, I believe debates should be followed in a recognizable format and should provide greater knowledge with the use of analysis and refutation. I will evaluate the round based on advantages, disadvantages, and weighing of impacts. Speed is Okay.

Individual Events. The mechanics of speech must be observed faithfully –poise, quality, use of voice, effectiveness, ease of gesture, emphasis, variety, and enunciation. In addition, the participant must be able to interpret the full meaning of the oration and be able to carry the interpretation over to the audience.

Hello reader, my name is Joel Brown (he/him/his)!

I competed in Policy and Parli on a very lay circuit in high school, and then I competed in Parli and LD in college at Chabot College and at the University of the Pacific. I was also an assistant Parli coach at Washington High School for a year. Altogether, I have a fair amount of experience with policy-style debate.

I try to be impartial about what arguments or strategies you choose to deploy in the round, but I do care that you deploy them well - provide warrants for your arguments, and provide clear decision calculus in the rebuttals. Specifically, don't just link your arguments to x impact, there needs to be an explicit weighing of the impacts in the round.

I'm able to keep up with spreading for the most part, but don't sacrifice clarity for speed as this often impacts your argument quality and consequently your speaker points too.

I'm game for theory debate, but I expect a clear abuse story outlined in the standards that relate to your impacts in the context of the round. I'm not predisposed to either proven or potential abuse threshold, as both have real impacts - hash out the threshold question in the round and then explain your abuse story from there.

Disad/Counterplan debates are also a great option - go with whatever you think fits the round best or what you're most comfortable with. All counterplans MUST be functionally mutually exclusive with the plan or else the perm is terminal defense that I will vote on as the easiest out in the round.

I also think case debate has become something of a lost art, meaning that you can win terminal defense in front of me so long as you frame it correctly and pair it with turns. When it comes to case debate, I won't automatically vote on a risk of offense if that offense is predicated on a claim with missing/dubious warrants.

I frequently ran kritiks as a competitor and I enjoy judging rounds where critical arguments are made on either side, but that doesn't mean I automatically know the lit base you're citing inside and out - my flow benefits from 1) slowing down when introducing your thesis and/or framework at the top 2) presenting a well-developed link story that indicts the specific actions of your opponents case 3) explaining how your alt solves the K per the framework. I am most familiar with critical arguments pertaining to capitalism, race, gender, colonialism, biopower, and the environment. I am less well-versed in other literature, but I can usually track a well-explained and cohesive thesis for the most part.

Round vision is key to wining in front of me - PLEASE COLLAPSE IN THE BLOCK/PMR OR ELSE IT BECOMES OBJECTIVELY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO VOTE FOR YOU. It is both easier and more compelling for me to vote for the team that identifies and collapses to a few points of key offense than for the team that keeps doing line-by-line in the rebuttals without providing coherent impact calculus.

Feel free to ask any further questions before the round!

For LD:

I want to be on an email chain (adecamp578@gmail.com) or at least have a copy uploaded to speechdrop, dropbox, flash, etc. I'll call for cards at the end of the round if needed.

Speed

I’ve competed in LD for 3 years but it's been a few years since I've competed or judged a round. My ability to handle speed is gonna be a bit rusty at first so I'll clear or slow when I need to. Also, please don’t use speed as a weapon against your opponent, if they ask you to slow, please try to do so.

Speaker Points

I generally give out 27-30 depending on delivery, clarity, and sportsmanship. Don’t ridicule your opponent or bring racism, sexism, ableism, etc. into the round, I will give you low speaks for that. Keep the debate competitive but friendly, and you’re in the clear.

General Case Arguments

I’ll vote on the flow. I love debates with good clash. Give me reasons why your side is better than your opponents. If your opponent drops one of your arguments and then carry it through till the end, don’t just say “they dropped this” and never touch it again. Explain why that dropped argument is important and why you should win because of it. I want to see impact calculus. Show what your impacts looks like post plan. Will the world be a better place or are we going towards a hurt locker? Explain to me what “social destruction” looks like and explain to me why it’s worse than “eliminating the prison pipeline”. If the neg doesn’t run a disad, that’s fine. Just make sure there’s offense (turns, solvency take-out’s, kritiks, etc.) that outweigh the case. I’ll vote on propensity to solve if there’s no offense.

CROSS-X

I flow cross-x. If you can bind your opponent during cross-x and want to use it as offense against them then go for it. I'll weigh it if it’s credible.

Topicality/Procedural

I love both. Run T if you want just make sure you explain why your interpretation is the correct interpretation or better than your opponents’. The only issue on T is that I don’t like seeing T’s with multiple interpretations. If you can’t run a topical case that matches all of your interpretations, then I believe the Aff doesn’t have to either. The structure of a T/Procedural should be: an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters (or some type of reasons to prefer). If there is more than one procedural in the round, then tell me where to look first and how to evaluate the procedurals.

ADS/DISADS

Both Advantages and Disadvantages need to be in order (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact). I won’t weigh or flow ADS/DISADS that couldn’t get finished.

CP’S

Run em! Prove to me that your CP is competitive in the round. If the aff perms and you don’t put enough argument on the perm, you won’t win on CP.

Kritiks

I don’t like generic k’s, you make sure you have a clear link to the case advocacy and language. Also, make sure your alternative is strong and solves. I have no issues with teams running K Affs or topical affs with critical advantages. Argue why they're topical and you should be fine.

At the end of the day, Debate is supposed to be a competitive, learning experience. Run your cases and argue with confidence! Get in there, show respect to your opponents and your judge, and have some fun!

Hello to all!

I'm Kai, and I am typically an open competitor in Parliamentary, IPDA, and Extemporaneous Speaking. I judge primarily on the quality of the content that you provide for Parli as well as good formatting so that it is easier for everyone to follow. Stay courteous and kind (but assertive) throughout the round, for the environment that we need to provide is at the core of what we do here in speech and debate. I accept topicalities if they are well-formatted, and expect that the individual protects their flow with points of order.

Best of luck!

Structure is everything so have good structure, signposting is super helpful.

Speed If you go fast that's cool I am good with speed but, if i say slow down and you don't slow down I'm not gonna flow what you say and I wont count that argument. Also I understand why you might need to go fast but, if i can tell you're using it purposely to throw off the other team I will give you looow speaker points.

I'm not picky , you can have crazy impacts as long as you are able to thoroughly explain how it happens, and convince me it is probable.

Debate is debate i like theory a lot, but if you're gonna run a T ( topicality ) it should be legit, not time suck . So make sure your T legitimately ties.

If you drop T i vote Neg so make sure you properly refute the T.

Counter plans are cool but Neg make sure it can not be permed because then there is no point and it's just not a fun time for anyone

Vagueness I do not vote on vagueness if you do not ask for a plan text in cross ex, if AFF denies you plan text or is actually being vague then the ballot is in Neg's favor.

Point of orders : If aff makes any new arguments in the last speech I do not vote on those arguments, and neg you need to call them out i will not make that decision for you.

Kritiks : These are cool but don't do it unless you know how to do it please thanks.

I don't give low speaker points to people who get nervous because this is about learning. I give low speaks to those who are rude, claim arguments that are not dropped " dropped", rude people, and disorganization.

I believe for the affirmative to win they must win all four stock issues. I am comfortable with topicality, but not K or speed/spreading. Any debaters I judge should be respectful of their opponents at all times.

This is my first year out of debate. I am a graduate assistant/ assistant coach for Sacramento State. I competed in Parli and LD for 3 years at San Joaquin Delta College and 2 years at the University of the Pacific. I’m still developing my judging philosophy, but for now:

TOPICALITY/PROCEDURAL

Theory is fine. I believe topicality is a voting issue and I will vote neg if the affirmative is not topical. I do not need proven abuse to vote on T, if the negative has a definition that is preferable/more precise/better way to define the round and the aff doesn’t successfully articulate why their definition is reasonable, I will vote neg.

KRITIKS/CRITICAL AFFS:

K’ s are fine, please make sure you actually link to the topic. Saying the aff is a mechanism of neoliberalism gets you nowhere unless you can clearly articulate how the affirmative is perpetuating neoliberalism in the link scenario. Alt’s should be unconditional.

If you are running a K aff be topical/ affirm the resolution. There is no reason you have to reject the resolution/ you can gain your critical impacts via affirming the resolution I promise you. I will not reject topicality because you say your aff comes first.

PERFORMANCE

It’s fine, I did this a lot when I first started debating. Again-be topical if you are the aff. Have a clear link story on the neg.

COUNTER PLANS

UNCONDITIONAL. I will listen to conditional strategies, but I will probably have sympathy for condo bad args etc.

This is my second and last year of debating at community college before I transfer out. I did one year of novice & one year of open. Mainly what I look for in a round is a lot of clash and impact calculus. I will vote for the side the convinces me best why their impact is clearly linked to their advantage or disadvantage and how likely it is to occur. That being said, I would enjoy if teams would bring up anything about settler colonialism that is relevant to the round.

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

I will not be able to understand what you're saying if you spread, so please avoid doing that. I personally will prefer arguments that are predicated on warrants and preponderance of evidence.

I am a Junior/Open Parliamentary debater with 3 semesters of experience. If I don't address a specific question you have, please ask me before the round begins; otherwise, assume my stance is that of a typical Parli judge.

Intervention

While I do my best to avoid intervention, I will fill in arguments with my own knowledge if I feel a round is too close to call, or if I find an argument made to be particularly egregious to common ethical, moral, or intellectual standards. I don't listen to Human Extinction Good, and Accelerationism is on thin ice.

Speed

While I am capable of following most arguments, speed may effect my comprehension. If your opponents or myself ask you to slow down, do so.

Ks and Performance Ks

While I accept Ks, I do hold them to a higher standard than most probably do. I consider anyone running a K to have the burden of proof; if your opponent provides me with reasonable doubt, or if I feel the argumentation on the K is a wash, I won't vote on it. I'm doubly harsh on Performance Ks; I will grant your opponents considerable leeway if I feel your performance isn't transparent, approachable, and in good faith. I also don't consider performances as ground for you to abuse your opponents in round, and will end the round after a warning if I think you're being abusive.

Nuke War/High Mag, Low Prob Impx

If you are going for high magnitude but low probability impacts, come prepped with warrants, preferably historical warrants or expert analysis. This more or less rules out Nuke War as an impact in my eyes, since no nuclear warheads have been set off when the risk of nuclear retaliation existed. I'll still accept arguments on them, but consider your chances of winning to be proportional to the probability of your impacts happening.

Background

I am currently on the speech and debate team at CSU Chico. I did Policy debate for four years at St Vincent de Paul High School. I have watched all kinds of debate rounds, but have only competed in Policy and Lincoln Douglas.

Case

Please make sure that case arguments are not dropped throughout the round. It's hard to vote for the aff if they drop a lot of their case, and it's hard to vote for the neg unless they have killer off case positions.

Disadvantages

Have good link arguments as the neg because I can't vote on a disad if the aff wins no link, no matter how big the impacts are.

Counterplans

I need to see why the cp solves better than the plan to be able to vote on it. Reading a cp with a net benefit of a disad is a really good neg strategy, but the aff can easily beat it with a perm if the neg doesn't have a good response.

Kritiks

I love them. Assume that I am not familiar with the literature when you read a K. If I don't understand the K I can't vote on it. Hell, if the other team just says "We don't understand the K. It makes no sense and if you don't understand it either vote for us." then I will probably vote for them.

Theory

I am not opposed to voting on theory but I don't necessarily love doing it. However, I do like topicality if it is clear that the aff is not topical.

Speed

I will call clear twice if I can't understand you. I will say speed twice if you are going too fast. After that, I stop flowing.

Summary

Make sure I understand the arguments. I am willing to vote on anything if it makes sense, as long as it isn't outright offensive. I love crazy/unique arguments. I am the perfect judge to read wipeout in front of (but do it right). Don't be afraid to try out something new, and have fun with it!

Side Note

If you want guaranteed high speaks, sing and dance to Party in the USA by Miley Cyrus (as long as it makes sense with the rest of your speech)

I'm a college student who does IPDA and NPDA debate as well as the odd speech event on the side.

I do see debate as a test of communications skills, meaning I really do not like spreading. Fast conversational pace is fine but if you start to sound like an auctioneer then it's gonna hurt my ability to flow and your ability to win.

I do not like impacts that are just "econ up" or "dehumanization down" because they are lazy and means I have to extrapolate what your impacts means in the context of the debate. Give your impacts some depth and character.

I am comfortable with most theory as long as there is proven abuse, not just potential abuse. So do not be afraid to be technical in front of me. I am very uncomfortable with K.

If there are any further questions, do not hesitate to ask before the round starts.

Above all, be respectful to all present and make the debate a fun and engaging experience for all parties.

Pronouns: they/them

Updated 2021-11-07

I tend to vote for the team that makes the most persuasive arguments in a round. This generally makes me a "communication judge," though I make an effort to evaluate each position on the ballot systematically and based solely on what you say in the round.

I will not tolerate blatantly racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. arguments.

NPDA/LD Considerations

I have found that my burden for voting on a K may be higher than a lot of other judges because many of them seem hollow in the context of the round (e.g., arguing that debate is harmful while... participating in debate; or arguing that winning is bad so vote for us). Be prepared to explain your kritik more to me than to other judges if you want to win it.

I often find myself most persuaded by well-argued, genuine alternative discourses. These include re-imagining the geography/temporality of the debate space or advancing arguments that genuinely interrogate the constructedness or value of the debate space. In this sense, I'm particularly influenced by the works of Christopher Schroeder, Helen Fox, Patricia Bizzell, Ian Khara Ellasante, and Malea Powell. I am particularly interested in exploring orientations that foreground the relevance, reciprocity, and accessibility of debate for the people who benefit from it.

My threshold to vote on theory is typically pretty low, especially if it is severely undercovered by the other team.

I don't vote for (or most of the time even evaluate) arguments I don't understand.

How I evaluate (post-fiat) impacts:

1. Probability
2. Magnitude
3. Timeframe
4. Reversibility

How I evaluate the round:

1. A priori issues (theory, topicality, pre-fiat critiques)
2. Top of case, solvency, counterplan solvency (if necessary)
3. Impacts of advantages vs. disadvantages

I'm comfortable with faster than conversational speed. I don't like spreading or other paralinguistic acts that serve to reify the elitist stereotypes of college debate. If you go faster than I can keep up, be prepared for me to just write that you said "something" on my flow.

Document Exchange Considerations (LD Only)

Let's use SpeechDrop.net to share documents unless there is some persuasive reason that you cannot.

Please avoid sharing PDFs in round since most PDF makers don't create an accessible PDF with headers, etc. If you're using Microsoft Word, just save the file as a word document and share it.

Critical Debate Familiarity

These are the theoretical frameworks I'm most familiar with:

1. Trans studies (tends to work well as answer to queer critiques, especially with Rubin, Keegan, or Halley)
2. Queer theory
3. (Trans)feminist analysis
4. Rhetorical analysis/the 1AC as rhetorical artifact
5. Critical pedagogy (e.g. Fassett and Warren)
6. Foucault
7. Indigenous/first nations

IPDA Judging Paradigm

Generally, I find the same sorts of arguments discussed above to be persuasive. However, when the norms of IPDA and my philosophy are in conflict, I try to err on the side of IPDA norms. This also means that I default to weighing the depth of your arguments over the number of arguments and lend preference to arguments that are accessible (i.e., comprehensible) to a general audience.

Audience Considerations

Since IPDA is designed as “public debate,” I’m less open to interpreting the audience narrowly toward elite/exclusionary notions of the debate community.

Assuming I am a lay judge who can take good notes will likely pay dividends when debating in front of me.

Flow

I will flow the debate to the best of my ability, but I don’t use my flow as the arbiter of winning arguments. Rather, I default to voting for arguments that are persuasive, contextual, and backed by credible evidence and/or examples.

Competing Notions of Resolutional Analysis/Definitions (Topicality)

I am open to hearing arguments about the nature of the resolution and the best definitions for terms (especially with regard to metaphorical or vague resolutions) but phrasing them in the same structure as NPDA/LD/Policy is not a recipe for success. Arguments about definitions and framing are common in public debates, though the specific gamey format used for Policy-style debates is not.

Critical Arguments

I’m open to arguments that reference critical/postmodern theories, but the IPDA community has fairly decisively rejected the format commonly used in NPDA/LD/Policy-style debates.

Changelog

• 2021-11-07: Added IPDA-specific considerations.