Bio
Out of the night comes a man who saves lives at the risk of his own. Once a circus performer, an aerialist who refused the net. Once a cat burglar, a master among jewel thieves. Now a professional bodyguard. Primitive... savage... in love with danger. Judge Nate Day.

Experience
11 years judging at ~15 national circuit tournaments, tons of local tournaments
5 year public high school coach, specializing in PF, DX, and IX
3 years competing in speech and debate (2 years of PF, 1 year mix of LD and CX, every speech event but interps)
~1500 NSDA points when my time as a competitor wrapped up in 2012 (made it to premier distinction yeaaaah black sticker baybeeeee)

Style
I try to be stone cold and as unreadable as possible in round, to maximize neutrality for all competitors and give you, as a competitor, some practice speaking to a difficult-to-read audience member. I take extensive notes in speech events, and flow debate rounds digitally, so expect to see my typing like mad through round.

Paradigm
I strongly prefer for YOU as a competitor tell me in round how I ought to judge, because that's a better exercise to develop your persuasion skills than me unilaterally declaring how round MUST go (I ain't one of those self important judges who demands you debate a certain way every round and invents new rules). I'm here to help you improve your skillset, not to be entertained by you contorting yourselves to accommodate made up rules or ridiculous imagined standards. Without your guidance or direction, here's what I'll do:

In PF, LD, and Congress, I default to judging as a policymaker (RPing as a person who votes for the side that presents the best policy option).

In CX, I'll default to judging as a game theorist. Any coherent logical argument is "fair play" - as long as you can prove whatever lunacy you're advocating for is the best choice in round, you win!

Philosophy / Miscellanea
I treat my paradigm as a set of not-too-serious guidelines, not ironclad rules - the NSDA rules exist for a reason, and paradigms ought to be compliments to the rulebook, not substitutions for it.

In LD or PF, I categorically won't buy into Ks or "reject the team" theory args outside the NSDA rules.

Due to the way NSDA rules are written, I will not vote for counterplans or anything outside the context of the resolution in PF or LD. If you wanna run off-case or performative arguments, do Policy.

The framework of your debate should not be about how unfair the structure of the debate is to your side. You chose to enter into your debate category. You knew the rules when you signed up. If you'd like them to change, write an editorial for the Rostrum.

If you don't extend your arguments, they will drop off my flow (unless no one in round extends their arguments, in which case I have to pick and choose whatever arguments I found most persuasive throughout the round).

I flow in a spreadsheet, I don't flow cross, and I write a lot of feedback during cross to expedite ballot submission at the end of round.

If you plan to run off-case or performative arguments in Policy, it is your burden to explain how they link to the debate on the resolution.

I'm actively developing an alternative to Tabroom.com and frequently test the limits of this service to try to find break points. If my name, paradigm, contact info, pronouns, etc. appear weird, that's why. Check out this article on ???? HOW TO BE A HACKER ???? to learn how to exploit user editable fields.

I am the coach of Advanced Technologies Academy, however, today I am judging for DO.

Debate:

Don't be rude and denigrating to your opponents. I am a truth over tech judge and I do not flow. I am an experienced judge and I listen well.

Make sure to watch your body language and facial expressions because I will mark speaking points. Along with this, also make sure to watch tone and the words used.

Please do not spread.

Speech:

Please be clear in your presentation. I value clarity over quantity of information and speed.

In Duo Interpretation, I tend to hold your ability to work with your partner quite highly.

Smooth transitions and quality content is valued above thorough memorization.

-Be Organized

-Don’t Spread

-Impacts are super important for me

-Love a good clash

-I don’t flow cross ex but the way you handle yourself during cx does play a factor in my judging.

My rankings:

27 points - Average event and competition

28 points - Above Average, well prepared, and presented well

29 points - Excellent presentation and well thought out speech or case

30 points - Reserved for top tier competitors who have what is needed to win

What I look for in competitors:

- Clear speech, easily understood

- Respect to other competitors, judge, other spectators, and the room

- Work is focused in the room

- Questions are asked when a direction is needed

What I will not stand for:

- Personal attacks on other competitors (debates)

-Side comments before, during, and after rounds or performances

- Calling into question the rights of someone to exist

-I will not judge or acknowledge Theory Debates.

Truth > tech. I'm a lay judge. Give me big picture, comparative analysis, and weighing, and you'll probably walk away with the ballot! I may/may not be flowing, but I'm still new to the event and debate in general so please go slow.

I try to judge under value/value criterion, I need you to be explicit about your link to the V/VC, and do comparative analysis between your V/VC and our opponents.

This is my third year out from college debate. I competed in a variety of formats, including policy, and on the NPDA/NPTE national circuit for three years.

The further out I get, the fewer hard opinions I have. I no longer feel strongly about conditional counterplans, whether the aff is topical, etc., etc. If there are specific things you want to know about, I always try to give debaters some time to ask questions before the round, but my answer is probably going to be "you do you."

The one thing that I still emphasize is framework and impact calculus, which I feel are two sides of the same coin. It is to your advantage and mine to contextualize your arguments through the framework. We almost certainly have different opinions and backgrounds, and you can increase predictability by telling me what to think via the framework debate. It also means I have to think less, which is good.

they/them pronouns only

Email: reesemax99@gmail.com

Experience: Policy debate - 4 years at UNLV, 4 years before at McQueen HS; started judging LD 2020; currently at KU Law.

I am very open to hearing any arguments at any speed. I am willing to vote for nearly anything. Anyone can beat anyone anytime. Do what you do best.

Specific updates (last update: 03/09/2023)

-- 10-ish years in the activity have taught me that long paradigms are often showing off or sometimes flat-out lies, so when I say "run whatever" I DO mean it and any specifics written are things I find particularly importantI

- If you put your hands on another debater without their permission, I do not care if it is part of the argument. I will stop the round, you will get an automatic loss and 0 speaks.

- I am very unlikely to vote on stuff like "death good" without a compelling reason; cross-apply to arguments about someone's prefs, interactions that happened before the round which I did not witness, giving someone perfect speaks, etc. If you want to do something in round besides debate (color, play supersmash, etc.) that's great, but I am in the back to judge a debate. If you do not make arguments, it will be very hard to win my ballot. "Argument" can be incredibly broad, and there isn't a clear/normative limit on it per se.

- Topicality needs an impact. If a team is not topical, but there is no impact, there is no reason to care and I'm more likely to vote on reasonability if being untopical does nothing. This includes T-USFG (Framework). This is also applicable to theory arguments like condo - I am not unsympathetic but the threshold is high.

- Kritikal affs need specific explanations of offense, and what the aff does, by at very least the 2AR -- if you do not know what the aff does, then I don't either, which makes it harder for me to weigh any of your offense -- on that note, err on simplifying/over-explaining terminology or lofty concepts.

The same is true of policy affs: policy affs with a lot of reliance on technology that is developing or doesn't exist yet need robust explanations compared to known technology that many people understand. I am not an AI or hypersonic missile expert, so throwing out relevant acronyms w 0 explanation will do exactly nothing to convince me you know what you're talking about. I am also inherently skeptical of claims about dangerous technology eventually existing when there are other arguments that will inevitably happen sooner than (e.g.) self-replicating AI can be achieved.

Generally don't assume I am an expert on what outside of debate might be considered a niche topic, even if you think it is widespread knowledge in the activity.

- I will not vote on something just because the other team dropped it. I need an explanation of why it matters that the other team dropped it, and (if you're gonna go for it as the A-strat in your last speech) why it outweighs any of their other arguments.

- Similarly, I will not do work for you to explain why you win. Explicit explanation and contextualization is necessary; you control the direction of the debate and I would prefer to intervene as little as possible.

--------Here is an example: reading a bunch of "extinction fake/DAs bad" cards matter very little to me unless they are explicitly used to frame out the extinction claims of the other team and are compared as a method of viewing the world as well as my role in the debate. Ask yourself before you do framing: Why should Max care about the cards I have read/extended and their corresponding extensions? I will also admit I have a bias towards extinction framing because if we die we're dead, but disproving the DA and extending framing will easily change this for me

Some other minor things to note:

- Online debate: a good thing to do in case your tech fails is to record your speeches so they can be sent out in case the Zoom Room goes dead mid-speech. You don't have to have your camera on; I will have mine on for speeches until the debate is over, and then turn it back on after I submitted a ballot. THAT said, also still check to see if I am there, sometimes I forget to mention I am stepping away during prep.

- My brain and ears aren't really friends with one another, so if you're unclear I might miss something. I will yell clear twice -- that's it.

- Be a decent human being! Debate is competitive, but that doesn't mean you should make someone feel bad about themselves as a person.

- I'm not going to time you. I think people are or should be capable of timing themselves and not cheating. Time your opponents too if you want.

- please don't call me "judge", it's weird -- "you can't x" is more efficient and less impersonal. You can even call me Max if you want idc.

LD Debaters:

- Do whatever you want, I do not have any opinions on how you debate unless you violate others or cheat in any way/shape/form. Circuit debaters take the time to read anything from my policy debate-based information that may be applicable to your style of debating (speed, argumentation style, etc)

Background: I completed two years in Lincoln Douglas and one year in Public Forum. I prefer traditional debate, but I will vote for any well-reasoned arguments.

1. Make sure your links and impacts are clear. I might be able to see where you’re going, but I won’t make connections that you didn’t.
2. Quality over quantity! Evidence is important, but I don’t care about the number of cards you have. Good LD rounds are possible even without an abundance of cards, especially when you’re doing a framework debate. On that note, a dropped point does not equal an automatic loss. You won’t win because you have more bad arguments. A clear impact analysis will get you much farther.
3. I like framework debates. I think these get to the root of what LD is supposed to be--a philosophical value-based debate. Show me why your value is best, and how your case upholds that value. If you do these two things you’re in good shape.
4. I’ll vote on anything--just be careful with progressive arguments (Ks, theory, CPs, etc.). I am open to them as long as you explain them well. Don’t run them if you aren’t prepared to deal with them in depth or don’t have a grasp on their connection to the resolution.
5. If you’re running a DA, make sure to weigh impacts and show how it actually applies to the aff presented in-round.
6. I will always decide based on the argument first, but presentation still matters. Better debates happen when both teams are speaking clearly and listening to each other. A little speed is ok as long as it doesn’t prevent my ability to understand you. The closer you get to spreading the more difficult this becomes. Keep it organized and be respectful.
7. CX is important, but I usually don’t flow it. Use this time to clarify and frame the debate.
8. Don’t be sketchy. If something requires making up or misconstruing evidence, it is not a good argument. Respect yourself and your opponent enough to value truth above the win.
9. Remember debate is supposed to be fun! Everything is a learning experience. Enjoy yourself, don’t take it too seriously, and just do your best!

(Updated for 2022 Nats)

4 years competing in LD, 3 years coaching. Anthropology/Philosophy degrees from UNLV.

If you're in a rush read 'Overview' plus what's in bold. Largely applies to both LD, PF, and BQ. Specifics for each event are at the end

FOR BQ AT NATS: This topic asks whether religious belief and practice in general/inherently is beneficial for society in general. It is not asking whether any one specific religion is/has been beneficial/harmful to any one specific society. This is absolutely vital to understand for this topic. Hold each other to this standard but calling out arguments that only work when analyzing specific religions instead of what is true/inherent of all religious belief and practice.

Overview: I like to hear voters. You need to signpost and extend your arguments; if I don’t know where you are on the flow, it’s as if you aren’t making the argument.
I am not likely to pick you up if you don’t spend any time on impact analysis.
I would much prefer three solid cards with excellent analysis to thirty cards without any analysis. Give me probability, please. Crazy link chains to nuke war are USUALLY slippery slope fallacies as bad as, "If we allow gay marriage, next we'll be allowing turtle marriage." If I stop flowing and start staring at you it means either you made your point and you need to move on, or I have no clue what you're saying.

"Ok, sure" and "sure" are some of the most annoying phrases spoken during Cross-Ex. Please avoid them.

Your first line of attack in a rebuttal should be a logical one. Don't reach for the cards right away, you should be able to logically attack arguments card-less. (see 'Pro-tips' at the bottom).

Be a debater, not a competitive librarian. While arguments are 'claim, warrant, impact,' more importantly arguments are 'premises, conclusions'. You need to understand whether or not you (or your opponent) are making deductive or inductive arguments, what that means for the round, and whether or not they are succeeding at valid and sound (in the case of deductive), or strong (in the case of inductive) arguments. If you don't know what these terms mean, what have you been doing in debate for the past 3+ years? Please don't tell me you 'understand and can run Nietzsche' but don't know what formal logic is!

Speed: The extent to which you use speed should not interfere with your ability to communicate intelligibly. If you want me to put your arguments/cards on the flow, slow down. You’ll know you’re speaking too fast if I put my pen down. At the end of the day this is a communication activity, please treat it as such. Also understanding spreading over video chat is way too hard so lets refrain from having to deal with that.

Cross-ex: Questions/Etiquette: If your opponent is abusing your cross-ex by taking too long to answer a question, you may politely interrupt; I will not consider you rude for the interruption. However, not every question has a yes or no answer, and your opponent is perfectly within their rights to say they need to give an explanation. The person answering the questions may only respond with questions for clarification (“Are you asking about my 1st or 2nd contention?” for example) and may not respond with substantive questions. Cross-ex isn't flowed. If you want something to stick, bring it up in a speech. That being said, cross-ex can definitely help speaker points.

Speaker points: I pivot off of 28

I lean truth over tech because debate is educational and meant to train future leaders and policy-makers by honoring free speech, discourse, and logic as paragons of democracy. The real world is not a game and only sound, logical solutions have ever changed it for the better.

Pro-tips: At least one logical fallacy happens every round. Find it and point it out (appeal to authority is most common, see "Expert Opinion" below). If you know the Latin name, even better.

If you commit a formal fallacy (Denying the Antecedent or Affirming the Consequent) I will judge you harshly, but not as harshly as I would judge you if your opponent commits it and you fail to call them out. Again, be a debater, not a competitive librarian.

In case you need a refresher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

References to the show The West Wing will score you brownie points and respect. Also, talk to me about music sampling out of round.

As usual, if you're racist, sexist, abelist, or otherwise obscenely rude expect an auto-drop and low speaks.

For LD:

This explains my views on LD more eloquently than I ever could, https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/LD%20Baldwin%20LD%201-03.pdf

That being said here are some specifics

While I accept and understand some levels of progressivism, I'm still a value/trad LD'er at heart. At least try to fake that you're understanding and thinking about the philosophical underpinnings that the resolution is aiming for, even if you couldn't care less and just want LD to be solo CX.

YOU CAN'T VALUE MORALITY. MORALITY IS JUST THE CONCEPT OF GOOD AND BAD, BUT DOESN'T SPECIFY WHAT IS GOOD AND WHAT IS BAD. Your value needs to be a moral in and of itself, not morality as a whole. Thus your Value can be Life, Justice, Fairness, Equality, Education, etc. depending on what your contentions uphold. Your value criterion MEASURES that value, explicitly or implicitly demonstrating a deontological or consequential ethical position. When I hear 'My value is morality,' I immediately assume you do not actually understand what morality, or a value, is.

Plans: I will accept a case which offers some kind of loose plan, so long as that plan clearly and fully relates to the resolution. I see LD as being very different from Policy—I am not a fan of very narrow and specific plans in LD. If you are using a plan to show that there is a smart way to do whatever your side is, great. If you are using a super narrow and specific plan to show that you could come up with some idea the other side never thought of, that’s not ok.

Kritiks: I need really clear impacts to vote on K's. Refer to this http://nsdupdate.com/2014/in-defense-of-topical-switch-side-debate/

Values/Criteria: I strongly prefer a framework that allows me to clearly pick one position over another. See my morality rant above ^^^

Expert Opinion: When it comes to morality opinions I don't think there is such a thing as an 'expert' opinion. There are informed opinions (meaning supported by strong logic), but I do not think anyone has an upper hand when it comes to stating moral principles. I think debaters should be able to articulate their own ethical viewpoints, but if they wish to use another source that is their option.

As an example: If debater A says "I think the death penalty is just" and debater B says "John Doe, a Doctor of Philosophy and Ethics at Yale, says the death penalty is unjust" I would have the debaters tied, as neither has given reason for why or why not it is just. I am going to judge the quality of your argument, not who is making it.

For PF, something I see too often; skewing of statistics. It usually happened like this: "X will cause a 400% increase in Y!!" when the card says an increase from 1% to 4%. Yes, that is technically a 400% increase, but that's super shady. I'm a bit of a statistics nerd so don't do this.

For BQ: This is big questions, addressing the big questions of science, philosophy, and religion. The neg needs to affirm the inverse of the resolution. As in, neg needs to prove that religion is NOT beneficial to society, not just negate what the aff says. 

I'm not impressed by sophistry.

Table of Contents

General Info

LD Paradigm

PF Paradigm

World Schools Paradigm

General Dislikes/Notes

Theory Issues

General Info

Started Judging: 2008

Started Coaching: 2010

Events Coached: LD, PF, Policy, Extemp, World Schools

Delivery: I don't want emails, flash drives, or printed copies. This is a speaking event and I plan to judge your argument based on your delivery of your case and rebuttals. I can handle fast talking, but no longer try to keep up with spreading. There is no educational merit, and many downsides, to encouraging students to speak at vastly accelerated paces.

Cross (excluding World Schools): I expect debaters to be polite during cross, but do not consider interruptions to be impolite. I understand cross time is limited and if you have the information you want and wish to move on to another question I understand.

RFD - If the tournament allows it, I will be happy to give my decision and discuss as long as competitors want/tournament time allows. If the tournament doesn't allow it, I will not disclose. If you try to get me to disclose at a tournament that doesn't allow disclosure I will take points away from you.

Lincoln-Douglas

Overview: LD is a moral debate that is meant to look at the underlying value of an issue. I favor a broad based approach that looks at the totality of the resolution vs. cases that over-focus on single examples or instances.

Values: I expect both debaters to have a value/standard/etc that clarifies the moral principle they are pushing for. Broadly speaking, I recognize values as automatic principles that don't need additional defense. If you tell me the most important moral issue is ensuring liberty/equality/artistic expression/self-actualization, I'll accept it as good. Having a sentence or two to explain the value/why you think it is important can be very helpful, but I don't need a long defense of the concept.

It is very hard, though not impossible, to disprove a value during a debate. Generally I expect to see the debate be about whether each side actually accomplishes the value they have outlined, not whether the value is morally good (the latter question becomes very hard for any person to judge without bringing their personal feelings into the debate).

Burden: Each side in LD has an equal burden. There is no Aff presumption that they get to set the terms, nor is there any Aff burden that they have to prove more than the Neg.

Flow: While I expect debaters to argue on the flow structure, I'm more looking to the upholding of the central principle (value) then whether debaters covered every contention.

Plans: I don't want to hear a plan and they usually don't make sense within the context of LD. That said, there are two very different types of plans that come up.

Broad explanations: Presume the motion: 'The US should end fossil fuel subsidies.' If the plan was that that US would end all payments to fossil fuel companies over the next five years, that would be fine. That's a common sense interpretation of what the motion is asking. I consider that more of an observation on the burdens of the resolution.

Narrow Plans: Taking the above motion, if the plan was 'the US will end payments to coal companies', to me that would be a bad plan. The Aff in this instance is trying to unfairly narrow the debate. The resolution's burden was end fossil fuel subsidies, not to end one type of fossil fuel subsidies. In such an example if the Neg said the Aff hadn't upheld the resolution, I'd almost certainly agree.

Both sides in a debate have an obligation to argue the entirety of the motion. Single, narrow examples on either side that don't relate to a broader principle are not enough to prove your side correct or the opponent's side incorrect.

Public Forum

PF is meant to be delivered to a general audience, not to people experienced with debate. Thus I will judge it as who did better communicating to a general audience. Please keep debate jargon to a minimum.

Final Focus is meant to narrow down the debate and explain the most important issues. It should be between 1 and 3 points. A final focus should not try to explain every single contention.

World Schools

Scoring - My ultimate decision will be based on the final score. Even if I feel like a certain team won, if the points say otherwise, I decide on the points. Unless I hear differently at judge instructions my scoring standard is -

68 - 70: A fine speech. This was either a performance that was neither particularly good nor bad, or had some really good moments mixed with some really bad moments.

64 - 67: A speech below standard. This range doesn't say that a speaker gave a bad speech, just that the speech was either underwhelming or had some problems.

71 - 75: A great speech. The speaker hit good points, spoke well, used their time well, etc.

Above a 75 is reserved for truly amazing speeches. On a level of "I ran out of the room to tell other people how amazing it was".

Below 64 is reserved for a speech with serious mistakes. The most likely is a speech that is off topic/framework and thus suffers on the content and strategy score.

What I'm looking for in each area:

Content - Logic, analysis, explanation, and evidence. Good content should be backed up by logic and explanation, but also thoroughly explained for how it helps your side. Just stating an opinion, even of an expert, on an issue isn't enough; it needs to be explained and tied to the overall argument.

Style - This is scored just like an oratory. I look for things like eye contact, understandable speed, clarity, emphasis through tone/volume changes or pauses to call emphasis to key points, and emotion and interest. Humor and/or emotional intensity may gain points if appropriate for the motion.

Strategy - Was the speech well put together? Was time well spent on the key issue, or where minor portions of the debate given too much attention? Did the speaker belabor arguments he/she had already won?

POIs - I expect a speaker to take between two and three POIs during his/her speech. These should be spread throughout the speech. If the first two are taken, and all others ignored, I will not count that as taking a good number of POIs.

If only one POI is taken I will give a slight penalty. If zero POIs are taken that will get a major penalty.

Taking excessive POIs will hurt the strategy score. The only exception to this is if the speaker is winning (improving their side) when taking POIs - in that case continuing to take POIs is acceptable.

If a team is not trying to ask their opponent POIs, or asking very infrequently, then obviously the requirement to take two to three disappears.

POIs should be no longer than 15 seconds. That is the absolute max amount of time I think you have a right to take from an opponent. The speaker has the right to cut the POI off at any point and answer/continue.

Barraging - I think it is reasonable to stand 12 to 15 times during an opponent's speech (this is for the entire opposing team). Even going up to 20 could be acceptable. More than that though and you are taking away from the opponent's right to give a speech. For online WSD this should be cut in half.

I will take away/reward to 2 points per speaker based on quality of POIs. A bad POI is one that the opponent is able to use to strengthen their own case or just a waste of time. A good POI strengthens the case of the deliverer or points to a weakness in the opponent's argument.

Framework/Terms of Debate - The prop has the right to set the framework for the debate. I define framework as an explanation of what the motion means, what, if any, specific burdens exist, what, if any, things are trying to be achieved, and what, if any, mechanism is being used (if any of those are not being done, because they don't need to be, you don't need to tell me, I'll understand). This framework should be fair and reasonable.

Fair - Does it give both teams an equal chance to win. If you try to define the debate in a way that substantially benefits your team, even if all your definitions are correct/unchallenged, you will lose.

Reasonable - Was this framework something that a person would consider the motion to mean upon hearing it? This framework should be based more on a common understanding of the words, not strict dictionary definitions.

Example - If the motion was 'THBT the death penalty is a just punishment for heinous crimes' and the prop tried to argue that they only had to show a single example, that would be a bad framework. It's not fair to the opposition and no person who was asked that motion would think they were being asked about a single hypothetical instance. If the proposition defined it as 'only in cases of premeditated murder' or 'for war crimes or crimes against humanity', either of those would most likely be fair.

Challenging Framework - If you believe the framework is unfair/abusive/unreasonable, you may challenge it. If you want to make a slight adjustment/clarification/addition you may also do that, but here I am focusing on a challenge to the entire framework proposed.

Alternative - You must offer an alternative framework. This must conform to the above standards of fair and reasonable.

First Thing - The challenge to the framework must be the first thing in the speech. If the prop disagrees with the opposition framework, it must be the first thing in their speech (and so on until there is an agreement on framework or we're out of debate).

Debate under that Framework - You must debate under the framework proposed at the beginning of the speech. You may not debate under both frameworks. If you believe you can debate under the proposition framework then that is what you should have been doing.

I don't like framework debate. If the proposition framework is fair and reasonable and the opposition challenges it, the opposition will probably lose. Likewise if the proposition proposes an unfair framework, they will likely lose.

Other Issues:

When a speaker finishes, the next speaker should promptly proceed to wherever speeches are being given. There is no prep time. You may organize your materials, but you should not be having a conversation with your teammates. Once you get to the speaking position please confirm that I am ready for you to begin.

General Dislikes (All Debates)

If a team falsifies their evidence I will always vote them down. I do not care about the level of impact it had on the debate or whether the mistake was done via maliciousness or negligence. I see falsification as any of the following:

-Creating a piece of evidence

-Changing the wording of the evidence to alter meaning

-Cutting the evidence in a way to leave out arguments that might hurt your case.

I will also punish misinterpretations of the evidence, though the degree of penalty is determined by the level of misinterpretation. I see this as situations where the speaker makes substantial errors about the quality of the source, who paraphrases the evidence in a manner that is not accurate, or misunderstands the point the author was making.

Things I commonly see that I dislike

"My opponent did not attack X contention, therefore they must agree." This isn't true. If an opponent hasn't gotten to an argument in the time allowed for them to make their initial arguments, they can not offer any new evidence, but that doesn't mean they agree. The fact that they have their own case means they have principles that disagree with you and they can always argue why their side is more important. Also, many times people will claim their opponent hasn't attacked a certain contention when I have on my flow that they have.

"If I can prove just a 1% chance of this impact, I should win this debate." This is a profoundly silly line of argument.

"My evidence says I'm right" "Well, my evidence says I'm right", "What my opponent is forgetting is that my evidence says I'm right". I commonly see debates that just become a circle of the debaters going back to the evidence they read that backed their side and inherently presuming their evidence is superior to their opponents. During evidence clashes someone has to explain why their evidence is superior: more topical, better source, more logical, etc.

If you have an important piece of evidence, please explain the validity of the source if the name doesn't explain it (major news organizations, magazines, politicians, college institutions, could have an explanation, but don't need one per se). If I just hear 'According to Williams in 2017', I have no idea who Williams is. I'll evaluate whatever you say as if you'd delivered it without a source if you don't explain why the source matters.

"My evidence is more recent so you must prefer it." In certain cases recency is important, but it has to be explained why.

Theory

Theory issues are a check for fairness. Ideally, theory should never come up in a "good" debate, but they do need to exist.

I define theory as arguments that in some way deal with your opponent(s) having violated the structure of what a "good" debate should be. Examples: they are off topic, their delivery is inappropriate, they aren't providing their evidence, etc. Issues that don't have anything to do with the core resolution/motion, but based off how they are dealing with it.

To me, if you run theory you are basically accusing your opponents of cheating/being abusive. This is the most important issue in debate, but one that should only be run if you believe it to be true. If you run a theory argument that is itself abusive (ex: topicality against an obvious topical argument), I will hold it against you.

School: Clark HS, Speech and Debate Coach

Experience: 2 years 

LD: I am a flow judge. I prefer the debate to focus primarily on the resolution with thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments. Avoid k and theory arguments with weak connections to the resolution. 

Good luck!

LD/PF Overview:

I am a debate coach and therefore comfortable with both progressive and traditional styles of debate. However, if you decide to go progressive, you must still clearly be topical and clearly have traditional elements like a value and a criterion in LD. In addition, you must still argue your opponents traditional case in a traditional way when you rebuttal.

I like to list things I do not like, so that you can avoid them:

· Telling a judge they can “drop the debate” or that “you can’t allow that argument.” I’ll be the judge, thank you. Please, do not ever tell a judge what to do or don’t do. You should explain your argument in such a way that I feel compelled to do so on my own volition.

· Language that is too aggressive, because assertion is okay but aggression is demeaning and degrades the integrity of debate. For example using phrases such as “are you aware that” for the beginning of a question suggests you think you research more than your opponent. In addition, when debaters say, “my opponent never did…” and then list something their opponent did do, it’s a loss of points for the speaker because I mark that as not paying attention to your opponent. Other phrases that suggest their arguments are “oblivious” or “asinine” or “ignorant” –Don’t suggest your opponent is lacking in any form.

· I dislike when the rebuttals are purely pre-loaded (some blocking is fine) but when your rebuttal is not specific to your opponent’s case and only defends yours against a general argument, I will not count that as a case defense.

· Battles over evidence are borderline pointless. Definitely point out evidence that is misrepresented, outdated, or otherwise taken out of context. Please do not make one piece of evidence last the entire debate. Mention it once, state you’d like to contest it, and let the judge (me) read the evidence at the end of the round. Most of the time it is not evidence that wins my vote, but the explanation and impact. To me, impact is most valuable. Do you know why any of this matters to anyone? Can you explain this in an attainable way for anyone, not just a debate judge? That’s how you prove to me that your argument is holistic and true.

LD/PF Paradigm:
I expect you to time one another, verbally so that I can note when we are over or under.
If you are failing to provide evidence that should be easily available, I will consider this in my vote. Evidence should be organized and known well-enough to reference quickly.
If you fail to engage with your opponent as an intellectual equal worthy of competing against you in the round, I will take this out in speaker points. I may also let it sway my vote, because ad hominem is a fallacy, and I like my debates to remain logical.